Talk:Mexico/Archive 9

United Mexican States (3)
*Estados Unidos Mexicanos* (Spanish)
United Mexican States (3) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Spanish)
Official languages	Spanish
National languages	68 indigenous languages

United Mexican States (2)
*Estados Unidos Mexicanos* (Spanish)
United Mexican States (2) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Spanish)
Official languages	none
National languages	Spanish (default) and 68 indigenous languages

United Mexican States (1)
*Estados Unidos Mexicanos* (Spanish)
United Mexican States (1) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Spanish)
National languages	Spanish (default) and 68 indigenous languages

This is an archive of past discussions about Mexico. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Income disparity

Perhaps more could be written in the economy sections regarding income disparity and the effect it has on generating crime? Also I think the picture used to represent how the poor in Mexico live could be improved. Most poor people in Mexico do not live as the image would indicate although they still don't live well. I think more accurate image with description would be something like what I have provided as an example. I think this better represents the scope and scale of poverty in Mexico and the breakdown between poor and impoverished provides better insight then the general 46% statement and an image of a few shacks of which only one appears to be used as a residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.202.175 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've exchanged the picture in the article of Ramos Arizpe for the one you suggest. I have kept the number because I don't know where you get your figure from? It doesn't seem to match either the national statistics or the OECD ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more could be written in the economy sections regarding income disparity and the effect it has on generating crime?

Disagree. The causality you speak about, although intuitive, is unencyclopedic and there is no widespread academic support for such an opinion. Further, I belive than an article about a country should not dwell on so specific information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryfee (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC:Does mexico have an official language

Should Spanish be mentioned as an official language in the infobox in spite of the fact that the only legislation that mentions the status of the Spanish language calls it a "a national languages with equal validity".(Article four of Law of Linguistic Rights passed in 2001) And in spite of the fact that there is currently a political movement in Mexico seeking to give Spanish official status? If it should be included in the infobox should it be mentioned that it is only "de facto" official and not "de jure".[1] [2][3][4][5]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not put "Spanish (de facto) and (insert quantity) indigenous languages"? Simon Burchell (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

this (old) Mexican government website explicitly states that Spanish is the official language. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That is from 2004 and is a site for summary information for school children. It does not trump either the constitution or the ley general de derechos de linguistics, or the testimony of an UNAM professor noting that Spanish is not legally official. It is easy to find all kind of sources saying that Spanish is the official language - but because of the fact that the law does not establish it as such the status is de facto. I do not take exception to mentioning Spanish as the de facto official language - since that is quite clearly the case (the constitution for example doesn't mention the Spanish language but is written in it for example and not in any of the indigenous languages that it does mention). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert B. Kaplan. 2007. Language Planning and Policy in Latin America: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay Multilingual Matters, Jun 30, 2007 p. 14 "Spanish is the de facto official language of Mexico". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
John Fisher, Daniel Jacobs, Zora O'Neill, Paul Whitfield. 2007. The Rough Guide to Mexico. Penguin. (no page number) "Spanish isn't the official language of Mexico, just a language, one of 63 legally recognized there"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Akhtar Majeed, Ronald Lampman Watts, Douglas Mitchell Brown . 2006. Distribution of Powers And Responsibilities in Federal Countries McGill-Queen's Press. p. 191 "As already mentioned, Spanish is the most common language, but federal law has not declared it to be the official language of Mexico"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
William Luis, Julio Rodríguez-Luis, State University of New York at Binghamton. Translation Research and Instruction Program, Dennis J. Schmidt. 2000. Translation Perspectives: 2000, beyond the Western tradition p. 290 "With respect to languages, although Spanish is not constitutionally the official language of Mexico, it has been considered THE language for handling public administration, legal, economic and political affairs..."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I say, perhaps "Spanish (de facto) and 63(?) indigenous languages" - but I certainly wouldn't rely on a guide book - they get half their stuff off wikipedia anyway. The other refs look pretty solid. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Most guidebooks say Spanish is the official language. This one just happens to be right.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: "De facto official language" is a contradiction in terms. In order for something to be the official anything, it must be declared so by law. If a language is not de jure the official language of a country, it's not the official language. Angr (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It surely means something that the legislation that doesn't mention an official language is written in Spanish and not any of the other 66 national languages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The "official language" box is for official languages. I would think that's obvious. These boxes are not for demographics, but for legal status. Take a look at the country next door, which has a similar situation: official langs are listed as "none at the federal level" for the US (because there are official langs at the state level – I don't know if that's relevant for Mexico; if not, it should just say "none"), and national langs are listed as "English (de facto)", because it has no legal status as a national lang. In Mexico you have scores of de jure national langs at the federal level, though Spanish obviously predominates. They should all be listed under "national", with some way of indicating the de facto superior status of Spanish. Maybe just National languages: Spanish and 66 indigenous languages ? (I think it's 66.)

I thought I'd check w embassy sites, but they disagree with each other and can't even get their dates right.

IMO we should also verify that the box at the top of Languages of Mexico reflects national status. Not all 66 (or 68) are listed, and some seem inconsistent (such as Mixtec, and then lower done specific varieties of Mixtec). Assuming there even is an established number of national languages? — kwami (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't. INALI updates the numbers very frequently, and currently they don't operate with a clear definition of "language".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the impression I got, but I didn't want to wade through the legalese. We should just link to languages of Mexico, then, and try to keep the boxed list sync'd. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish is the official language of Mexico. The Secretariat of Foreign Relations and Encyclopaedia Britannica (both reliable sources) [6][7] are used as references at the article Mexico. Both mention Spanish as the official language.

On the other hand, the indigenous languages are never mentioned as official,i heart ""mexicans"" not even co-official. They are simply called "national languages" and accordignly with the law, they have the same validity as Spanish in the "context in which they are used". The General Law of Linguistic Rights for the Indigenous Peoples recognizes all Amerindian minority languages as national languages and equally valid only in territories where spoken. [8]

I'd like to see a source indicating that the indigenous languages are official. This has been previoulsy discussed at the talk page and the outcome has always been the same: Spanish official, indigenous lang. regonized as national languages. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting previous discussions where it was made quite clear that Spanish is only de facto official and that the only Mexican legislation that mentions the Spanish language calls it a National language just like the indigenous ones. You are also misrepresenting the legislæation of your own country. The law of linguistic rights give exactly equal rights to Spanish and Indigenous language because Spanish is also only valid in the context where it is used! You are outright lying about the legislation when you say that Spanish has any special status - there is no document that gives Spanish any special status relative to other languages. This is clearly recognized byt the Academica Mexicana de la Lengua or they woouldn't be campainging to make Spanish the official language. By lying about the laws of your own country on wikipedia you are going to far in your POV pushing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, per the WP:CCC wikipedia policy, the argument you are constantly going back to (basically, "Hey, but this is how it was decided in the past") is an invalid argument. For everyone's time sake, I suggest you abandon that stand and focus on strictly factual issues.
Also, where is a citation (for your claim above) that states that "the ONLY Mexican legislation that mentions Spanish language..."? You will need to take care of this, or your statement is simply WP:OR.
Finally, I have reverted your edit in the languages section related to the use of "de jure", until you can come up with a WP:RS citation that actually uses the exact phrase "de jure". You are not even obscurely presenting the "de jure" claim, but doing so authoritatively upfront, in the very first statement of the Languages section. That's going to necessitate a more convincing set of citations that actually use the phrase "de jure". A Wikipedia editor cannot be the first one making this sort of claims. Otherwise, again, you are venturing into WP:OR policy violations -- especially when so many other editors are displaying objection to many of your claims. When there are differing view on a subject, it is best to publish only that which is the "common denominator", that which is agreeable by everyone, at least until a resolution/consensus/compromise can be achieved later. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You misrepresent my argument. I have provided many new sources to support the old consensus. I am not doing any OR here - everything i have written is supported by sources. It is not my fault that you don't understand what "de jure" means. If you think I am wrong about mexican legsilation you can easily provee me wrong by finding any other law that gives special status to Spanish. It doesn't exist and that is what the Academia Mexicana de la Lengua is trying to change - do you really believe that professors at UNAM would be so stupid that they mount a movement to change legislation that is already in place? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree (at least not entirely) with your statement that you have provided many sources related to the languages issue. What I see, however, is that you seem to have a tendency to stretch the meaning of what you provide a bit beyond what the source actually states. I am not providing any specific examples here for a reason, not because there are none, but instead in an effort that you may reconsider this propensity of yours. You probably have a very good reason (in your mind anyway) for this propensity to take form and become reality. Maybe if you articulate your position more precisely, maybe other editors would be more undertanding of your stance. On the other issue of the AML and UNAM, etc., I think it would be best to leave whoever and whatever they are "trying to change" aside because such "trying" speculation is not going to determine the current status of this language/s issue/s. We don't know what is in the minds of the professors at UNAM. We cannot sustain that their actions are proof that a certain legislation is or is not in place -- proving that a legislation is or is not in place is done by presenting a link to the legislation itself or via a RS secondary source. We just can't make that sort of if/then arguments. IMO, such arguments are at worse outright OR violation, and at best borderline OR violation. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Of course we can know what the AML and Jaime Labastida thinks - because they say so. ("“La gente se asombra cuando les pregunto, pero no hay lengua oficial en el país”, expresa el también doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), quien buscará el reconocimiento constitucional del español."[9]) They think that Spanish is not legally the official language and they want it to be. To say so is not OR. There is also no speculation involved. It is also not OR to use the encyclopedia britannica to contradict them, but it is a strange way of prioritizing information. I have linked to the legsislation which is readily available online - both the Mexican constitution and the Law of Linguistic Rights. I have read them both with careful attention to linguistic issues.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reliable source? I thought it had more mistakes than wikipedia (or, well, that wikipedia has less mistakes than it). The website you linked from the SRE says to have been last updated in 2010, yet there are many articles from 2011 in newspapers all over Latin America documenting a movement by the [Academia Mexicana de la Lengua] about making Spanish the official language of the country, since, apparently, it's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I had seen the SRE website before, and it was the only official website I could find that mentioned Spanish as the official language. It's not on paper (which is quite important), it's not in the constitution, the article in the Spanish wikipedia[10] also mentions that there's no official language (and so do many other articles related to the Spanish language in both wikipedias) and the fact that there's a movement by the Language Academy kind of proves that the official status is not that "official", so to say. The issue here is not whether indigenous languages are official or not, it's whether SPANISH is official or not... Cancerbero 8 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You make some valid points above. Rather than debating "loose-cannon" style, maybe we should first consider the following questions (the same can be considered for the other languages of Mexico):

Is Spanish the official language? (&, Is Spanish the de facto official language?)
Is Spanish the official national language (&, Is Spanish the de facto official national language)?
Is Spanish the statutory official national language?
Is Spanish the constitutional official national language?

Also,

What does the Mexian Govt mean by "official"?
What do they mean by "national" (i.e., national vs. regional???)?
Are our definitions of these terms consistent with the Mexican government's definitions?

This should be helpful in achieve some common understanding and common ground. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

All legislation, public information and education is carried out in Spanish, and only secondarily in other languages. This should be enough to establish Spanish as "de facto" official.
Spanish is declared a national language in article 4 of the Law of Lingustic rights which states that: "Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio, localización y contexto en que se hablen." (The indigenous language that are recognized under the definitions of the present law and Spanish, are national languages by their historical origin and have the same validity within the territories, localities and contexts in which they are spoken). So yes Spanish is an official national language (just like the Indigenous languages).
Define Statutory official national language? That is not a term used in any Mexican legislation.
The Mexican constitution does not mention the Spanish language even once - but does define Mexico as pluricultural and recognizes the rights of speakers of indigenous languages to use and develop their languages. (this of course means that Spanish is implied as the primary language of the state and the indigenous languages as secondary to it - but it does not establish it as contituionally official in any sense of the word).
The Mexican government does not mean anything by "official" in relation to language, because it mentions no official language.
By National languages the Mexican government means "having a historical origin within the Mexican nation" (this can quite easily and unproblematically be inferred by the same quote form article 4 in the Law of Linguistic Rights). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

On Britannica: It wouldn't surprise me if sources that are talking about Mexico in general and mention official language in passing (perhaps as part of a standard part of the article) might get this wrong. This is no knock on Britannica which in general is great source, but occasionally it gets passing items wrong, and this might be the case.

In any case, it seems like there are laws on the book that say it is not the official language, I would go with "None" with maybe a footnote on the subject. Although as a footnote on the United States infobox pointed out there are differing definitions of "official" when it comes to these matters. Jztinfinity (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, from your statements above, it seems to me that the right thing we can state categorically is that Spanish and the indigenous languages are all (administratively) official languages in Mexico, but that Spanish is the only (de facto) national language. This would make Spanish the only administratively official as well as the only de facto national language. The indigenous languages are also officially recognized by the government but they are not national languages (meaning, that they are mostly used regionally or locally). As I go around the various sources, I notice that there are sources which support these statements, but let's bear in mind that we need not depend only on the Mexican Government for Wikipedia sources; in fact, such MG sources may not be preferable as they may be primary sources and, as such, not ideal for Wikipedia use (WP:SECONDARY).

Note that I use "official" as the sources are using it, not in the sense that a government may have/have not stated "Spanish is our official (or, only official) language", or even because the government has in its "official" capacity made some statement related to the language(s) of the land --which it has via Art 4--, but from the perspective that other sources state it is the official language. I further notice that the government recognizes the indigenous languages but (like Spanish) only from an administrative perspective: for example, if you are Mexican and speak no Spanish, and, say, are brought to court or are applying for a driver's license or are filing a complaint with the police, etc, etc, ect, then the government (at all levels) is obligated to take on the burden of accomplishing the interpretation or translation necessary to complete its obligation to the citizen.

Some of the indigenous languages also appear to be de facto languages within some localities. But, for comparison, this would be no different to French being de facto in Van Buren, Maine, Spanish being de facto language in East LA, Spanish Harlem, etc.

Unless I have missed something monumental, and since the infobox is suppoosed to be a summary of what's said in the article (and not the other way around!) I think someone could put together proposed wording for the Languages section and for the infobox and, hopefully, we can all come to some sort of resolution. Becuase of the unique intricacies involved in this subject, I wouldn't rule out that clarification for entries, in particular, in the infobox may be necessary -- possibly via footnotes. See the United States article Language section and infobox Official Language and National Language entries for ideas on this. For simplicity, I would steer clear of the UNAM professors, clear of which language IS NOT official (hey, Russian and Vietnamese are not official in Mexico either, so why say so?), and clear of what the Spanish language in Mexico IS NOT (IS NOT constitutional de jure, IS NOT statutorialy de jure, etc etc), etc. I personally consider this sort of issues distracting, argumentative issues, even speculative, and which do not carry weight (WP:WEIGHT) for this bigger official language / national language issue we need to focus on.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You write that: "it seems to me that the right thing we can state categorically is that Spanish and the indigenous languages are all (administratively) official languages in Mexico, but that Spanish is the only (de facto) national language. This would make Spanish the only administratively official as well as the only de facto national language. The indigenous languages are also officially recognized by the government but they are not national languages (meaning, that they are mostly used regionally or locally)." This is the opposite of what the legislation would suggest which explicitly calls both Spanish and Indigenous language National, but not official languages. Spanish is the national that is de facto official, and indigenous languages are national languages that are not de facto official. I am thinking that you are unintentionally switching the terms in your statement - otherwise it would be odd. Otherwise i tend to agree. And yes the fact that indigenous languages are national languages with equal validity in the areas that they are spoken is different from the status of French in Van Buren because the government is legally required to supply all governmental services in those languages in those contexts. There are also places in which indigenous languages - and not Spanish - are the official administrative languages (for example in many communities under usos y costumbres). Also note that it says contexts and not areas - so basically anywhere an indigenous language is spoken it is (legally) equal to Spanish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, it should say "it seems to me that the right thing we can state categorically is that Spanish and the indigenous languages are all (administratively) national languages in Mexico, but that Spanish is the only (de facto) official language. This would make Spanish the only administratively national language as well as the only de facto official language. The indigenous languages are also officially recognized by the national government, but they are not national languages in the sense they are spoken everywhere (meaning, that they are mostly used regionally or locally)."

However, it is necessary to stay within the boundaries: although the indigenous languages are nationally recognized, the statute(http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf) does not explicitly say that Spanish and Indigenous languages are NOT official languages: it could be argued either way that they are or that they are not based on the fact that, by virtue of it being Law, then it is "official" and that makes Spanish and the other 62 language "official" as compared to, say, Russian, Vietnamise, or any of the other indigenous languages not included in the 62.

I do not support reading into what the legislation would or would not "suggest"; that can be dangerously close to WP:OR. Because then would could establish that the legislation explicitly calls "both Spanish and Indigenous language National, but not official languages". And if you are referring to (http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf), then I fail to find that quote anywhere there. We need to be careful when stating facts vs. drawing conclusions in Wikipedia, especially in such contentious subject matter as this one.

Also, I have to disagree with you on your previous to the last statement above, namely, that "There are also places in which indigenous languages - and not Spanish - are the official administrative languages (for example in many communities under usos y costumbres)." It is not possible, in Mexico, to have a places in which indigenous languages - and not Spanish - is the official administrative language. If this was the case, then, in such places the goverment would be under no obligation to provide translation, accommodation, etc., services to someone whose only language was Spanish!

It seems to me you are giving too much credit to the indigenous tongues in Mexico. The reality is the indigenous languages ARE protected by law at the highest level, yes, but that does not automatically do away with the real fact that, in Mexico, Spanish is the only official language (again, official meaning that it is one of the 63 officially recognized) that is also the only national language (meaning not regionally spoken). This can lead to only one reality: Spanish is the only language in Mexico that is simultaneously BOTH, an official language AND a national language. None of the other 62 languages can say that. Agreed?

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I missed this because of the indentation. I agree with the first part of this - they are all administratively national languages (in the sense of languages that are belong to the Mexican Nation), Spanish is in addition de facto official, because it is the main language of the Mexican state (which is not the same as the Nation). It becomes confusing when you then go on to use national to mean that they should be spoken universally within the nation - since that is not the sense used by the legislation. It is also not strictly meaningful to distinguish between regional and national languages in this sense since Indigenous people travel and speak their languages where they arrive so that most indigenous languages are spoken in the DF and there are large Mixtec communities in Northern Mexico for example. The law specifically provides for the possibility that as languages come to be spoken in new places they are then also legally recognized in their new contexts - the law does not distinguish between regional or universal validity within the Mexican nation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To be awfully frank you can disagree all you want but that will not change the facts that there are communities in Mexico where indigenous languages are the only ones used in administration. Mexican la explicitly provides for this option and did so even before the passing of the Law of Linguistic rights by the statutes of usos y costumbres. How much time have you spent working with indigenous languages in Mexico exactly? I did my first fieldwork in a Mexican indigenous community 8 years ago and have lived a total of two years in indigenous communities in Mexico. Believe me it is possible to go to places where administration is not conducted in Spanish - not many places and not large places - but they are there. And no - I am not trying to use this as anecdotal evidence or OR to insert anything to that effect into the article - but I do use it to take issue with your flat and erroneous statement about what is possible in Mexico. And I still don't know why you insist on using the terms national and official to mean the opposite of what they mean in Mexican legislation. But ys Spanish is the only National language that can also be said to be the de facto official language of the Mexican state (state is not the same as nation).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the editors most involved in this conversation should take a break or summarize their points and wait for input from others. This discussion here seems to have reached a point of where there is a lot of repetition which, among other things, is making it difficult for editors coming here for the RfC to get up to date.

Here is my $0.02: User:Maunus (and others) has provided pretty good legal documentation (i.e., Mexican laws) that Spanish does not enjoy an official status within the law. The fact that he/she has found laws and other primary sources which document this fact does not mean we will qualify it as original research just because had to do work to find it. It's also quite clear that Spanish is the only de facto national language and this should clearly be noted.

A good template for this might be the United States article which has a similar situation of no single de jure language but a strong and clearly recognized de facto language. You can find tons of embassies and articles that say English is the official language of the US too; they are simply wrong and Wikipedia would be wrong to report their mistakes.

In the absence of a better idea, the best option would be to follow the example of the United States article and to list official language as something like "None at federal level" and the national language as Spanish (de facto) with a similar silly little footnote in the info box explaining the whole situation. —mako ๛ 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning on keeping up to date on this page so if folks want my opinion or clarification, please leave a message on my talk page. —mako ๛ 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mako provides some interesting observations. Fundamentally, the controversy here occurs because there are two sides both of which have meritable arguments. Maybe equally meritable, maybe unequally meritable, but arguments of merit to one degree or another nevertheless. IMO, this official language subject is not black or white: it exists in the gray. Hopefully this is something we have all come to appreciate.

There are, imo, two ways to handle this: the win-lose approach and the win-win aproach. In the win-lose approach we ask, which side has the most convincing arguments?, and formulate text based on that, with the result that one of the original sides gets his way and the other side does not. In the win-win approach we decide that, "heck! this is a matter that even the sources can agree upon", and we formulate text with that basis in mind.

One thing is awfully evident however: There is no dispute that the Ameridian languages are -not- the ones under debate here. I have yet to hear someone here say that "heck wait Otomi (or substitute any one of the other 65 Ameridian languages) is the national, official, de facto, de jure, de this, de that, etc etc etc language of Mexico". So an undisputed fact is that Spanish does hold a -unique- place amongst the languages of Mexico and, per the inverse of WP:UNDUE, would deserve greater treatment in any entry about languages. But such greater treatment should not be oriented towards what Spanish is not (not de jure, not official, not this, not that) which, in itself, would lean towards the win-lose situation above. Instead, it should discuss the "positive" aspects of the language: how it is used, how it became predominant, how or if it is singled out in the law, in day-to-day government services, whatever. (Compare, for example, the negativity in the 2012 phenomenon and the "positivity" in the Resurrection of Jesus - yet they are both two highly contended subjects).

To achieve neutrality, we need to divest ourselves of our own personal views, perceptions, experiences, preferences, etc., and let the article's content be dictated by what is actually said by the sources, and whenever the sources differ, we can point out such differences in the article. This is an important component of WP:NPOV. The finished product should be characterized by what I will term "professional harmony": readers should not be distracted by cues that there was no agreement in the part of the editors putting the article together. This is often achieved by including those points where everyone (or most everyone) agrees and leaving out entirely (or possibly discussing under a controversies section in another article, like Languages of Mexico) those areas where editorial disagreement exists.

It is best to be alert for not falling victims of the common fallacy that "if this, then not that". For example, does the statement "Spanish is a national language in Mexico" automatically disqualify the statement "Spanish is not an official language in Mexico"? That is, are the two statements mutually exclusive? It is important to sort of this out, or else, I see this subject will return back to haunt everyone here again. For example, imo, (I am not defending either side; I am simply stating my opinion) it has been established that Spanish is the official language of Mexico when we consider certain sources which appear to focus in "practical" (as compared to, say, legal) issues --Mexican embassies, blah blah blah included-- and that Spanish is the national language of Mexico when we consider that it is the only language spoken nationally (that is, not regionally). There are some very valid govt sources, the Executive branch included, that state Spanish is the official language. An editor pointed out above that while Spanish is mentioned (rightfully or not) as the official language in Mexico (and as I doubled checked this appears to be by a seemingly endless number of sources) none of the other 66 Ameridian languages are ever mentioned as official. We need to consider what sort of weight that reality should carry/not carry. We also need to consider definitions, what do we mean by "official", or, for example, does the fact that sources state Spanish as official is enough for Wikipedia to contain that statement/claim?/fact? An editor above stated (and I am not saying this is right or not, only pointing out why having clear definitions is probably the first step in this discussion) that in order for something to be official it "must be declared so by law". Is this our definition of "official"? why? why not? Also, is it OK for us as editors to play the role of supreme court of the land and interpet what was meant by some piece of Mexican legislation? IMO, we would probably be frowned upon if we took this direction. Agreed?

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Just noting that I don't think you correctly represent either the issue or my arguments. Otherwise I will follow Benjamin Mako's suggestion to await more outside input.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough is Enough!. Assuming Mercy11's account of past dispute resolution is correct, both this RfC and the change were inappropriate. It is unacceptable to just start a new RfC that fails to provide context for the discussion, and to essentially ignore multiple previous DR processes. If something is widely agreed upon in mediation, someone wishing to challenge that needs to explicitly reference the previous discussions, explain why they were found wrong, and attempt to change consensus. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE does not mean that you just get to, a few months later, get a quick answer on an RfC to override months work of previous work--there is a very strong onus on the person wanting to change the prior consensus to argue for that change and only proceed with editsgiven a clear indication that consensus has, in fact, changed. While I haven't yet looked into Mercy11's links, if they are correct, I consider this RfC to be disruptive. Sonarclawz (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

huh? What are you talking about? Mercy11 has not made any claims about prior consensus and he has not participated in any prior discussions about this (especially not for months). I have. There has been no mediation. I would say that if one counts voices instead of verbiage above there are only two participants who are in favor of calling Spanish "official" with at least twice as many leaning towards no mention or qualification such as "de facto official" (which was the prior consensus by the way) User:Maunus editing logged out 128.148.211.79 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the official language, the others are equal status but not used equally unless they are of note in a given area.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind giving the rationale behind your opinion also?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the infobox saying "Languages: Spanish (majority) and 51 Indigenous languages". I don't see a need to call it "official" there. Homunq (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) ps. Frankly it's a little hard for me to tell exactly what the various parties in this debate are advocating; I can see which "side" they're on but not their precise goal (without reading more text more carefully than I care to).

True, but Wikipedia is not a democracy... one wise man by himself can drown out a server load of fools in this forum. The very fact that the discussions have been dragging on for months displays a common set of symptoms here on Wikipedia. calling for an RFC is not going to work at all if those symptoms and attitudes continue to persist. Sonarclawz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is also true that when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia you should ignore all the rules. We are having this discussion because consensus -- and not calling participants "fools" -- is the primary method how decisions are made on Wikipedia. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

"de facto" in infoBox - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] Agree with user Mako's summary above. If official government sources indicate that there is not an official language, that trumps dozens of guidebooks etc that say to the contrary. Suggest follow the InfoBox pattern from the United States article, which has "National Language: English (de facto)". It would also be nice to mention the quantity of indigenous languages there, if a good Reliable Source can be found that counts them. --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, the problem is that (unless I have missed something of astronomical dimensions in this discussion!) NO official government sources indicate that there is not an official language in Mexico. What has been presented so far is that (1) the Legislative Branch of the Mexican government states that Spanish and 66 indigenous tongues are "national languages" in Mexico, and (2) that two Mexican Executive Branch sources at the federal level, namely the Office of the President of Mexico and Mexico's Department of State ("SRE"), state that "Mexico's official language is Spanish" (HERE) and that "Languages: Spanish (official)" HERE, respectively. This is the heart of the discussion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You don't mention that the first of those websites is from the previous presidency before there was any legislation about languages in place - and that the second is just an information sheet for foreign investors and the like - not an official document.•ʍaunus•snunɐw• 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, No, I do not mention the first is from a previous Mexican presidency website; I also don't mention that the law about national languages doesn't have an iota of effect on an Executive Branch decision to formally and officially make a language an official language -- to be specific, they are two different things. And, no, I do not mention that the second is "just an information sheet for foreign investors... not an official document", and the reason is that this second source is actually from the Office of Patricia Espinosa-Cantellano, the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, a Cabinet-level dependency of the current administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderon and, as such, it does represent the position of the current Mexican President and, by default, the position of the Government of Mexico. No offense, I sense you are too fixated on equating "official" ONLY with that which comes from the Legislative Branch; I remind you that in a republican form of government -- like Mexico's -- all three branches carry equal weight.

Maunus and, once more don't take this personal for you seem to be a dedicated fellow Wikipedian but, IMO, this is not the time to reverberate stuff that has already been candidly presented before: this discussion really needs to come to a resolution shortly. I can understand why you may want to oppose other editors' positions by using your interpretations of the links presented, and you have every right to do that. But the reality is that editors can go to the links and interpret those links for themselves -- which is the purpose of the link system to start with. Tomorrow it will be three weeks since you opened this RFC; I am moving this ahead to the next phase, namely a Resolution.

With my apologies to any editor whom I may be misplacing, I am submitting the Resolution section list below. Note: I ask any editor whose name I may have misplaced to, please, reposition his/her username under the correct group. Thanks. (For the sake of erring on the side of overcautiousness, I have positioned only those who have stated their position in no uncertain terms.). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You presented your reverberation and personal interpretation of those links and I presented mine. I'll decide when it is time for me to speak thank you. The fact that it comes from any of the other branches than the legislative is exzactly what makes Spansih the de factor and not the de jure official language - that is the definition of the difference between de facto and de jure in fact. And also you misrepresented my position again in your section below as you have through out this discussion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, the reason I did not include de facto as an option is because your RFC (see above) focused on whether or not "Spanish [should] be mentioned as an official language in the infobox". Only after that was settled (you reasoned in your RFC above) did you state "If it should be included in the infobox should it be mentioned that it is only "de facto" official and not "de jure"". It seemed clear that in the absence of any additional ongoing discussion on your part the issue at hand was "Official vs. Not official". There is no problem in adding a de facto column for purposes of a Resolution, but this is not what the frequency of your comments implied. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Does Mexico have an official language? NO. This is a very, very complex question. I think that even academicians and legal authorities in Mexico would argue over this, so it's not surprising that it's provoking fits and starts among WP editors, many of whom probably are not in Mexico and are not intimately familiar with Mexican law and customs.

The first problem, as noted by Mercy earlier, is that we don't have clearcut definitions of “official language” and “national language.” Before you can make an informed decision on what to put in the infobox, you need to establish the meanings of those two terms. Do they mean the same thing? If they do not, what is the difference between them?

The second question is, Is WP's use of the terms “official language” and “national language” the same as the usage of those terms by the authorities whom we are planning to cite as sources?

Experiences in other countries show that these are not merely academic questions.

Take the case of India, for example, a country that has long been described in travel guidebooks and the like as having two official languages (Hindi and English). An Indian state high court recently ruled that there's no national language in India. A plaintiff had sought to require manufacturers to label products in Hindi. As reported in the Times of India, “the court asked whether there was any notification saying Hindi is India's national language, for it's an 'official language' of this country. No notification ever issued by the government could be produced before the court in this regard. This is because the Constitution has given Hindi the status of the official language and not the national language.” The court denied the plaintiff's request. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-25/india/28148512_1_national-language-official-language-hindi

Or consider Singapore: The Constitution of Singapore states, in section 153A Official languages and national language: “(1) Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the 4 official languages in Singapore. (2) The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script: Provided that – (a) no person shall be prohibited from using or from teaching or learning any other language; and (b) nothing in this Article shall prejudice the right of the Government to preserve and sustain the use of the language of any other community in Singapore. (emphasis added) (you can Google the Constitution of Singapore to read the section text in context)

So it is evident that “official language” and “national language” are not necessarily the same thing, in legal terms. What do we mean by these terms for WP purposes?

There is a scholarly book edited by Kirsten Süselbeck entitled Lengua, nación e identidad: la regulación del plurilingüismo en España, y América Latina, published in 2008, that offers a number of observations directly relevant to this discussion. (Unfortunately, there is no copy available in my local library, so I am limited at the moment to reading a few excerpts from it that are available online. I think it would be prudent for the editors who are most committed to addressing this topic on WP to get a copy of this book to review, and/or to get in contact with some of its authors to see if they can offer further suggestions or sources for WP.)

On page 243, in a chapter on “La 'defensa' del español en Hispanoamérica,” author Silke Jansen includes Mexico as one of 6 Latin American countries that do not list Spanish as an official language (the table also shows countries that do list Spanish as the sole official language, and other countries that list Spanish as an official language in addition to indigenous languages that share official status with Spanish).

In a footnote on page 265 from the same chapter, there is this comment on Mexico: “Hasta la fecha, ha habido tres proyectos de ley para declarar el español la lengua oficial de la nación, pero todos han fracasado por la resistencia de las institucionales indigenistas (Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista), que pretenden que la oficialización del español perjudicaría a las lenguas indígenas.” (my loose translation: “To date, there have been three attempts to legally declare Spanish the official language of the country, but all have failed in the face of opposition from advocacy institutions for indigenous peoples [Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista], who claim that bestowing an official status on Spanish would discriminate against indigenous languages.”)

Something else noted in the book (see for instance p. 258-263) that is especially interesting and relevant is that despite declining to establish Spanish as the “official” language of the country, the Mexican government has enacted laws that mandate that specifically Spanish be used in product labeling. See also: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=708514&fecha=01/06/2004

Maunus has throughout this discussion made reference to the fact that Prof. Jaime Labastida, the director of the Mexican Academy of Language, has been saying that Spanish is not the official language of the country and that he wants legislation enacted to make it so. There are quotes from a number of others in this article discussing Labastida's proposal who agree that Spanish is not the official language: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/65191.html

There is testimony as well from Senator Pablo Bomez Alvarez, who only 3 weeks ago said in remarks in the Mexican Senate: “Yo creo que en México no hay una lengua oficial, y cualquier persona se puede expresar y hemos hecho reformas para que en el aparato de justicia, por ejemplo, la gente pueda defenderse en su propia lengua.” (“I believe that in Mexico there is no official language, and any one can express him- or herself, and we have made reforms so that in the justice system, for example, the people can defend themselves in their own language.”) http://comunicacion.senado.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3281:sesion-ordinaria-de-la-h-camara-de-senadores-celebrada-el-martes-20-de-marzo-de-2012&catid=47:version-estenografica&Itemid=178

So my take is that no, Spanish is NOT the official language of Mexico and should not be so described by WP. (Official language in this usage meaning a language explicitly declared in the Constitution or in other statute as the “official” language of the country.)

I also agree with others, such as Angr and kwami, that the term “official (de facto)” is not appropriate here. Either a language has been explicitly declared official, or it has not. De facto is inappopriate with "official." (De facto could be used appropriately in some cases with "national," though.) In this case, the Mexican legislature has multiple times voted down attempts to pass laws making Spanish the official language.

On the other hand, Spanish is clearly a National language. It is so recognized in the law. It is the most commonly used language for business, the arts, and legal proceedings (eg the national legislature, courts, and executive branch). Product labels must be written in Spanish. And for even those who speak an indigenous language, the majority have some knowledge as well of Spanish.

However, the law also recognizes all those scores of other indigenous languages.

For these reasons, Option 2 (ie, Official Language: none; National language(s): Spanish [default] and 60+ indigenous languages) is by far the most accurate and the best of the options. A footnote or a link to an expanded discussion of some of the nuances would be appropriate, in addition. Dezastru (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, I support most of what you say. However, when the Presidency of the Republic states that Spanish is the official language, I must accept that with the same degree of support that I accept Spanish is a national language when it comes from the Mexican Congress. I remind you that Mexico has a republican form of government and as such it has three powers, each of which can emit orders which carry the weight of law: Congress issues statutes, the President issues executive orders, and the judiciary issues court orders. The national languages order issued by the Mexican Congress has -nothing- to do with making or not Spanish (or any of the 66) an official language. It was issued to address only the matter of national languages. Therefore that law is a moot point in this discussion for this is a discussion over official languages, not over national languages. As such the only remaining powers left to review would be the executive and the judiciary via their corresponding presidential orders and court orders. The Mexican Supreme Court has not issued any orders in this regard that I know of. With the Courts also ruled out the only authority left to examine if the Executive Branch. Upon reviewing the evidence available, the Executive Branch has been found to have indeed issued either a presidential order in this regard or an internal memo to this effect because it is a fact that "Mexico : Languages : Spanish : Official" is found in a multitude of official sites within the Mexican government.

I can understand (although I don't agree with) someone's reluctance to call Spanish Mexico's official language. After all, the official language issue hasn't been brought before the Mexican Supreme Court nor is there a Statute passed to that regard. But such reluctance, imo, is a display of negligent overcautioness that leads to the comfortable status quo. I say this because the Executive Branch does state TODAY that Spanish -IS- Mexico's official language (http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271). Since most editors here are Americans, let me provide this example: No American would argue today that slavery was abolished in the U.S. over a century ago. Yet neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor U.S. Congress ever issued a Court Order nor ever proclaimed a statute to abolish slavery. The reason they didn't is this: they didn't have to. Slavery ended thanks to President Lincoln issuing an executive order to that effect. Adn that order has had the effect of law to this day.

When I joined this discussion, my position was "Spanish is the de facto language, but it is not the official language", and in addition "Spanish plus 66 languages are national languages". However, as I dugged in and I reasoned over the evidence it became clear to me that Spanish is indeed proclaimed to be the official language of that country. Here's why: I have read editors here presenting evidence that such and such author, and such and such director of the Mexican Academy of Language and such and such Mexican senator and such and such Mexican academician, etc etc etc says there is no official language in Mexico, and those secondary sources use a spectrum full of arguments to support their position. To me, that is tantamount to saying that such and such and such and such American individual --prominent or not-- says slavery has not been officially ended in the U.S. because the U.S. Congress or the Courts never passed a statute or order to that effect. The point is this: it doesn't matter how high in the Mexican social, academic, intellectual, etc, echelon an individual may be, it does not matter that someone is the author or 1 trillion books on Mexican languages or that someone has lived for 100 years amongst the native Indians of Mexico, etc etc etc etc. What matters is who holds the power to declare a language official in Mexico. The President holds that power and the President has declared Spanish to be the official language, as evidenced in the multitude of official website of the Mexican government. That is enough for me,,,, at least until the Mexican Courts or the Mexican Congress overturns him. But as of today, that hasn't happened yet despite the kicking and screaming of many inside and outside Mexico.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

It is not the case that simple because the president states so makes it so - it might if he stated it as a decree but there is no evidence that he has. And in anycase he has not even stated so - the president is not responsible for the statistics on the SRE webpage (which is also not fromtoday but from November 2010).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mercy, if I understand your position correctly, you (1) accept my point that a language is only a country’s “official language” if there is a law that declares the language to hold such status and that explicitly uses the term “official language” in the declaration; and you (2) take the presence of statements on executive branch websites listing Spanish as the official language to be evidence such a law exists.

I agree that those website mentions are problematic, which is one of the reasons this is such a complex issue, and one of the reasons that a footnote explaining some of the nuances of the discussion would be appropriate. But the website mentions are not sufficient for WP to present Spanish as the “official language” for several reasons.

First, we would need to assume that those specific website notations of Spanish being the official language were made with the direct knowledge and approval of the officials who hold the authority to make pronouncements carrying the full weight of law, and not just by an intern or office assistant somewhere (who are the very kind of people that usually put together the information for those kinds of webpages). It is not difficult to find factual errors on institutional websites, including government websites. The top officer overseeing a government department -- and this is even more true for the president -- generally does not write the webpage information him- or herself and is almost always too preoccupied with other duties to even bother reading what is on the websites (at least, what is on this kind of page of their website).

Second, we would need to assume that even if the mentions on the websites are accurate representations of the official views of the highest-ranking officials in that branch of the government, those individuals' views are valid representations of the law. Except that government officials write and say inaccurate things all the time. Sometimes they are just plain wrong, even though they may not realize it.

Third, we would need to assume that that official meant the term "official language" in the same way that we mean it for the purposes of the WP article.

On a controversial topic of interest to as wide an audience as this is likely to be, such assumptions need stronger, more reliable support. The burden of proof always falls on those making the claim that something (eg a law) exists rather than on those arguing that there is no evidence for its existence.

Fourth, you contend that the three general branches of government hold equal authority in establishing law in Mexico, which you say is analogous to the situation in the United States of America. I do not pretend to be an authority on law, and certainly not on the laws of Mexico. However, it seems highly doubtful that the president of Mexico holds the legal authority to unilaterally declare, by executive order or by any other means, what the official language of the country is, particularly if the legislature, which is constitutionally the body authorized to make law, does not agree with the executive’s proposal.

The Constitution of Mexico gives the executives at various levels of government (from the president down to local municipal executives) the authority to issue orders that include the technical details necessary to carry out the general laws passed by the legislature -- basically, for providing the flesh to fit on a skeleton dictated by the legislature. If the legislature votes against adoption of a law, it would be improper (if technically not actually illegal) for the president to then try to unilaterally declare the same measure by executive order. And as I mentioned in the earlier post, the evidence is that the Mexican legislature has on at least 3 occasions voted to reject adoption of Spanish as the official language. In fact, it seems that an effort to make Spanish the official language failed in 2003, when Representative Arcelia Arredondo García introduced a bill with that intent: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/sia/coord/refconst_lviii/html/249.htm

The declaration of the official language of a country is a matter of such fundamental importance, affecting the lives and civil rights of so many on so many different levels, that it is inconceivable that the executive would be allowed to assume such authority.

Finally, the analogy you make to the case of the United States of America does not help your argument. Slavery actually was outlawed under authority of law -- not by the president, but by act of Congress and the state legislatures, in the form of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. (Moreover, in the legal system of the United States, you can be assured that neither the legislature, the Supreme Court, nor many of the citizens would accept the president trying to unilaterally declare English the official language by executive order.) Dezastru (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Dezastru you make various valid statements, but your assumptions list is, imo, not one of them. For instance, are you not already making your own assumptions (and I don't mean to play with words here) when you state that the official Mexican government sites are "problematic"? They are not. Unless, of course, a square peg is seeking to fit in a round hole. That is, you cannot take a position and then simply dismiss as "problematic" reliable source counter-arguments that do not fit in with your position.

In the four observations you made, if I read you right, you are stating that the Mexican government websites are problematic and that their "problem" can be explained if we assume they are the result of (1) "an intern or office assistant somewhere" who (2) happened to be "just plain wrong" for (3) he happened to use the term "official" incorrectly because it is not consistent with Wikipedia's meaning of official, which meaning (4) happens to be that which comes from the legislature and not the President. That's a bunch of nested assumptions, wouldn't you agree? All of which would have to occur at precisely the proper time and in the proper sequence to yield the one unique and single result which happens to be the result that is consistent with your position.

Your assumptions Points 1 & 2 in my previous paragraph I won't address further, but assumption point #3 could benefit from further review; I would direct attention to Official language but only as a starting point. My position (and that of governments around the globe) is that the Mexican President's stating that Spanish is the official language in Mexico is simply a description of how the Mexican government 's work is to be carried out: work within the government has to occur in Spanish. There is nothing earth-shattering about that scope, becuase (1) it is well within the powers of a Head of State, and (2) - as I show below - it happens to be the way that "official language" is understood in other countries, incluiding the USA. As for Assumption #4, it begs the question, where is the reliable secondary source citation for this claim? Where does it ever say that Mexico's Official Spanish mandate must come from the legislature to be legitimate? "Spanish Official" is a statement of how the Government is expected to communicate within its ranks and to communicate to the public at large via the news media, etc. This is in general the meaning of "Official language" even in the USA (See, e.g., HERE). However, I sense that some editors here may think that "Spanish: official" means that the language is somehow going to be shoved down the throats of its citizens. I sense this also from your paragraph next to the last paragraph. But if we were to look around, that is not the meaning of "official language" in most of the world's literature (See, again, e.g.,HERE).

So yes, I have to disagree with the statement "it seems highly doubtful that the president of Mexico holds the legal authority to unilaterally declare, by executive order or by any other means, what the official language of the country is." (It might help if you use "the official language IN the country" rather than "OF the country") Reason is that we cannot make decisions of inclusion/no inclusion based on what "seems" or not likely, but based on WP:V, and "Spanish: Official" is verifiable at the highest, while the assumption of "high doubt" is not. The opposing view/s involve interpretations and not merely a straight-forward WP:V. So yes, I have every reason to believe that President of Mexico has the power to declare Spanish official. And the proof, again, is in the many of government sites, including the Office of the President, that state it is the official language.

However -- and I stress -- in providing definitions it is necessary to define whether or not there is a difference between a government's official language and a country's official language. A government may or may not have declared a certain language official in the country (meaning, within the governmental functions in that country) openly, but we can be certain that, tacitly, it has. (We need to stay focus and concientiously avoid making assumptions, value judgments, drawing OR conclusions, delving into speculations, and the like, and the reason is if we start digging into the nitty-gritty we usually end up with a maze of speculation that bear no direct link to the issue at hand. For example many states in the US have established English as the official language but many don't go into detail of what they mean by "official" to start with.) As a comment, I suspect that Legislation plays a more important role only when the government’s "official language" policy is so overarching that it has significantly greater direct impact on the people than a simple declaration by the executive about the language to be used within government would. There is a fine line between the two oftentimes, as can be seen HERE.

In the US at the national level, for example, the issue of official language is a rather touchy one, but this is, imo, because it has traditionally be associated with an ingredient that is needed to keep the nation together; it has traditionally been linked to the development of the country as a nation and it has been seen as a unifying bond (maybe "the" unifying bond) amongst the people itself -- and not simply limited to the language to be spoken/written/communicated/etc in Congress, in government, in official speech, etc. And given the disproportionally large ratio of Americans in this discussion (per this HERE), it is probably fair to say that this "American view" is how a significant group of contributing editors here are value-judging this Spanish-official question. This is why, imo, it is best to take a statement by any branch of the Mexican government on face value rather than digging into speculation which, to start with, has no place in Wikipedia.

To expand on this a bit I offer these last few statements: the Executive branch has said Spanish IS the official language of Mexico, while the Legislature has not said Spanish is not the official language for it has voted only on the national language question and not on the official language question. Also, some here have heralded that the official language matter has in fact been brought before the Mexican Legislature before. However, bringing a bill to the Legislature and actually having the Legislature have an up or down vote are two VERY different things. To be specific, statements such as "Hasta la fecha, ha habido tres proyectos de ley para declarar el español la lengua oficial de la nación, pero todos han fracasado por la resistencia de las institucionales indigenistas " (or loosely translated, "So far there have been three bills to declare Spanish the nation's official language, but all have failed due to the resistance of the indigenous institutions") is analogous to saying in the pre-Obamacare years, "so far there have been x number of bills (there were several) brought to Congress to institute national healthcare reform, but they all failed due to opposition by the Republicans." The point is that there were many tries in the Legislative body of the USA (last time was during the Clinton years as I recall) but there was never a VOTE in Congress to the effect until the vote that was taken during the current Obama administration. Hopefully this makes this matter clear to the American editors participating in this discussion as it provides a much more familiar example to explain the significance (actually the insignificance) of the 3 Mexican bills in question.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Mercy, you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "problematic." What I meant was that the statements identifying Spanish as the "official language" of Mexico in some otherwise-reliable sources are problematic because other otherwise-reliable sources indicate that any statements of there being an official language are invalid. The problem for WP editors is deciding which sources are more reliable in this specific matter.

No one is arguing that there are no otherwise-reliable sources that have described Spanish as the official language of Mexico. The various Mexican executive branch websites that you have cited, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, The CIA World Book of Facts, the US State Department website, etc. all do. But as I previously noted with regard to how information is produced for webpages, and as others here have also noted (such as Jztinfinity and Cancerbero on Britannica), the sources that are generally regarded as reliable on most subjects may sometimes include information that is incorrect or outdated on specific subjects. For example, the US State Department website's background information section on Mexico includes a link to a Library of Congress Country Study report based on information from 1996 -- which would predate the legislative action on the status of languages that occurred in Mexico in 2003. Has anyone bothered to update the information on the website? Is it an issue of such importance to the US State Department that the individuals responsible for maintaining the website would care to update it? (Highly doubtful.)

On the other hand, there are many otherwise-reliable sources indicating that Spanish is not the official language of Mexico, as I and others have argued above.

So we as WP editors have a responsibility to weigh the reliability of various sources when the information in the sources is in conflict.

The kinds of sources that Maunus and I, along with others, have cited in this discussion tend to be more reliable for matters of this sort. We have cited specific laws. We have cited scholarly work addressing the issue, published arguments of a highly-respected Mexican authority on the Spanish language (Prof Labastida), and a statement of a sitting legislator in the national congress, among other sources. The opposing viewpoint asks that we accept that "A government may or may not have declared a certain language official in the country (meaning, within the governmental functions in that country) openly, but we can be certain that, tacitly, it has," and that the proof that the president of Mexico has the power to unilaterally make Spanish the official language is the fact that many government sites say that Spanish is the official language. Those arguing for this opposing viewpoint have failed to point to direct reference to any specific law or executive order or court decree, instead relying entirely on the kinds of sources that on this kind of issue are prone to error.

In addition to disagreeing over the reliability in this matter of the various sources, there is also disagreement over the meaning of "official language." As I noted above, official language in countries like Mexico is established by acts of the legislature (and I cite the book previously mentioned as one source in agreement with this position). You argue on the contrary that legislative acts are not a requirement for establishing an official language -- and yet you refer to information from the highly-partisan private advocacy group U.S. English, Inc. in your explanations of what an official language is. This is ironic because U.S. English, Inc. says that

"declaring English the official language means that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings. While Official English legislation declares English as the language of government.... U.S. English continues its work in several other states to urge the introduction of Official English. We also lobby Congress in support of H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act—a bill that would make English the official language of the United States."

By "declaring English the official language," U.S. English, Inc. specifically means having Congress pass legislation that declares English the official language. So by the very criteria laid out by your own source -- namely, (a) requiring passage of federal legislation declaring that a language is the official language and (b) requiring that all official government business be conducted solely in the official language -- Spanish cannot be said to be the official language of Mexico. No one here has yet shown any law that has declared Spanish to be the official language; and the Law of Linguistic Rights requires that government must allow official business to be conducted in languages other than Spanish within the territories, localities, and contexts in which they are spoken, as Maunus has shown.

Frankly, the arguments that Maunus, I, and others who support our position have presented are strong enough to make Option 3 infeasible.

But let's remember, if all of us ultimately cannot come to an agreement over this, that when it is not possible to decide that one set of sources is more reliable on a particular topic than other sources that include conflicting information, WP editors have a responsibility to present the information in the article in a way that either avoids directly confronting the issue (Option 1 would be a way to do that in this case), or plainly acknowledges to the reader that the matter is disputed (which is what a footnote with Option 2 could do). Dezastru (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And with regard to there apparently being a "disproportionate" number of American editors involved in this discussion, let's also remember that the subject of an official language in Mexico has also been a contested issue on the Spanish-language Wikipedia Talk page for the article on Mexico. The individual there who argued that Spanish is the official language of Mexico based that argument on the ridiculous claim that since a Royal Decree of 1770 had never been formally repealed, it is still the governing law!

Yet, as Cancerbero already pointed out, the Spanish-language WP editors state that Mexico has no official language, only national languages. Dezastru (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, there is no such thing in Wikipedia as an "otherwise-reliable source" that I am aware of: a source is either reliable or it is not reliable. And the sources that you and the other opponents are citing are not reliable -- certainly, not when compared to a source as reliable as the very top of the executive command of the country of Mexico, and, in particular, when such high-level source leaves NO room for speculation or ambiguity when it states, in black and white, that Spanish IS the official language of Mexico and that the official language of Mexico IS Spanish. There are no if's, and's or but's about it... as there are in the sources presented by the opposing side.

The arguments from the opposing side are:

"There was related legislation in 2003."
PROBLEM: Invalid; that legislation had nothing to do with the official language issue.
[comment by Maunus : This is clearly incorrect all sources describing this legislation describes it as being legislation that takes the step of giving Spanish and Indigenous langauge equal status. It is reported by all commentators to be legislation that affects the official status of the langauges that it mentions. Also by virtue of being the only piece of legislation that concerns language it clearly has to do with the official status of langauges. ]

"Yes, the Mexican websites say Spanish is the official language, but 'Has anyone [in the Mexican Government] bothered to update the information on the website? ...Highly doubtful'."
PROBLEM: Speculation.
[Comment by Maunus: the opposite conclusion is equally speculative, the website is not a place where new legislation or decrees is published, and if it flatly contradicts legislation and statements of reliable sources there is no reason to consider the website more authoritative]

"There are many otherwise-reliable sources indicating that Spanish is not the official language of Mexico."
PROBLEM: There are no reliable sources stating such thing. For example, has any branch of the Mexican Government stated such thing? No. So who has? Here are the two most commonly presented by the opposition:
[comment by Maunus: yes the branch that passed the 2003 law of linguistic rights. Furthermore not only government sources are reliable, of course legal and linguistic specialists are fully competent and authoritative and reliable to comment on the legal status of langauges within their area of expertise.]

"A UNAM professor [notes] that Spanish is not legally official."
PROBLEM: No individual citizen can override the Federal Government. (Note: this UNAM professor is also the president of the Mexican Language Academy)
[comment by Maunus: nonsense argument. He is not "overriding the government" he is stating the actual legislative situation. He is not trying to pass legislation he is making a statement about what legislation has been passed. And he is correct. ]

"John Fisher, Daniel Jacobs, Zora O'Neill, Paul Whitfield." (and others)
PROBLEM: Inconsequential; these people don't hold the authority to make such statements.
[comment form Maunus: nonsense claim. No "authority" is necessary to make an authoritative statement, only the authority of being an objective and knowledgeable observer of Mexican legiuslation which they clearly are. You are assuming that they are trying to override the supposed "presidential decree" on the .gob website - they are not, they are making a statement about what the legislative assembly of mexico has done.]

"It is not mentioned in the Constitution [that Spanish is the official language]."
PROBLEM: This is the mutually exclusive argument. As [11] site explains, it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, not because Spanish wasn’t official, but because Mexico was seeking to distance itself from Spain when it sought its independence. Moreover, this assumes that the Constitution is the only means to declare a language official.
[comment by Maunus: nonsense. The consitution doesn't mention it and neither does any other piece of legislation.]

"federal law has not declared it to be the official language of Mexico."
PROBLEM: This argument assumes that “official” implies de jure only. I cannot find such definition for a language anywhere in Wikipedia definitions, or the Mexican government at large.
[comment by Maunus: nonsense. There are two kinds of official status "de jure official" and "de facto official", simply stating "official" implies de jure, since Spanish is not de jure official writing simply "official" is misleading. The solution then is to write "de facto official" in recognition of the Spanish language's special pratical status, while recognizing that just as in the US it has no special legal status.]

"for something to be the official anything, it must be declared so by law."
PROBLEM: A variation of the above, where law implies “something passed by the Mexican Congress” and not something intrinsic in the Executive branch of government. If this were so, then we would all have to agree that, for example, for the President of Mexico to travel in an "official" capacity, the Mexican Congress has to pass a law to the effect.
[Comment: nonsense again, to be official means that it has to have a specific status within the official (i.e. public and political) realm. Spanish does have a specific status in this regards but only because of its practical statsu, not because of its legal status - this is why we must write either "none" (if we assume "official" to mean only de jure, or "de facto" if we allow for the possibility of being practically official because of being the primary langauge used in official functions)]

(paraphrased:) "The definition of the difference between de facto is something that comes from the Executive Branch while de jure is something that comes from the Legislative Branch."
PROBLEM: This assumes that stuff coming out of the Executive Branch is NOT official. It also claims that the meaning of “official” in Wikipedia in language articles, is only that which is also de jure (that is, de jure = official and official = de jure).

"the article in the Spanish wikipedia also mentions that there's no official language."
PROBLEM: The Spanish Wikipedia is not a secondary source.
[Comment by Maunus: here you misunderstand the argument which is not to use es.wiki as a source, but to note that on the wikipedia where most editors can be assumed to be both familiar with MExico and the Spanish language the editors realize that it has no legal official status]

"You can find tons of [U.S.] embassies and articles that say English is the official language of the US too; they are simply wrong."
PROBLEM: Bad comparison. Unlike Mexico's, the website of the President of the USA does not state “English: official” anywhere that can be seen.
[comment: It is in fact an excellent comparison the situation is completely analogous in tboth the movement to promote a particular majority language to official status and in the lack of legislation. The Mexican governement is obviously just worse at monitoring what information they actually have in their official domain as according to the particular site you mention Vicente Fox still appears to be president.]

"official government sources indicate that there is not an official language".
PROBLEM: The statement is made without citations. Result: This is just fabricated.
[comment by Maunus: Lots of sources have been provided. You just decided to ignore them.]

"there are many otherwise-reliable sources indicating that Spanish is not the official language of Mexico."
PROBLEM: None are cited that can compete with the source from the Mexican Executive Branch.
[COmment by Maunus: nonsense again a .gob website from Vicente Fox's presidency is not the Mexican executive branch.]

"the [Government website that states that Spanish is official] is from the previous presidency before there was any legislation about languages in place."
PROBLEM: The editor is making a historical error. The Presidency in question is Vicente Fox’s (2000-2006) and the legislation alluded to was passed in 2003. This means that the President’s website stating Spanish is the official language was still in place AFTER the legislation was passed in 2003. In fact, it could had even been that the Fox’s website stated Spanish was the official language of Mexico ‘’before (2000), during (2003), and after (2006)’’ the legislation was passed.
[comment by Maunus - this statement makes no sense at all. No idea what you're talking about. Perhaps space aliens made the language official in 1521. But then again perhaps they didn't.]

"The [document from Mexico's Department of State ("SRE"), which states Languages: Spanish (official)' [12] is just an information sheet for foreign investors and the like - not an official document."
PROBLEM: This argument is riddled with problems; I point out two: (1) a pure allegation with no factual basis to support the allegation: that allegation that the webpage is an info sheet for foreign investors is not found stated anywhere in the document; (2) we are to believe that statements made by an official government agency become unofficial based on its intended audience -- this defies logic.
[comment by Maunuas: reverses burden of proof. Of course you would need to show that this website has any legal status. It is not our job to show that it doesn't. It clearly doesn't claim to be the page where the president publishes his decrees.]

"The Mexican legislature has on multiple times [the actual claim is 3 times] voted down attempts to pass laws making Spanish the official language."
PROBLEM: No it has not. This is a misunderstanding of how the legislative process works, since a bill in the halls of Congress and a vote-down via a yes-no vote are not the same thing.
[comment by Maunus: you are simply obfuscating here. Fact is legislative branches have been presented with the proposal and voted it down. There has been no presidential decree to the contrary (which would of course have attracted wide media attention if the president overrides Congress)]

"[Just] because the president [of Mexico] states so [it does not make] it so... the president is not responsible for the statistics on the SRE webpage."
PROBLEM: An argument without substance: this is really stating that “the buck [does not] end with the President.”
[Comment by Maunus: Makes no sense. The point is that even if Vicente Fox had stood on the balcony of the palace of government and yelled down on the Zocalo "I declare Spanish to be the Official Langauge of the MExican Republic" that would not have made it actually the case untill the bill had been passed. And he has never made such a pronouncement anyway.]

"sources that are generally regarded as reliable on most subjects [such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, The CIA World Book of Facts, the US State Department just happen to have]...information that is incorrect or outdated [in this case]."
PROBLEM: An assumption. Bases the fate of this contended issue on an assumption.
[comment by Maunus: nonsense. None of those sources are reliable on this topic. They merely assume that usage by the state is the same as official status.]

"[The sources cited by those holding the position that Spanish is not the official language] tend to be more reliable for matters of this sort."
PROBLEM: Defies reason to think that “other sources” on an issue of the official national language of Mexico are more reliable than the national Government of Mexico itself.
[Comment by Maunus: the only sources by the Government of mexico it self makes it explicitly clear that Spanish has no special legal status but is a national langauge just like all the others. You are contradictiong fact when you claim that the government has ever made a statemnt to the contrary.]

"We [those supporting the view that there is no official language in Mexico] have cited specific laws."
PROBLEM: No, you haven’t. What you have done is cite 1 law only, the 2003 law, and that law addressed national languages only, NOT official language(s). You have taken that “omission” (for lack of a better term) and equated it to a vote of “no” for “Spanish, official language”. That’s not how the legislature works.
[comment by Mauns here you just twist reality. THERE IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION ABOUT LANGAUGE IN MEXICO AND THAT IS IT. that obviously means to any human capable of rational thought that this is the piece of legislation that establishes the legal status of langauges in Mexico. ]

"Those arguing [that Spanish is the official language] have failed to point to direct reference to any specific law or executive order or court decree, instead relying entirely on the kinds of sources that on this kind of issue are prone to error."
PROBLEM: Yes, maybe we have cited no specific law, EO, or CD. But we don’t need to. Any Law, EO, or CD would be a primary source, and thus invalid as a source. A handful of reliable secondary sources are of greater consequence than an actual EO. Also, a government doesn’t need an EO to put in motion every and any little thing that entails running a government. A simple policy dictate, operational memo, administrative directive, etc, is sufficient make an official change.
[comment by Maunus - this is ludicrous. Primary sources are of course not invalid as sources, especially not in a case such as this. You have no reliable sources supporting your argument we have both primary and secondary sources in agreement. Nonsense argument.]

As for the Spanish Wikipedia reference in your last paragraph, that is an example of the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
[comment by Maunus; no it is not, it is the same argument as above where you can see that the wikiepdia with most active Spanish speaking and Mexican does not recognize the doubt that you are tyring to sow. The legal statsu of Spanish in Mexico is absolutely crystal clear. It is a National language - the National language that happens to be used by the government for official affairs.]

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You are now just spiralling in to utter nonsense. Half of what you write here above is misrepresentations of policies of of others' arguments - the other half is logical errors. Please take your own advice from previously and stop "reverberating" arguments that you have already made ad nauseam - they do not make more sense because you repeat them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, please relax; we are not deciding the fate of the world here. Why don't you state exactly what you feel is nonsense and why, and state which policies you feel I am misrepresenting? Reverberating is not the right word here: at least one editor [13] did ask for a summary of the points presented, and another editor [14] expressed concen that it was not clear "what the various parties in this debate are advocating". The summary I provided takes care of both of those two concerns. And, hey, Dezastru's reply did deserve a response, no? In any event, you also did [15] want to wait for more outside input to RFC, and you get that too, have you not? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Resolution

As per my comment above, here is where contributors appear to stand on this issue:

Official language(s): None. (1 or 2 at right)
- Angr (talk)
- kwami (talk)
- Dezastru (talk)
- User:Maunus (Talk)
- Cancerbero 8 (talk)

Official language(s): Spanish. (3 at right)
- Alex (talk)
- Mercy11 (talk)
- LuciferWildCat (talk)

United Mexican States (4) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Spanish)
National languages	Spanish (de facto official) and 68 indigenous languages

United Mexican States (5) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Spanish)
Official languages	Spanish (de facto)
National languages	68 indigenous languages

Official language(s): Spanish (de facto). (4 or 5 at right)
- Noleander (talk)
- Homunq (talk)
- Simon Burchell (talk)
- ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mercy11 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

PENDING
- Sonarclawz (talk)
- mako (talk)
- Jztinfinity (talk)

As I noted above, my apologies to any editor whom I may have misplaced. Please reposition your name under the correct position header if necessary. Some users admitted not having a good comprehension of what the arguments on both sides were, and some others admitted either to being only passers-by (paraphrasing) or were early contributors who didn't benefit from more recent "evidence" presented by both opposing sides. Thanks for understanding if you were initially misplaced, but please do reposition your name as/if needed!. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

My position is this: Spanish is one of 66 national languages and the de facto official language. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I created a "de facto" option above & put 3 editors in there. Someone should go thru the "no position" list and see if others should also be moved there. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that 4 or more in "de facto" vote. I don't know who created the summary above, but it appears they deliberately skewed the summary to show that "Official=Spanish" was the winner, ignoring the "De facto" option. That is not very civilized. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, characterizing RfC responders as "others admitted either to being only passers-by" shows a misunderstanding of the RfC process: the whole point is to gather input from objective, uninvolved editors. Assume some good faith. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I put the four people who said 'none' under 'none', and removed the checked-out IP, and added four sample infoboxes with possible wording. — kwami (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with being put under the "None" heading. Of options 1 or 2, I slightly prefer option 1, but am agreeable to either. Angr (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I basically support all except option 3.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it might be best to state Spanish, Nahuatl, Yucatec Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, and 63 others.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be closer to option 2 or option 4 than to option 3 in favor of which your name is now standing. Maybe you would want to move it?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am late to the party, but please see my rationale for choosing Option 2 in the discussion area above the RESOLUTION section break. (I am absolutely opposed to Option 3.) Dezastru (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Option 3 of course, because it has been proved that only Spanish is called official. The other languages are treated in legal documents as "national languages". I repeat, only Spanish has been found to be named official. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's see... Looking at the boxes, I think the first option is the best one since it contains Spanish and the other 68 languages as "National languages", which so far seems to be the only official term given in official documents. The 5th box is pretty much the same to what Argentina has, however, some people have expressed disagreement on whether we can call something "de facto" or "de jure" based on the evidence we have. I would say that, to avoid problems over the term "official language" and/or "de facto official language", we just go with the first box. It's useful for people who are doing research about Mexico so that they can know that Spanish is spoken there and not "Mexican", and we avoid the issue of calling it "official language" by just using the term that was given by the law. If people start wondering "why does it say National language instead of official?" they can open the National language article and read why some countries use that term. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(I've moved your name from "pending" to "option 1 or 2" in the listing above.) Dezastru (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After months with this open RfC, and well over a month in the Resolution mode, in my opinion these are true: (1) The two opposing groups are as polarized as ever over the question of whether Spanish is Mexico's official language, and (2) the RfC appears to be moving into a stale period for little, if any, activity is taking place: old contrubutors have said nothing for weeks, and no new contributors have approached here to make their opinions known. I am wondering if any one else feels like this too? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The consensus is obviously against your proposal, which is supported by only 3 of 11 editors - so thats not very polarized in my opinion. That means that it is completely out of the question to mention Spanish as the sole official language. The remaining question is whether to write "none" (5 votes) or "de-facto Spanish" (4 3 votes).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Maunus, you have yet to define exactly what your position is in the 3 choices. Please add your name to one, and only one, of the 3 proposed slots, as every of us has done. Currently your name appears twice. Please do not keep it in 2 different slots. It is only fair that you play by the rules as everyone else has done so far. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

There is no such rule. Both "none" and "de-facto Spanish" is correct in different ways. Option 3 is simply counterfactual. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you don't want to be a team player,,, whatever...

However, your assessment of the "consensus" is, imo, quite incorrect, and here's why: The contributing editors rejected the official/not official proposal, and prefered a modified 3-choice vote as shown HERE and which has been the preference of three editors: Homunq, Simon Burchell, and Noleander. These editors are already supporting the fact that Spanish is the official language -- just not in the legislative meaning of the term -- and I have modified the original skewed choice 4&5 label above to make it consistent with the wording and interpretation of choice 1&2 block above, so that neither one bears an unfair advantage over the other as a result if the way they are worded. These three de-facto editors, of course, in addition to the other three editors who view Spanish as fully official in Mexico (Alex, Mercy11, and LuciferWildCat).

As the discussion progressed (and, in fact, in your own original opening statement above, as shown HERE) another question postulated was whether Spanish was de facto official or not, and the 3 editors above felt strongly that Spanish was neither entirely official not entirely not official, but that it somehow feel in between. That "in between" being, of course, the "de facto official" label. So the fact is, Spanish is both official and de facto official, and we have shown both of these (and, despite your new claim to "the None field", you have yourself supported de facto view at least 3 times above).

On the other hand, not a single citation could be found that stated "Spanish is NOT the official language of Mexico", so this is a view that, while held, cannot be substantiated by a single citation (in particular not one from the Mexican govt). As such, it is that position (and which happens to be the position you hold) that is unsubtainable by reliable sources and, thus, the real "counterfactual" here. This is against Wikipedia policy.

With that said, the support given is 5 altogether against the "official" label (via "speculative perception", as it is) to 6 in favor of somehow official (via citations from the Mexican government).

Sounds to me, Maunus, the "consensus", if there is one, is actually 6 to 5 against your proposal, and this is how it needs to be noted.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Let's get an uninvolved admin to close the rFc.For the sake of clarity I will substantiate my accusation of dishonesty: 1. several high quality sources including the president of the Mexican Academy of the Language have been presented that says that Spanish is not legally the official language of Mexico. 2. I have expressed and continue to express the opinion that both "de facto" and "none" are techically correct. These two views are clearly and unequivocally in the majority - the notion that we should write "Spanish" without qualification is clearly in a tiny minority who have not produced any arguments except suggesting that if a .gob website mentions it in 2004 then that counts a s a presidential decree making it official. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm uninvolved with this topic area, but I'm not sure how much help I can be. There is clearly consensus against #3, but I think that people are too divided on the rest for me to close this discussion as having come close to anything near what we would normally call a consensus. Would people be opposed to me (or someone else uninvolved) just picking semi-arbitrarily from the other options? NW (Talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading an hour-old version of this discussion, and hadn't noticed that NW has offered to close this already; I was about to do so, but actually ran into a similar problem. It is clear to me that "Official language: Spanish" does not have consensus, but there is no clear consensus choice among the others. Since NW has already offered to close, rather than step on his toes and close it myself with what I consider a reasonable compromise, I'll just suggest it instead:

Option 3 is rejected. This is clear to me, should be considered a "decision" by two uninvolved editors, and should at least clarify the remaining options.
I suggest, rather than choosing an unsatisfactorily messy wording for "official language", you choose mu and just leave the official language field out of the infobox.
I further suggest that the "national language(s)" field very simply say "Spanish and 68 indigenous languages", with no "de facto official" or "default" or other modifier for Spanish. The very fact that Spanish is singled out makes clear its unique position as the "main" language, without trying too hard to come down on one side or the other of an argument that doesn't have clearly defined sides. The complex nature of the status of Spanish in Mexico is punted from the infobox, and is instead described briefly in the article, and in more detail in the Languages of Mexico, where we aren't constrained to try to simplify the situation down to 2-3 words.

That's my uninvolved take. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

These two positions above would be clearly against the yes/no vote taken above in which 7 of 11 editors have chosen to go with the "official in some form" option (choices 3, 4, & 5).

Do admins have the prerogative to disqualify 1/3 of the votes of uninvolved editors? Clearly not without an administrative fault. Everyone of those editors who went for the #3 choice did so after reviewing (and quite likely approving of) the less rigurous choice #4&5 option. I would even venture to speculate that, when given a choice, the 3 editors that opted for choice #3 would probably move their vote to the choices 4&5 list rather than see the radical choice 1 prevail for (unless disconnected from the real world) no one can really believe that Spanish does not hold a distinctive and unique place versus the recently upgraded indigenous languages in Mexico. When editor Maunus has been flip-flopping between the very radical choices #1 and #'s4&5, it only makes sense that the editors in choice #3 should have the same opportunity to decide if they wish to move their stance to the choice #4&5 list. (Not that it matters, as there is no consensus regarding the "de jure official" vs. "not de jure official" question; but there is a consensus supported by a 7 to 4 vote in favor of "official in some capacity").

With this almost 2-to-1 ratio in favor of "official in some capacity", what's the right resolution here? Well, I don't hold the NGO Mexican Language Academy on as high regard as other editors here do because MLA is not a power player as the Judiciary, the Congress and the Executive Branch are. But in consideration for their opinion, the right thing to do here is to mark Spanish as defacto until such time as the MLA can resolve his own internal official language struggle with the government, when a mark of a fully-qualified "de jure official" would had been earned.

Why this? Well, as Dezastru stated above, the major problem here is one of definitions, and for those that didn't read through the 2-month old discussion above, we ask again, "What makes a language official"? If you believe a sitting Mexican government's policy augmentated by official statements from the CIA, US Dept of State, Britannica, etc, is enough, then Spanish is official today; but if you believe it requires an Act of Congress, then Spanish is not yet official. That said, when the decision hinges on a mere definition, we had better make the definition clear upfront before we commit to either of the two extremes represented by choice #1 on one end and choice #3 on the other end. But such "making clear upfront" never occurred here. The best we have is that by Wikipedia's own definition, a nation's official language is the one used "in that nation's courts, parliament and administration." While the other languages are simply translated into Spanish for judges, etc, (much like it happens in the US with English), it is clear that only Spanish fits that Wikipedia definition in Mexico. So, to be in sync with other sections of Wikipedia that have already laid the foundation for this definition decision, it's important to keep take that definition into account when a resolution is formulated. It does not matter what the reality on the Mexican streets is, the fact is that official has to do with what the government uses. The leaders at the MLA cannot make the Mexican government do this, only the govt itself can -- and it has. The indisputable fact by all parties, for or against, in this issue is that the Mexican Ministry of Exterior Relations, a Cabinet-level branch of the Mexican Government reporting to Mexican President Calderon, states today (2012) that Spanish is the Official language in Mexico. It's also undisputed that despite that MER statement, the reality is that today the Mexican government uses Spanish as the default language of communication.

Thus, while I personally still hold that Spanish has all the characteristics of being official in Mexico per the Wikipedia definition, for the sake of teamwork, I too reconsider my vote to the defacto option#4&5 as a better choice than option#1 under the circumstances.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I understand there is no current consensus for my suggested compromise; that's why I made them suggestions, rather than supervoting and closing the RFC. There is no consensus for any particular alternative, after a month of discussion. So the editors here can keep on discussing this minor issue to death, with what I expect will be more and more snark and bad feelings; or follow NW's reasonable suggestion and pick one of the remaining options semi-arbitrarily; or you can punt the issue to the article, where there is room to describe the complexities. As long as there is not even a universally agreed precise meaning for "official language", I expect it will be difficult to get consensus for any method of condensing it into a 2-3 word solution, so I suggest the later. But I'm not trying to impose it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I can accept option 4 in order to form consensus. The law does require that Spanish be given special preference in legal proceedings and in product labeling, so there is room for using a "de facto" designation. Dezastru (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

In Mexican usage "etnia" and "etnicidad" refers to membership of cultural groupings, (ethnic groups), not to racial groups as in US usage. The data inserted is about self-identified racial classification (respondents were asked "a que raza se considera pertenecer"). Listing it as "ethnic group" misrepresents the data. Also many other countries don't have race or ethnicity breakdowns in the info box. This is such a contentious issue that I don't think there is any reason to have this information in the infobox - it requires ample explanation of the meanings and usages of terms - which can only be given in the body of the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor article

I can't believe that Mexico has such a poor article representing it here on Wikipedia! Many of the sections look like they were were translated on Babel Fish. Over the next week or so, I'm going to devote some time to make the article readable.Profe DB (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Profe DB

Edit request on 7 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Changing category from "Category:North American countries" to "Category:Northern American countries" as all other countries.

SemanticMan (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done For the record, Category:Northern American countries is a subcat of Category:North American countries. Rivertorch (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mexico is part of North America, but not from the smaller region within, called "Northern America". Check the article. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I have reversed the good faith change, as Mexico is, in fact, part of North America but not part of Northern America. This is illustrated in the infoboxes of the two respective articles. Note: whether or not Northern America is or is not a subcategory of North America is irrelevant here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Good catch. I must have been thinking of it the other way around. Rivertorch (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Location?

From Portal:Current events/2012 June 6 ...

Mexican president Felipe Calderón signs a law making Mexico only the second country in the world to introduce binding targets on climate change (global warming). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18345079

found on Talk:Politics of global warming

99.181.141.238 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that thanks to you that page is protected, what's your point? Do you want to improve this article or just trolling multiple talkpages? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tourism pictures

This is an easy one. One user is replacing pictures on the tourism section. We had 1 archeological site picture and then 2 pictures of Mexico's beach resots icons Cancun and Acapulco. This user replaced the latter with another 2 archeological sites pictures. That's redundant. So I reverted him and it seems that he disagrees so he reverted me back.

I don't see any problem with my revert. We surely do not need 3 pictures showing almost the same aspect of tourism in Mexico. Thanks. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're spot on. There are already archaeological pictures in the Ancient cultures section, no need to flood the tourism section with them. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Several users besides me, have reverted user "Enemyusuar". He's resumed his edit-warring activity. I just reverted one of his edits. Please keep an eye on this user. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mexico is predominantly of african and amerindian descent. The study about the mexican population is not realistic. the study is: A study by the National Institute of Genomic Medicine, Mexico reported that Mestizo Mexicans are 58.96% European, 35.05% "Asian" (Amerindian), and 5.03% African. More africans than europeans landed in mexico. so this makes no reasonable sense. According to book:African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation. By Marco Polo Hernández Cuevas, Richard L. Jackson mexico is really an majority indian and african country. This book reads: on Pg. 95 History shows that African Mexicans, the infamous mezclas, became the majority of today's mestizos (Aguirre Beltran 276). The bibliography is: Bibliography: Cuevas, Marco P. African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation. Lanham: University Press of America, 2004. Mwest2005 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done - no request made - what is the change you would like to see?Moxy (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relation

Some help can be used on the article Iceland–Mexico relations to find Spanish language references. and it can change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&action=edit&section=2# http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&action=edit&section=2# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.104.3 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Estados Unidos Mexicanos" does NOT translate to "United Mexican States"

The precedence of words in spanish for "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is not correctly translated. The exact and correct translation is "Mexican United States" and that's what the article should use. Explaning this:

- The states (Estados) are united. They are first than all united, united states (Estados Unidos), that's an unbreakable unit, and then they are mexican, Mexican United States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).

Take into account that precendence of adjectives in spanish is somehow inverted to the english logic. While in english you say "The red car", in spanish you say the car is red after the "car" word: "El carro rojo" or "El auto rojo". In the title "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", the exact precedence is:

They are states
Those states, are united
Those united states, are mexican. They are the Mexican United States.

If we use "United Mexican States", than that translates in spanish to "Estados Mexicanos Unidos", which implies the following precedence in english:

They are states
Those states, are mexican
Those mexican states, are united. They are the United Mexican States.

There's no ambiguity here. "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" has only one translation that respects the same importance and order of words in english: "Mexican United States". They may seem the same thing, but it's not. Consider this example:

"Papel enmicado mojado", which is spanish for paper, laminated and wet. Following that precedence in spanish to english:

It's paper
That paper, is laminated
That laminated paper, is wet. It's a Wet Laminated Paper.

If we invert the precedence in the same way as the article does with "United Mexican States":

It's paper
That paper, is wet
That wet paper, is laminated. It's a Laminated Wet Paper.

Those two would be completely different ideas. The first case, you could just dry it with a towel. The second case, you cannot, it's already laminated.

I cannot edit that myself (I have not access). That's why I started this section. Please someone fix it. Thanks.

Fzarabozo (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Francisco Zarabozo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fzarabozo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Read Talk:Mexico/Archive_8#So-Called_.22Bad_Translation.22, Talk:Mexico/Archive_7#United_Mexican_States.E2.80.94correct_translation.3F, Talk:Mexico/Archive_3#Creation_of_the_page_.22Mexican_United_States.22, and Talk:Mexico/Archive_1#United_Mexican_States.3F. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a country's name in another language has nothing to do with translation or the rules of grammar. It has to do with how the government of the country in question wants to be known as in that other language.

With that said, according to the Mexican Embassy in the United States (Washington, DC), the government of Mexico wants to be known as "Mexico" and it further states that "The official name of Mexico is United Mexican States."^[1]

That's what matters and everything else is inmaterial.

As additional aid, check out the CIA World fact book at ^[2](under Government>Country Name>Conventional Long Form.) and it shows that teh US Government has honored the name that the government of Mexico wants to be officiall known by in the English language.

Again, UNITED MEXICAN STATES, and I have edited the article to reflect this.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Utter nonsense! The first two paragraphs of the section seem to paint a misleadingly rosy view of the country's official name that is sadly out-of-date. Surely the headline facts are the name, the fact that the USA has recognized the name, the unemployment rate and the prelidiction for senseless talk in this particular forum, rather than foreign influences of yesteryear? The problems are mentioned in subsequent paragraphs but should surely be high up in the first paragraph? Also there needs to be a prominent link to relevant clauses in the Mexican constitution which AFAIKT is entirely missing (perhaps the sre.gob.mx link should even share prominence as a joint Main Article along with "Official name of mexico"?Sonarclawz (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I accept that they are called whatever they want in English, but it's incredibly annoying that they chose to translate wrongly their own name ... 2620:0:1040:201:BE30:5BFF:FEE6:AF8E (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A country can be known by two separate names in different languages. They could call themselves the "Watermelon Republic" in one language, but "Banana Kingdom" in the other. For example, take South Korea. In Korean, their country is named "Daehanminguk", which translates [roughly] into Great Korea People Country. However, since that doesn't make much sense in English, the country is known as the Republic of Korea, or South Korea, for short. So, while, Estados Unidos Mexicanos may mean Mexican United States literally translated, it is known as the "United Mexican States", and this is the translation the Mexican government uses. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Name?

I came to this article because of this news story which says Mexico's president, who is shortly to leave office, wants to change the country's official name by dropping the "United States" because it's anachronistic (it was only used to emulate its neighbour in the 19th century). However this article says the country's official name translates into English as the "United Mexican States". The reference used to claim this title is the Mexican embassy website in Washington DC.

If the translation in this article is to believed, then the president's actions do not make sense as it does emulate the United American States. However if the translation as the article notes is more akin to the "United States of Mexico" or even the "Mexican United States", the decision to change the name makes more sense.

IMO the embassy website might have it's own diplomatic reasons for tweaking the name nevertheless, when it comes to names: the Mexican United States, makes more sense, given the proposal by the president of Mexico.

I think more investigation needs be done to clarify this. 86.161.148.145 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no need whatsoever for further "investigation". There are dozens of very reliable sources about the official name change proposal. Editors' opinions of what "makes sense" with regard to the country's name are irrelevant. A reliable source has already been added to the first sentence of the article. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - official name of country

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this CNN story, published today, as a citation immediately after the words "United Mexican States" in the opening sentence of the article. To make it easier for you, here's the completed cite, which you can simply copy/paste from the Edit page of this comment.^[3] Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Done.Moxy (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick edit. :) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem...

.Moxy (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Economy section: "The Mexican economy is expected to nearly triple by 2020". This is not supported by the reference, which forcasts about 4% growth per year, implying 35-40% growth by 2020. An economy tripling in 8 years is also obviously way too high, implying 15% growth per year. This sentence should just be removed. 69.110.234.242 (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious citations

There are some dubious statements in the article that cite unlinked sources. There is simply a last name, a year and a number. No publication is listed, no link to the source. This gives the impression that a statement is reliably sourced when in fact there is no way to ascertain the credibility of the source or if it even exists.

For example, under the section "demographics", we see:

"The word "mestizo" is sometimes used with the meaning of a person with mixed indigenous and European blood. This usage does not conform to the Mexican social reality where a person of pure indigenous genetic heritage would be considered Mestizo either by rejecting his indigenous culture or by not speaking an indigenous language,[188] and a person with a very low percentage of indigenous genetic heritage would be considered fully indigenous either by speaking an indigenous language or by identifying with a particular indigenous cultural heritage.[189]"

The references in question simply state:

188. ^ Bartolomé (1996:2)

189. ^ Knight (1990:73)

Who are these people? What is the publication? It seems to me that the claim that whether a person would be considered mestizo or not is based more on language than genetic heritage is rather surprising and one I would like to see a credible reference that supports it, not simply two surnames with a what is presumably the publication date and page number of some unspecified journal. These are but two examples; the article is full of similarly ambiguous, worthless references. What's to stop someone from adding a section called "Monsters of Mexico", and writing:

"Mexico is home to several species of monsters. Of these, only Q is indigenous to Mexico[350]. Godzilla and Rodan immigrated from Japan in the 1950s[351], and King Kong arrived some time later from Africa.[352]"

350. ^ Johnson (1996:2)

351. ^ Davis (1990:73)

352. ^ Jones (1996:2)

Ambiguous and unverifiable citations should be corrected to adequately indicate what is being cited or else removed, along with the questionable article items they are intended to support. CannotFindAName (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The example you enquired about should be fixed now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

SORRY, I COULDN´T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT THERE IS A PART WHERE IT SAYS THAT MEXICO IS THE SECOND MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT TRUE, MEXICO IS THE SECOND MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRY FROM THE 34 MEMBERS IN THE OECD. 148.228.120.73 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done I changed to it to indicate that it is the second most unequal country among the OECD countries.Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

187.233.237.30 (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please change Capital

and largest city Mexico City

19°03′N 99°22′W to 19°28´N 99°08´W

because the first coordinates are wrong and nearest to the city of Cuernavaca.

Done Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Introduction

The last paragraph of the first section, the introductory one, is in my opinion not necessary at all.

This paragraph should be either removed or added in a subsection, for example Mexican Economy.

This is the paragraph: "According to Goldman Sachs, by 2050 Mexico is expected to become the world's fifth largest economy.[34] PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimated in January 2013 that by 2050 Mexico could be the world's seventh largest economy.[35]"

The main editors of Wikipedia (if any) should realize that multinational corporations, including and particularly banks and management consulting firms, but also lawyers and increasingly NGOs with great focus on lobbying and the so called advocacy organizations(chiefly political and economic influence), are interested in promoting their services and serve their interests, and one just has to read and see the "Economy" section of many countries in Wikipedia to realize how they have been changed over the last years clearly by interested parties. I believe there should be an awareness of this because it would be clearly in detriment of Wikipedia's mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.4.134 (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Official Name of Mexico

This article used to correctly state in the intro that the official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in English United Mexican States. Now however it seems to suggest there are both two Spanish and also two English official names, the other name being in Spanish: Estados Unidos de México or in English United States of Mexico. Just to point out that no reliable citation supports the name Estados Unidos de México as a second official name, a single citation (the New York Times article) suggests "United States of Mexico" might be an alternate translation of of Estados Unidos Mexicanos (alongside the more usual "United Mexican States"). The one citation that does use the term Estados Unidos de México is an infographic, not a reliable source. And as shown in the other citations in the intro, both the Presidency of Mexico website and the CIA World Factbook describe the countries official name only as Estados Unidos Mexicanos, or United Mexican States in English.

Not sure why this alternate official name was added to the intro, especially the Spanish Estados Unidos de México, the intro should be reverted to how it was. Yes, the former President of Mexico did state he wanted to change the name because it was similar in style to the United States of America, not because it was identical in style.--90.199.141.189 (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add the change to the intro was made on 5 September this year by AbelM7.--90.199.141.189 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I reworded it as "and also referred to as the...", because "Estados Unidos de México" ("United States of Mexico") is not official as the sentence used to say ("officially the United Mexican States [...], and also the United States of Mexico"). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Communications

hi im living since always in mexico and yI will tell you that the biggest companies in telecomunications are :

1º telmex
2º unefon
3º Telefonica (movistar)

and right now other companies are getting on the business companies that began as cable companies as:

1º megacable (is more common than unefon) and is getting to be the first rival for telmex in mexico.
2ºtelecable (is being purchased by megacable little by little by sectors)
and more

well the point of this is to tell you that Axtel and Maxcom aren't players on comunication in mexico

Q: What did the Mexican firefighter name his two sons? A: Jose and Hose B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.225.68 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mexicans drive on the right?

I live in Mexico and I'm pretty sure we drive on the left.Watersoul99 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Watersoul99

Well, my experience is that in Mexico city, people drive all over the road. But the roads are marked for people to drive on the right hand side. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

^ About Mexico.Embajada de Mexico en Estados Unidos (Mexican Embassy in the United States), Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Ministry of Foreign Relations). Retrieved 21 June 2012.
^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html
^ Romo, Rafael (November 23, 2012). "After nearly 200 years, Mexico may make the name official". CNN.

[1] About Mexico.Embajada de Mexico en Estados Unidos (Mexican Embassy in the United States), Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Ministry of Foreign Relations). Retrieved 21 June 2012.

[2] ttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

[3] Romo, Rafael (November 23, 2012). "After nearly 200 years, Mexico may make the name official". CNN.

[1]

[2]

[3]