Talk:Mexico

Middle America (again)

I'm opening a new discussion regarding this issue, the term Middle America exists and is used in some publications to describe Mexico's location however compared with the term North America is definitely not as widely used, not to mention that more than half the links about MA refer to the middle class in the United States, therefore I think that the undue weight of the term has to be made clear in the paragraph, because the way it is currently implies that both terms are equally used which are not, here there is a list of how some publications describe Mexico and North America, please notice the lack of the use of the term MA, [1] [2][3][4][5]. Supaman89 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course that in a carefully picked list the term MA will not show. This is a very long discussion, and we, including yourself Supaman, had agreed on a consensus. Regardless of the fact that Corticopia seems to be gone, we should abide by the consensus reached by a poll in which you voted as well, instead of reopening a Pandora box. --the Dúnadan 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe that we do have an undue weight issue, since the very first introduction of the term Middle America. If you try to find information about the continent North America, you will find its proper description without the use of this term, which indicates its rare usage. Of course we could also search and carefully pick a list of links that use the term, and then say MA and NA are equally used terms, but the real situation requiere the commitment and willingness of all of us. I also think that this is something we can easily fix, by adding two words: "rarely described". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all.. North America's not a continent! America is the continent, not North, Central or South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.139.154 (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should't forget for the english speakers in the world "AMERICA" isn't a continent, they divide in 2 (the americas)North and South America, I know, for the rest of the world is AMERICA, one single continent, but who knows why they divide in 2 the continent, i think it began when US build Panama Channel or something, i don't really care because for all the world AMERICA is the continent, but for english speakers America is United States. Now, Is important where's Mexico??, North Central South, Asia or Jupiter, Mexico is Mexico wherever it are... ">( Talk? ) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. How can it be that 'Middle America' is given undue weight to describe Mexico's location in the Americas, let alone North America, when it is only mentioned once in this article, and appropriately in the lead of the Geography article? Is it inequitable to make this assertion? No. Any number of reputable sources indicate this quite plainly (either that the country is in the region, or that the region is a component of North America: [6] [7]. [8] [9] (further on) [10] (also consult relevant articles.) That is not to say it is included in North America when appropriate. But to exclude the term is to give undue weight to a notion that is just as contestable: for example, North America - which in English is often used to refer to just the U.S. and Canada - as compared to Latin America, etc. NAFTA and arrogance are not carte blanche reasons to suppress other considerations in any encyclopedia. Shall we change the article to read that Mexico is a North American-has been if the U.S. Democrats take the White House (and make good on their promise to renegotiate NAFTA)? Pu-lease ... Ixtapl (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read carefully every comment. Nobody is talking about excluding the term. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read 'every comment', at least the ones that matter, and also the ones above in this section: it would appear that a few editors are engaged in a long, drawn-out point-of-view edit war about what is in North America or not. Also, it is curious that you would direct me to read every comment (and fixate on one idea), when it seems apparent that you and Supaman89 (given Dúnadan's comment above) are either unwilling or unable to conciliate. (This Corticopia may also be similar.) Really, what is wrong with the text as it is or was? Anyhow, can you provide a reliable citation that 'Middle America' is "rarely used"? As well, can this be sourced explicitly: "Geopolitically, however, Mexico is considered part of North America." This seems to focus on a specific sense and ignore senses when Mexico may not be included - see above. You haven't convinced me. Ixtapl (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The term Middle America is in deed rarely used compared to the term North America, you can do a quick search to check the number of results for each, the way the paragraph is right now, implies that both terms are equally used which is incorrect, it'd be like saying that the term Northern America is just as frequently used as the term Anglo America, all that needs to be done is to fix the current undue weight of both terms by clarifying that one term is rarely used. Supaman89 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yhat may be the case but, web hits aside, you will have to provide a reliable source which explicitly says it is "rarely" used, in addition to one about its geopolitical status. Your analogy is not necessarily accurate: after all, Mexico is commonly included in Latin America, in which case everything north is included in North America (read: Anglo-America). Ixtapl (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I waited a couple of days to answer it’s interesting to see that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been done precisely in this section (and quite fast by the way, almost like you were waiting)… anyway, if one argues that there needs to be a text explicitly stating the word “rarely” for it to be true, then one could also argue that there needs to be a text also stating that it is “not rarely” used, in other words common facts (like that whales can’t fly) are obvious to be true (I wouldn’t ask for a text stating “whales can’t fly” to know it’s true) in the same way it’s a fact that North America is the common term and that Middle America (which is mostly used for the middle class in the United States) is not that widely used, all that needs to be done is to clarify the undue weight in the proper section, Corticopia. Supaman89 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I am just observing and may edit, but stumbled upon this section and thought to comment. I am not this Corticopia, and have no intention of getting wrapped up in anything, so get it our of your head.

As for your response, I believe the burden of proof is on you to substantiate including "rarely", not on me to say "not rarely" (which is not exactly the case): you don't see any usage notes in the entry for 'Middle America' here, for instance. If references for either exist, please provide.

Anyhow, it is clear that, given your commentary, this discussion is better had with someone else. Ixtapl (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am "American" as in U.S. American (Norteamericano), and I have always been taught that Mexico is geographically a part of North America but culturally and socially a part of Latin America. Likewise, I have conferred with an excyclopedia and there are indeed 7 continents of the world-- Asia, Europe, Africa, Antartica, Australia, North America, and South America. Why is North America consisdered its own continent? The reason is because it has its own geogrpahical plate as a land mass, on the North American plate.

Mexico is in North America. And that is final. --74.47.100.150 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Mexican immigrant in the United States, I think it would be ideal if North Americans viewed Mexico as a North American country, while Mexicans viewed their country as Central American. The reason for this belief is that it pains me to see Mexicans clamoring for admission into a "club" that just won't have them. In short, I think the classification of Mexico as part of North America should probably remain intact, at least in the English-language Wikipedia article. (And here I must digress:) Otherwise, I am not a major fan of Mexico's cozy association with the United States, but I do realize that it stems from geographic reality and pressing economic necessity. As a way to offset this unpleasant state of affairs, I think it is essential that Mexico publicly but nonchalantly look toward the south and embrace its Latin American heritage, while still maintaining cordial relations with its northern neighbor. Above all, it is essential to pursue closer relations with the Central American nations, which are historically close to Mexico and whose people generally lack that non-so-subtle racism toward the Amerindian race that characterizes too many blowhards from certain other Latin American countries. (For an example of this barely-concealed racism, turn to the discussion page of the "Latin America" article and look under the headings labeled "white" or some variation thereof. Truly, there is more racism toward Mexicans in those pages--written by other Latin American authors--than I have ever seen in twenty years of living in the United States.) In any case, keep Mexico in North America, por favor. --Namenderkrieg (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you think that way since because usually Mexican Americans think a bit different than Mexican in Mexico; Anyhow, Mexicans do not view Mexico as part of Central America (maybe people from Chiapas and Oaxaca, but I'm not even sure about that), we've always seen it as part of North America becuase well... geographically it is there, there's just no way around that fact, regardless of that, we do keep relationships with all the countries in the Americas, and that includes Central American countries. Supaman89 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Mexicanos en USA
• The Presidency of Mexico
• Official site of the Government of Mexico
• Chief of State and Cabinet Members
• Mexico Connect
• "Mexico". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.
• Mexico from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• Template:Dmoz
• Wikimedia Atlas of Mexico
• Mexico, an external wiki
• Template:Wikitravel
• Viva Natura: Biodiversity of Mexico

Mexican Population

according microsoft encarta 2009 the mexican population 2009 is 109.955.400, could you change please?

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a mistake on the Administrative Divisions of Mexico table. Hermosillo is the capital of Sonora not Tepic.

Fixed, thanks for catching that. AlexiusHoratius 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Demography

Hello. According to INEGI and Conapo, the Mexican population reaches 107.5 million. You can look at http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/contenidos/estadisticas/2009/poblacion09.asp?s=inegi&c=2734&ep=18 or at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=193 (select "Républica Mexicana" and click on "Ver").--Youssef (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC) --Youssef (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that a majority of Mexicans are 'mestizo', i find that very unlikly. According to the TIMES COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE WORLD they have an ethnic chart done shortly after independance of the latin american states which shows Mexico ( and others ) has more indians than Mestizos and whites all together! I think whats happening is people are confusing mixed culture with mixed race, i mean in England our language is halve french but were not called Anglofrench people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.170.148 (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in that times it was, but if you read a little of Mexican history, Mexico has 3 wars after the independence and the 80% of the Mexican population die, after the Mexican revolution in 1910 only survived 14.3 millions of Mexican, after that Mexico open the borders to Spaniards running from franco like (60,000) and Frech people, after in WW2 to germans and Mennonites and a lot of europeans and all that people mixed with the Mexican and now in 2009 the 80% are mestizo, Indian and European. Actually in Mexico you are mestizo if you great grand father was mixed with indian, even if you are white with blue eyes if someone in your family was indian even 100 years ago, you are mestizo and in Mexico the 80% of population sometime someone in our family was indian. and very proud. got IT.?? --jmko22 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. Firstly Mexicos population was only 6 million at independance so the notion that it shrunk to 14 million is completly wrong, secondly 80% of its population killed? where did you read that. If that were true it would the worst genocide in history. Also ive never seen a blond haired blue eyed Mexican before, alot of dark skinned dark eyed Mexicans but never nordic looking ones! I think the Mexican mestizo thing is alot like the turkish were seljuk belief and generally a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.229 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I imagine both IP's are from the United States, hence I understand you are used to see Amerindian looking Mexicans, but in Mexico most people have both European and Amerindian blood, from various degrees, if you go to any Mexican city you’ll see people of all shades. When Mexico was the New Spain it was around 40 percent white, all those whites didn't simply disappeared, they got mixed with the Indians creating Mestizos, besides Mexico has had lots of European immigration throughout its history that's why most people in Mexico are mixed blooded. Supaman89 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but can you prove it? The only colonial charts i have seen sho indians at about 70% and the rest evenly divided between mixed bloods and whites. Are you saying all the indians disappeared. Anyone mixing ith that number ould soon be absorbed. I dont get why SOME Mexicans are so scared of being indian i mean do you think we whites are better or something and you want to be us? because you wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.229 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're taking those charts you saw in a book as a fact and you're disproving all the other sources, anyway there have been genetic studies that proof that most Mexicans have European and Indigenous blood (Links Official website from the Government of Mexico | One of the plenty articles published | PDF article from the website) I'll quote this paragraph from the article:

In the northern states European origin is predominant and in the southern states the indigenous one, while a small African origin is homogenous throughout the country.

Supaman89 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at more recent data like -Britanica has it at about 16% White, 16% Indian, and about 68% Mestizo, The CIA of the USA has it at 60% Mestizo, Amerindain or predominantly Amerindian (Mestizo still) 30%, White 9%. Check out this more me and tell me what you think Mennonites in Mexico Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because they say that do not make it correct. They are simply going with the flow, the point im making is that no proper genetic test has ever been done(like those done in many other countries including mine) and it is only assumed latin americans are mixed race. In many ways its just political correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.229 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

View this site, its a government based genetic study about the population, read it, study it, then get back to us. http://www.inmegen.gob.mx/ Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That Mexican population is manly Mestizo which means Amerindians are Mixed with Europeans, Doesn't exactly means that we are mixed with Albino whites, The Europeans We are mixed with are Spaniards which tend to be more dark or/and short in comparison with other Europeans(British, Scandinavians etc.). So although some of the statement that we are manly Mesticos is awkward for US Americans is only a matter of looking up Who are we manly mixed with. Besides for the US Americans that have never been to a largest cities in Mexico will find that We DO have some white people; that they tend to come from wealthier families in Mexico, and wealthy Mexicans do not tend to immigrate to the US in vast numbers as other Mexicans do, well you just need to travel to the actual country to more accurately describe the people from there( because even if you see a white Mexican on the US you will probably think he is just other American, and will never notice him). Also the CIA WORLD FACT BOOK States this Ethnic groups: (in Mexico) mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%-- tetzaoncoatl (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetzaoncoatl (talk • contribs) -- 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Romany in Mexico?

I don't doubt there's at least one romany speaker in Mexico. But if you mention it as a language there, then you have to add more than 10000 languages and you can not state it in the same level as french speakers (there are thousands of french speakers in Mx, colonies and a long heritage in some zones.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.232.34 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The spanish are not dark skinned, that is a steriotype. You'll find dark spanish complexioned people in wales and ireland. The old belief of dark skinned southern Europeans goes back to the 19th century when English and other Germanic sumpremecists tried to show the differance between so called 'true Europeans' and what they considered to be secondary Europeans. The spanish are white whereas the Mexicans are not remotly European looking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.244.90 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Spain has white people but most of them tend to be darker, They have always been mixing with people from Arab background, due to their proximity and several wars, you can even notice that in the etymology of several Spanish words and cities from Spain, Therefore Spaniards are darker, You have to make differences, though, northern European people are very much white, and southern Spaniard tend to be darker. (Is like if I only have seen black French people in my neighborhood and I will state all French people is Black. very ignorant.) even indigenous groups from Mexico look different, some are chubby and dark, others are tall skkiny with American Indian like features. So only racist people will denie that Mexican cant be white or of any other color. Besides, White is just another way for some people to feel superior, and if anyone can have it, they feel powerless-- 04:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetzaoncoatl (talk • contribs)

You still have no proof. On the Talk spanish people page it is shown that the spanish are entirly European, to say their not is racist. Why can't mexicans just be proud of their proper heritage. Its like the Arab states in the 60s all of who claimed full arab decent untill they realised that was nonsense. The same will happen in Mexico oneday!-English Bobby (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude but maybe I didn't emphasize enough the words genetic studies. They proof that most Mexicans are mix blooded, and yes, we're proud of out heritage and that includes the Indigenous and European part. Supaman89 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are not that reliable actually. The first one is goverment run, which tells people what they want you to know (this happens alot in England) and the second is only such because i can't speak Spanish and there doesn't appear to be an English translation.--86.141.67.133 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Althought I am quite tired of all those albino power supremacists, nordicists and other racists, we should refrain from leaning on clichés and stereotypes. Spaniards are not darker than french, british, italian, swiss, belgian or german people. If we are just speaking about their suntan, we could conclude that britons are red-skinned for what we can regularly see in Spain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint all of the haters, but if you come to mexico to study or live you will rarely see latin-indigenous looking people, i think the mistake is because most of the indigenous looking people works on tourist focused places selling tourist-like suvenirs (not because they cant get another place to work, but because it give good income), and the guy talking about the people after mexican independence and before mexican revolution, well... it happened one 100 years after the other and at that time it was normal to have like 10+ childs per family.

Sometimes i get a little surprised on how the self-proclamed "americans" see Mexico, is not that the people from Mexico is ashamed from their heritage, is just that most of the people just didnt care as the "americans" do trying to not mix their blood with "non-americans". I think one of the oldest and most common phrases in Mexico is "Mejora la raza" (improving the race), i dont care about giving facts at all, if you don't believe just come and see by yourself. Just on my family, the elders have blond hair and blue eyes, my cousin have gray-green eyes and light-brown hair and even with that heritage i'm totally mestizo looking (dark hair/eyes and no, i'm not adopted) so yes... most of the population in mexico is mestizo. P.S.: I'm not sorry for my poor english =).--201.158.234.64 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it depends on the area you visit what type of people you'll meet, if you visit the northern states (except for Tijuana) you'll see that most people there are light-skinned mestizos; if you visit the southern states you see that most people there are dark-skinned mestizos (you'll find a lot of pure indians in Chiapas and Oaxaca), here in my state Veracruz you'll find people with African heritage, nonetheless most Mexicans are mix-blooded mestizos with Amerindian and European blood as it has been mentioned plenty times before. Supaman89 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Economy

The very opening of the economy section in the article contains a contradiction in terms: "Mexico has a free market mixed economy...". See it? Free Market, and mixed economies are different economic systems, the terms are mutually exclusive. The term mixed economy was coined to refer to those economic systems with a market structure and significant levels of state direction (Like Mexico, the U.S. and almost every country). I suggest the sentence I reference be changed to "Mexico has a mixed economy...".

Nothing against Mexico but the prevalence of government enforced monopolies, state ownership, the often weak rule of law, and long history of tariffs and price controls are a far cry from the system Adam Smith described. Indeed few countries are true free markets, probably only Hong Kong and Singapore come close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.143.163 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the side bar containing quick facts about the Mexican economy, it claims that Brazil accounts for 30.1% and Chile account for 9.3% of Mexican imports. I checked the CIA Factbook source cited below, and these numbers are not at all consistent with the source cited. This needs to be corrected. For an academic project I am looking at OECD numbers on Mexican imports, and what I have found is consistent with the CIA Factbook numbers, and are wildly different than the numbers currently being shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.159.82 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is a free website, if you see any mistakes or inconsistencies, please feel free to fix them, that's the idea of Wikipedia that we all can improve it. Supaman89 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey, did anyone look at the chart of Income of Mexican Citizen in US dollars? Did you noticed it was unsourced, except for the person who uploaded it and gleefully admitted that they did it themselves? Are those numbers correct? If they are, they're quite surprising (and don't match the figures in the article!)64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)!64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)#64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)%64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

question for the native american indigenous people of new spain aka mexico

why don't you have a problem with speaking a language that was forced on your ancestors on their homeland?the language of the imperialistic slavetrading conquistadors.spanish in case you have no idea what a conquistador is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The New Spain (what later would become Mexico) was created by Spaniards, they mixed with the Native Americans from Mesoamerica creating Mestizos, which is what most Mexicans are nowadays, so Mexicans aren't "speaking the language of the conquerors", it is part of their heritage. Supaman89 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Though there is no proof Mexicans are Mixed race. Most of the peoples of the mediterranean were conquered by Rome yet non of them are half Italian today.-English Bobby (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself here since there is already a discussion about this subject two sections above (Demography). There you can read the paragraph in pink along with the link to check the genetic studies. Supaman89 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would any Mexican "have no idea what a conquistador is"? That's like saying "in case you have no idea what a Pilgrim is" to any American who has been to elementary school. And in case you haven't noticed, "conquistador" is Spanish for "conqueror", so no Spanish speaker should have any trouble figuring out what a conquistador is, even if they're unaware of Mexican history. As to the actual question, do you ignore the fact that for most of us, the conquerors are our ancestors as much as the conquered? Or are you aware of Mexico's ethnic diversity and are, in fact, asking how the indigenous, non-mestizo people of the country feel about speaking Spanish? If it's the latter case, your question is valid. The various indigenous peoples of Mexico still speak their original languages. Most of them are bilingual or multilingual, speaking one or more indigenous languages plus Spanish, although to this day there are still some who don't know Spanish. Anyway, the problem for these people is that their languages are ignored or discriminated by the mestizo majority and, in some cases, drifting to oblivion with every generation that passes. Some of them react by rejecting their culture and trying to adapt to the Spanish speaking establishment, others simply keep talking their language and teaching it to their children like they have aways done, and others react by taking more pride in their heritage and actively promoting it, but I've never heard any of them say "let's not speak Spanish, it's the language of the conquerors". That would be very impractical. As far as I know, they have no problem with Spanish as long as they can keep their languages alive and not be alienated for it. Itzcuintli (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiAds and Comercially neutral content

Hello. I've noticed that the article has too many images of private, for-profit corporations that might be silently taking advantage of the high traffic and exposure of wikipedia.

To be the clearest possible: An image on wikipedia provides hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of displays. While it is legitimate to be looking for a specific company on wikipedia, commercial images in this article seem to be out of scope and constitute a very effective free ad.

I hereby propose to replace/subsitute/delete the following images:

Economy::Bombardier_Global_5000.jpg ---> wikiad on the image foot. Would embraer be happy?
Economy::PueblaAssembly.jpg ---> wikiad on the image foot. GM and Nissan would love to have this exposure.
Sports::Estadio_de_beisbol_en_Monterrey.jpg---> wikiad on the image foot. Other baseball teams under-represented.

Economy::Transportation::Aeromexico_*.jpg ---> wikiad on the whole image. Mexicana is ranting.
Economy::Transportation::Telmexstore.jpg ---> wikiad on the whole image. Not good for competition.
HealthCare::Mexicohospital.jpg ---> wikiad on the whole image. Other private hospitals are not happy!

These images should be replaced with others commercially-neutral content. The first three might just require a new image foot.

I've started to fix this by deleting the image of a drone "developed by hydra-technologies", which was the most obvious wikiad. Hope we can all agree on this effort to improve the article. Regards to all editors! Cerealito (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But if you think about it that way, it gets much more difficult to find "commercially-neutral" pictures because most of the times you could be advertising someone, for example:

Economy: What could we put there without advertising someone? More buildings? I think it’d be repetitive.

Broadcast media: I can’t think of any image there beside something related to Televisa or TV Azteca (private companies).

Sports: If we put a baseball game we’re advertising some team? what if we put a NASCAR race, are we advertising NASCAR Mexico?

Healthcare and Education: We could put a public hospital (in fact I think we should), but if we put something like the Biotechnology Center, are we advertising the Monterrey Institute of Technology?

So, I think we could change some pictures if we can find better "non-advertising" ones, but we shouldn’t be too picky about it and try to remove them all at once because they could be advertising someone. Supaman89 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no rush, let's just do it little by little. I was looking at the articles of the USA or Germany, they seem to be more commercially-neutral... I know it's a difficult task but it's totally worth it. I don't have images at hand but maybe...

Economy : let's just remove the Volkswagen link.

Sports  : let's just remove the Sultanes link...

Healthcare : let's put a public hospital pic. As for the ITESM, I think it's a non-profit so no problem here.

Transportation : Let's change the aeromexico plane for a picture of aerial traffic (or maybe one WITH MANY AIRLINES being displayed?)

I hope all editors can take this into account in the future when adding images! Cerealito (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Trim the article

I have tried to trim this article down bit by bit with clear explanations, but in one edit I have been reverted like a common vandal. I am entitled to a better explanation than "I understand you're trying to trim it, but...":

• Why do we need more than one infobox in this article - the {{Infobox country}}? The rest of them (Economy, Politics, Cities, Education) belong in relevant daughter articles.
• Why do we need 1,000 or so double spaces padding the article?
• What are the right-alignment fields in image thumbs for? Thumbs are right-aligned and 180px by default.
• Why are the Administrative Divisions next to Geography, when they are "Political" creations?
• Why have detailed subsections on infrastructure been restored to "Economy", when we should be summarising each section?

Green Giant (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the summary, I didn't finish my edit, I only got half way through because I had something else to do. I was (and did) actually going to do some of the same stuff you did in your edit such as deleting unnecessary links, double spaces, removing the right-alignment and 180px thing, etc. I just didn't think removing all those infoboxes (politics, economy and health care) and the removal of some pictures was such a good idea, so instead of adding up all those things again, I was easier for me to revert it to its previous state and from there delete all the stuff you did in your edit (the ones I mentioned before) and that’s what I was doing. Once I’m done with my edit we discuss about it and see what’s the best for the article. Supaman89 (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Green Giant (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the CIA Work Factbook, Mexico's GDP (PPP) is 1,559 trillion in 2008 so why is it constantly being changed back to billion? Like a country of that size could survive off that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielg77017 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the source again. It says "$1,559,000,000,000" for GDP PPP (1point559 trillion) and "$1.143 trillion" for "GDP (official exchange rate)". The "." in the latter is a decimal point, not a thousand separator. Green Giant (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Official name of the country

Although in a few documents, the correct translation of Estados Unidos Mexicanos in English should be Mexican United States rather than United Mexican States. You may find references here:

The constitution in English by a research institute at UNAM: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/constmex/pdf/consting.pdf

An article about its armed forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Armed_Forces

I hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnjnjn (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see old discussions about this subject. Supaman89 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather poorly written

Surprising to find much of this article poorly written. Just one example, "As the conservadores refused to recognized, the War of Reform began in 1858, both groups had their own governments, but ended in 1861 with the liberal victory led by Amerindian President Benito Juárez. In the 1860s underwent...." Plain bad writing.

Wikipedia is a free website, if you see mistakes like those you can help fix them. Supaman89 (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

Blue Demon, Jr. wrestles El Hijo Del Santo.

This image will look good in the sports section can someone pleas add it. (unsigned)

I would rather not add it, for the following reasons:

1. There are already 2 images in that section.
2. Football (Soccer) and Baseball are Mexico's most popular sports.
3. Could we even consider "Lucha Libre" a real sport, we all know it's fake however entertaining it might be. Supaman89 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lucha Libre is quite an iconic sport from Mexico. The two sports images in the article are relatively boring, but this one is quite entertaining. I say, delete the baseball stadium picture and add this Lucha Libre picture.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Independence

Perhaps reword the part about declaring independence. Hidalgo and Allende didn't work together as implied here.--Phil5329 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day

Independence day is incorrectly listed as September 15, 1810 in the country stats section on the right hand of the page. It should state September 16, 1810. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.90.245 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Run-on sentences; sentence fragments

This article, and the History section in particular, are full of run-on sentences and sentence fragments. I corrected one of them, but correcting the rest might be a good project for others to take up. Jrsightes (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Error with Mexico City Population Volume

Can someone check that the information about current population for mexico city is correct?, I am quite sure they are living 22 million people not 19 million (this information is acording to the INEGI or national statistics and informatic institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianandrade (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of several images

• File:Field in central Mexico.jpg - A picture of buildings isn't appropriate for the climate section.
• File:Turbiny wiatrowe ubt.jpeg - Good info but those wind turbines aren't from Mexico.
• File:PS3&PS3slim.png - WikiAd for Sony and it has nothing to do with Mexican science or technology.

Supaman89 (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

<Add Mexico, with Switzerland and the Republic of Korea, form the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), regarding UNFCCC

Add Mexico, with Switzerland and the Republic of Korea, form the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG). http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/negotiating_groups/items/2714.php Switzerland signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 and ratified it in 2003, when did Mexico? The EIG is related to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, currently the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 '"COP-15" in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7 and December 18, 2009. As for notability, this meeting has been called the most important meeting in history, for example ... for reference starting points, see Category:Climate crisis, Category:Global warming, Category:Climate change, Category:Stop Climate Chaos, Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action, Category:Action on climate change 99.155.157.151 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.157.151 (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)