Talk:Mexico

Secretariat for Education

The infobox on the education section is wrong. Josefina Vazquez Mota is no longer Secretariat for Education! It is Alonso Lujambio since April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.127.251 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (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
• Mexico at Curlie
• Wikimedia Atlas of Mexico
• Mexico, an external wiki
• Template:Wikitravel
• Viva Natura: Biodiversity of Mexico

Comments about the photos

1) The Sonoran Desert photo was not even taken in Mexico. When I clicked on it, it says Sonoran Desert, Scottsdale, Arizona. Can anyone upload a photo of the Sonoran Desert that belongs to Mexico? We have plenty of Sonoran Desert in Mexico to have a photo of it.

2) The Diversity photo (kids in a school in Monterrey). Most of these kids look from the upper class (usually Caucasians), which does not look too diverse to me (if you want to keep the photo, re-label it). Can anyone upload a more common school photo with more mestizos? Also if you zoom into that photo, the kids' shirts/uniform states the college name, which is "American ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulisesr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Income Distribution Pie Chart

I removed this chart as it seems to have no real sources and the mean income suggested by it is significantly higher than any official (or unofficial) source has ever claimed.

• 
  Annual income of Mexican citizens in U.S. dollars.

Monterrey is not a state

Monterrey is a capital city in the state of Nuevo León(New Lion) please change this error in Mexico#Science_and_technology

It is not "New Lion." It you want to put it in English, use "New León" or "New Leon." Leon is a province in Spain, so the name stays the same. We are not translating literally here. More info on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_León —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulisesr (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Population

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

Don't believe anything Microsoft says, kid.16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.132.36 (talk)

Hmm. This is hard to calculate, especially given the number of Mexican citizens living on foreign soil either temporarily or semi-permanently. 109M is common but may be a little higher than the official government figures; I'll look for other sources; and of course, the US is deporting at the rate of 1K/day or so, which alters the number once again. 83.208.135.58 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And you know what else, under the "immigration" part it says "28 million Americans list their ancestry as mexican". Last time I checked the 10 million mexican illegals in this country aren't Americans, and neither are their anchor baby children. Please change this to reflect that a great many mexicans in the united states are foreigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.33.223 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2010 (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

H1N1

In the section on Health and Education, I wanted to add http://content.glin.gov/summary/218560 so researchers can see the gamut of legal measures taken as a response to the H1N1 virus.

I hope I don't catch Mexican AIDs.16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.132.36 (talk)

With all respect to American citizens, but the virus started in the United States of America (according with José Ángel Córdoba Villalobos, the first cases were from americans, and moths passed before the virus entered to the United Mexican States), and the one that answered to the situation and advertised the world about the situation were the United Mexican States, and authorities didn't stopped fighting against this situation (tourism, medicines, hospitals, etc.) --Ivylooy8540 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Mexico need a welfare state?

The extremely high levels of corruption and violence, with thousands of people killed every year by criminal gangs perhaps mean Mexico needs a welfare state so citizens are not as much dependent on criminal groups. In its present form, with such a high level of violence, corruption, poverty and criminality Mexico cannot be considered a developed nation. The Government of Mexico is undertaking a titanic task trying to manage it but it still has a long road.--83.53.110.5 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, but I am sick of foreigners saying that the drug cartels kill "innocent or regular citizens". Almost all of the killings has to do with the criminals themselves. They kill rivals because they are trying to make their cartels the number 1 in whatever city. That's why the army sometimes just watch the shootings, because they are killing themselves. Of course some innocent citizens have been killed, mostly because sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Thinking that the cartels are killing innocent people would be terrorism, and thanks God Mexico is no way under that circumstances. Also not all of Mexico has this problem. Some cities continue to be really pacific and safe (most of the cities! especially the resort cities!), while others like Ciudad Juárez and Reynosa are very troubled (because they are in the border).

This is a very very naive comment. Please refrain from it, thinking that the thousands of persons killed somehow 'had it coming' because they were involved in illegal activities is extremely irresponsible. Cartels ARE killing people, and there is a high level of insecurity in Mexico. Kidnappings, carjackings, run-of-the-mill mugs and robs. That the authorities decide to just sit and watch when the cartels kill each other is partly true, but it is also direct evidence of the inability to stop it. No shootings should happen outside my home, no matter whether it is between drug dealers or not. It is also inexcusable that authorities decide not to prosecute or investigate murders because they classified them as "between 'narcos'". That is just avoiding their responsibility. If they don't want it, they should just quit and stop living from the people's money. Hugo cantu (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This section has an odd title (and is probably inappropriate-- this is not a forum for general talk about the topic-- ), but I do want to clarify the situation (since we're not on the main page:) When I was in Acapulco four months ago, there was medium arms fire in the night. The weekend before, five heads had been put on poles along the Avenida Costera. Small explosives went off in the night, as is common elsewhere in Mexico. Even President Calderon, has conceded that much of Mexico has fallen outside Federal control, while the conference of mayors puts that at over 50%. In short, no where is beyond the violence, not Mexico City, no where. And to approach these issues with racism or prejudice-- is at least, not appropriate on a Wikipedia talk page about the article representing Mexico. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nbyrdb, 8 May 2010: With regards to Maya rebels & the Maya Free State (1930s)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The Mexico article states that "Maya rebels, or Cruzob, maintained the Maya free state until the 1930s." This statement is inaccurate/misleading. As shown in the Wikipedia entry for Yucatan, the Republic of Yucatan was annexed to the United Mexican States in 1848. Small factions continued to reject Mexican rule but, officially, the states consisting of the Republic of Yucatan were no longer independent of the Mexican federal government.

Nbyrdb (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of that.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

done.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BRIEF: I don't believe this is accurate. It's too simplistic. Plenty of fully independent structures continue to exist within the Federal structure-- for instance, 3500 fully independent municipalities in Oaxaca-- you have to look far more closely, to substantiate the above (or, more likely, discover the actual situation). Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relation

Some help can be used on the article Iceland–Mexico relations to find Spanish language references.

So-Called "Bad Translation"

Estados Unidos Mexicanos in english is MEXICAN UNITED STATES

United Mexican States = Estados Mexicanos Unidos | Mexican United States = Estados Unidos Mexicanos

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.106.98 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2010 May 29 (UTC)

United States of Mexico corresponds to the US-English usage, but would piss the USA because it gives Mexico equal and parallel status, right? ¿Es claro, no? KenThomas (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

United States of Mexico is not a proper translation, KenThomas. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

KenThomas... United States of Mexico would be Estados Unidos de México, which is a completely wrong translation. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex-- Please see below. Translation is rarely, simply literal. In the case of the representation of the name of a nation in another language, some care and close attention is required; you can't approach it as a "textbook" or "cookie cutter" exercise. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The current name (United Mexican States) should be the standard name used throughout the article and elsewhere. The CIA WorldBook calls it United Mexican States (Government > Country Name > Long Form). The United Nations calls it United Mexican States (UN). Why concoct something else? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The US, the US Central Intelligence Agency (a spy agency with a significant propaganda arm) and the UN declarations, are hardly neutral sources. Careful thought should be given to what the translation should be into an English-language context, and whether it properly represents Mexico to the reading audience, (add: per, exactly the POV and English-language-bias concerns which IANAS brings up below. 83.208.135.58 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

The USA is literally 'United States of America' and this, of course, is not without its controversies, as the 'Americas' extend beyond the borders of the political entity (nation-state) known as the USA.

In Mexican Spanish, as a result, the usage 'Estados Unidos de America' is hardly the clear, equivalent translation of 'United States of America,' just as 'Estadouniste' or the equivalent is likely a more popular or prevalent usage than 'Americano' (etc). In the end, with all respect to the US State Department, it is neither a neutral or fault-less authority (the use of 'reset' in the context of recent negotiations with the Russian Federation being only one example), and we have many example of the "Peking-Beijing" type, which reflect, well, in the end, colonial usages.

"United Mexican States," -- without looking over the history of how that translation came to be, it strikes me as more indicative of the 'Peking' side of colonialism and condescension towards Mexico, than the 'Beijing' side. It is odd, one stumbles over it a little, and it also has the rather odd function of making Chihuahua and Oaxaca "Mexican," in a way that the residents of the fully independent municipalities in those States, might find rather odd.

"Mexican United States" is more literally correct, in that the object of the adjective is the entire "Estados Unidos," but it is also awkward and may make it seem, to a US-English speaker, like it's like a Mexican attempt at being the United States.

"To my ear," as it were, "United States of Mexico" is the mejor, that is, better rendering into English. It has the advantage of representing the lands and institutions of Mexico as having a parallel and equal status as the US and other nations; of conveying that, currently and historically, Mexico is a political union of States, not a top-down or Federal imposition; and of-- though clarity "off-the-tongue" is not always a virtue in translation-- of, in this case, rolling off the tongue and not making Mexico seem like an odd, foreign and exotic place to the English reader.

The latter seems very important to me, today, given the political events. It's important to get it right and convey Mexico clearly and accurately, especially to the majority of English readers who will be in the US.

I will, however, certainly not re-edit the page title back to 'United States of Mexico' at this time. Yours, KenThomas (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as you understand that your position is a perfect example of what POV means, then there we have no problems at all. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, without you saying more, I'm not quite sure you have the point you think you have, and I might reply that there's no obvious way to escape a POV in this one :), which is exactly the "hard facts are rare" portion of POV refers to. Again: Peking or Beijing, in English? But please see the immediately below. Thanks again-- and specific thanks for bring up the POV issue and article. KenThomas (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead, after reviewing Afghanistan, Iraq, Belgium, France, Russia, Columbia and a few others, what I have done is adopt the general form used in each-- common name, followed by a statement of "official name." This would seem to a) have the advantage of approaching a standard for all WikiPedia articles about 'countries' and b) take what may be a politically or culturally contested term, out of the lede/focus, thus making the issue somewhat less important. KenThomas (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. I think there are discussions going on in the Edit Summaries here! Can we move those to the discussion page, please, so they're easy to track?

Energy section.

Hey guys... As far as remember, on Oct. 11 of 2009 CFE took over LyFC. I think the energy section needs to be rephrased stating the new events and mentioning that now all the states are managed by CFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwing76 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Supaman89 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Independence Recognized in 1836, not 1821!

The independence of Mexico was recognized on 28 December 1836. September 27, 1821 refers only to the Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire (this declaration is not to be confused with the Grito de Dolores or Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America). The Treaty of Córdoba of August 24, 1821, by which colonial Spanish representatives without authority recognized the independence of New Spain/Mexico, was never ratified by the Cortes Generales. When the document was sent by the representatives before the Cortes for it to be ratified, the Cortes refused.

See es:México (a featured article) and es:Guerras de independencia hispanoamericanas#Negociaciones de paz y reconciliación.--201.6.83.146 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Independence was finally conquered in 1821. After September 27th, 1821, the Spanish Cortes Generales stopped having authority in Mexico, so it is not that relevant when Spain acknowledge it and ratified the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.127.150 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EXTRA INFORMATION:

In 1821, the independence of the provinces and parties that used to conform the Viceroyalty of New Spain was granted by de viceroy Juan from O'Donojú, in the city of Córdoba, Veracruz; therefore, the document was called Treaty of Córdoba. But, before the provinces and parties were declared as such by the king Calos III because of the Borbonic Reforms, those territories were kingdoms,and those kingdoms were: Kingdom of Mexico, New Kingdom of Galicia, New Kingdom of Viscaya, New Kindom of León, New Kingdom of Santander, and the General Captaincy of Yucatán; and so, when Agustín from Iturbide was supposed to exercise the power in the new country, he decided to restablish the organization into Kingdoms, and that is why he declared himself Emperor, in other words, King of Kings. But the problem was that those ideals were against the ones most of the people fought for, so Iturbide was deposed and shot. Then, all the territory was organizated in a different way, almost the same way the United States of America were: divided into states and territories, a federal district, three powers (legislative, executive, and judicial), all of this declared in the 1824 constitution. --Ivylooy8540 (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sub-sections are too long

Most of the sub-sections are copy/pastes of divided articles. They need to be trimmed to summary size so that way whole page won't be too long and unreadable.--Cerian (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I noticed too :). I'll see what I can do, but please be patient, and if you can, make suggestions here as changes occur. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit War of a sorts, please bring discussion here.

I am attempting to clean up, expand and clarify the section currently under "20th Century," however, not only my section headings but detailed changes to text have been reverted (once or twice). I hope that we can have a discussion here.

First, this material, as the entire article, seems to me relatively weak.

"20th century" is an arbitrary category that does not particularly reflect any sort of change in Mexico nor a period in its history. I am roughly attempting to adopt the historical periods expressed by Enrique Krauze in Biographia del Poder and elsewhere, which are well-known ways of expressing the periods of Mexican history.

Are my period and section titles perfect? No, they're first attempts. Feel free to correct them, explore the underlying materials and have a discussion. Please do not revert changes outright, without thinking of the WikiPedia suggestions "be polite" and "assume goodwill," and without considering the value of coming to this page for a discussion.

Thanks to all reading this. KenThomas (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: notes on early 20th century and Madero/Revolution/US involvement: all of this is covered well by Krauze and several other historians of the period. I will work through, adding source footnotes and correcting/clarifying. KenThomas (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are idealizing and what you are doing are two different things. The way to work the History section is to start by sectionalizing the whole section, as it already existed, with headers that provide equal weight to -all- periods of Mexican history, starting with pre-historic times. Mexican history is one of the oldest in the world and, according to some authorities, the oldest in the Americas. To work on the 20th century alone, bypassing all other prior periods and, to exacerbate, to also drill down by creating subsections of the 20th-century era, even if well-intended, is undue weight. What you are idealizing, though, is achievable; we just need to be more impartial. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Economy

Why do people keep undoing my change? Mexico is in North America, not South America, so saying it was not affected by the South American economic crisis is completely irrelevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malejotm (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Minimum wage figures cited incorrectly
The minimum wage figures given in this section are described as "hourly", when in fact they are DAILY amounts. This can be verified by following the "Resolución" link on the referred Servicio de Administración Tributaria webpage: http://www.sat.gob.mx/sitio_Internet/asistencia_contribuyente/informacion_frecuente/salarios_minimos/
Please edit accordingly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.187.78 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC) YES THIS IS LONG AND IS ANYONE ACTUALLY READING THIS JUNK...I THINK NOT!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.77.26 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Minimum wages in Mexico are Daily (and a joke, but that's my own opinion). I also request for this to be changed. Thanks 189.204.37.131 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Race, Ethnicity and genetics: three separate things

The article and other articles about Mexico confuses and misuses the concepts of race, ethnicity and bio-genetic demographics. Ethnicity is a purely cultural concept which often includes the idea or myth of a shared heritage between its members, but which is not determined by any actual biological common heritage. "Race" is either a kind of social classification based on perceived phenotypical or socioeconomic characteristics, sometimes within a framework of biological heritage. In the US race is mostly based on phenotype and the idea of continental bio-geographic ancestry. In Brazil race is mostly socioeconomic. In Mexico I would think that the idea of race is a mixture of the two but in spite of searching in university libraries I have not found ANY books that treat race as a category in Mexico. This means that almost anything that can be written about race in a Mexican context is bound to be original research based on common language applications of these extremely complex sociological terms by editors. this is against our policies. I am not saying that there is no place for mentioning genetical studies of mexiccan populations, there may be, but NOT in the ethnicity section.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The basic division of the Mexican people in to supposedly genetically defined groups such as "white/mestizo/indigenous" is not supported by sources - and is in fact not relevant in a Mexican context. This article consists mainly of a section about racial categories that are no longer in use - Mexican society does not operate with a racial distinction of white, mestizo and indians as the colonial spanish casta system did - but cultural distinctions - being mestizo (this term itself is abandoned in Mexican social studies) does not mean to be of "mixed blood" it means to be of mixed culture, and indigenous does not mean to be descended purely from precolumbian inhabitants of Mexico - it means to have part in a culture that preserves many of its traditional aspects. This is what is the problem with this article it attempts to make it look like Mexican society is divided along bio-genetic lines when in fact it is not and has not been since the independence when the casta system was abolished. The sources used to make this fake biological race distinction look real is one genetic study that doesn't go anywhere towards showing that these genetic difference have any social reality in Mexico. They speak only about biological diversity - not about what that means in mexican society. The section on Mesitzos has no sources at all. This is particularly worrying since this category basically nolonger exists - mexicans donidentify as mestizos but as mexicans - the category is no longer used in government censuses. The section on indigenas correctly shows that this is a culturally not genetically defined concept - but the structure of the article belies this as the other categories are attempted to be biologically constructed ""indigenous is sandwiched inbetween the invented racial categories of white and mestizo. The section on white is based on the assumption that selfidentifying as criollo is the same as being white. In: short the entire build up of this article is based on an authors own assumptions about how best to understand the composition of the mexican people - not on any authoritative source that actually shows that this racial division is used to classify mexican people today. Each section has its own sources to show that there is a group called "white, criollo, indigena etc." - but there is no source that shows that this racial division is actually used to describe the mexican people today. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and the OR tag will need to be in place untill this is changed. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of including the 1921 census? Censuses are inaccurate now - only god knows how inaccurate they were 90 years ago. And what is the relevance to the section on ethnicity?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Music

Recent edits to the music section put much too much emphasis on recent and even up-and-coming Rock bands that are not known to the large majority of the general public. Currently alternative rock from 2000 onwards has a large paragraph while all other mexican music has two small paragraphs and doesn't mention any traditional genres such as the sones Huastecos, jarochos or jalicienses, any Classical musicians (e.g. Rolando Villazón) or composers (Manuel M. Ponce, Carlos Chavez), or any of the popular genres of tropical, cumbia, huaracha - indeed national popular musical icons like Jose Alfredo Jimenez, Javier Solís, Agustin Lara aren't mentioned at all. This seems like an immense amomount of undue weight on the bandsand genres preferred by a particular editors and gives a very ecclectic feeling to the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i want to add much more about traditional mexican music from around the country but don't really know much about them. If anyone has any thing to add it would be really great especially if somone could about traditional variations from different areas of the country. Rahlgd (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is the article is MUCH too long - there shouldn't be more about anything in any section only less. The solution is to remove the bands and musicians that are not highly notable. For example long lists of recent rock bands that are not widely known either inside or outside of Mexico.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the language issue, i was intent on stating the actual langues used, not just the greater language families, because there are no actual surviving languages known simplay as Nahuatl or Zapotec. Huaxcaleca Nahuatl called, Mǎsěvalätǒli/Māsēwallahtōlli is an actual surviving language and the one being refered to. However Huaxcaleca Nahuatl is not it's proper name, it was simply the name given to the language by the Jesuit preists. The name, pronounced "maʲseʲʋalɑtoʲli was commonly romanized as Māsēwallahtōlli until the 2003 textbooks in the language were made availabe in which the macron/umlaut diacritcs are used which romanize it as Mǎsěvalätǒli. Zoogocho Zapotec has used the Macron/Umlaut dicritic system for a long time and every time i have seen Zoogocho Zapotec written it has used this system including school books. The name for Zoogocho Zapotec is Dižaxon, pronounced "diʒaʐon". The SIL Zapotec-Spanish ditionary uses this name and phonetic system too. http://www.sil.org/mexico/zapoteca/zoogocho/S038b-Diccionario-zpq.pdf infact this is the only standardized system for the zoogocho zapotec that i have ever heard of. I don't understand why you are so against using it? Rahlgd (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't use native names for languages - we use english names. We don't write that the main language in Mexico is Castellano, we write that it is Spanish. This is because our readers are Enlgish readers and we need to give them information that they have a chance of understanding. The same goes for the Nahuatl variety that you are talking about. If it is important that it is Zoogocho Zapotec and Huaxcaleca Nahuatl then put in those names since that is how they are known in English. It isn't however important because it is not the case that "many Mexican rockbands occasionally sing in Zoogocho Zapotec or Huaxcaleca Nahuatl" - there is probably only one specific band using each specific language. The interesting issue is that some modern Mexican bands (not just Rock bands) are using different indigenous languages (Lila Downs for example sing in Mixtec, Nahuatl, Maya and P'urhépecha). You are including too much information about specific bands that are of your interest instead of thinking about the article as a whole.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if we state that some bands sing in amerindian languages without specifying which ones. I just wanted to put some examples up as proof cause a lot of amerindian stuff tends to get reverted away from this article. But yeah we dont need to say which ones. I just wanted to give a few definate examples and those were two that i knew. Rahlgd (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my views. I agree with you that the article could do with some more indigenous content, but now the article is already too long and things that are not important should be cut away in order to get it down to a manageable size. When it is reduced in size I think the history section needs to be expanded to include better information about precolumbian civilizations and their history.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Article length

Before we go and start removing massive portions of the article I think we should take into consideration that many nation articles are quite a bit past the 100kb. The article of Russia is definately long (222kb) and is an excellent article (even used by the wiki community as an example of a good article) even though it has long subsections and many images. Length dosent mean that it's a poorly put together article. This article can work as a long article (and will probably need to in order to explain the complexity of mexico) as long as we provide information which provides accurate representative information. Additionally i believe that we should model the history section off of Russia's deviding it up into sections which were relevant historical times. And perhaps states more of specific elements unique to mexican culture the way the Russia article goes about this with there Folk culture and Modern culture sections. Thanks for the help guys, i just realized i've been working on the Mexico article for almost 3 years now! Happy almost 200th aniversery Mexico! Let's make sure the Mexico article trully represents Mexico by it's 200th birthday! Rahlgd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the length is the real problem - the length is in fact a symptom of bad organization with high levels of detail in certain areas that are not really that important (recent rock music and industry being examples of areas alotted much more space than they should) and other arguably more important areas (history, politics, indigenous cultures) alotted a lot less than is their due. As it is now I find the article to be an eclectic mess consisting mostly undue details within the particular topic areas of sopecialization of its main contributors. The Russia article was promoted to GA status in 2007 when requirements where much less strict - it has failed to FA reviews where excessive length and unbalanced content was exactly one of the problems mentioned repeatedly.Also Russia's portion of readable prose was 66kb when it failed GA - this articles portion is 128kb of readable prose - according to WP:SIZE downsizing is a simple necessity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the History Section

Regarding the expansion of the history section, I think we should first organize which time periods we will be breaking the history section into i have a simple recommendation that the history section can work like that in the Russia article meaning having specific time periods broken into relevent eras. Here are som examples.:

Pre-Columbian civilizations -Broken into sections that explain the formation of the various groups that first ethnic groups that settled in mexico (not including the aztecs')

Aztec Empire and Mesoamerica -Explaination of the most recent and most advanced mesoamerican groups (the actual aztec, toltec, mayan territories that were divided along political lines)

Spanish Invasion -Detailing the spanish conquest of mexico and the immidiate times after.

Colonial Era as New Spain -Colonial Mexico

Independence and Empire -The war of independence and the first mexican republic and empire

Transition into democracy -The French intervention, The second mexican empire and the eventual return to democracy, benito Jaurez presidency,etc.

Porfirian Mexico and the Mexican revolution -The porfirian era and the mexican revolution

Mexico after the Revolution -Everything up till 2000

Modern Mexico -Mexico in the 21st century and the future

The Canada article seems to have a good way of doing it. It is short and to the pointMoxy (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The division of the pre-conquest time into "precolumbian peoples" and "Aztec mesoamerica" is wrong. Aztecs were precolumbian and Mesoamerica is the name of the culture area that was built up by all the cultures of that area from Olmec to Aztec. A better idea wouæd be to look at the division used for example in Languages_of_Mesoamerica#Linguistic_prehistory - but with the added division between Juárez, Porfiato, revolutionary and postrvolutionary and modern mexico. However the History section shouldn't be too detailed or too long so I doubt it would be a good idea to have subheaders for every period - it should be a single section with each period consisting of a paragraph or less. The details should be in the spinnout article History of Mexico.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy, the Canada history section is an excellent exapmle we could use. I think giving only a paragraph to each would be a oversimplifying it a bit too much but Canada seems to give each historical section enough room with subheaders with out going overboard on space. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree; however, I think we should write some special section about bicentennial. I mean, like projects and things that were created to celebrate this fete. Please I will aprecciate your answers ClaraBellazetin (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Spacealex, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the acronimn AEXA from the Mexican Space Agency, since this is not the official acronimn and is already registered as a trademark. The law that creates the Mexican Space Agency establishes only the official name and no acronimn.

Thank you! Regards

Spacealex (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: AEXA is clearly associated with the Mexican Space Agency, regardless of its officialness or how other people are using that acronym. Do you have a source which claims that AEXA is not associated with them? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)