Talk:Mexico

Be careful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.191.203 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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?

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)

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)

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

Irrelevant Content and undue weight

The article has come to a point where we urgently need to fix it.

I see editors with hidden agendas adding content that is completely irrelevant to the article and that seems to me much more as fan talk than anything else. I lived in Mexico for many many years and I still have lots of contacts there. I closely follow the mexican press and I know:

• That 'Hydra Technologies' is not a major player in the aerospace/defense industry
• That 'Zonda Telecom' is not a major player in the communications/electronics industry whatsoever
• That this list will certainly grow as other editors with conflicts of interest continue to add content that is much more WP:self-promotion than anything else.

Mentioning CEMEX, TELEVISA or AEROMEXICO in the article seem perfectly normal to me as they are internationally recognized companies that play a major role in the country in their respective fields. But Zonda Telecom? Really? Do people looking for information about MEXICO really need to know that Hydra Technologies won a prize that no one ever heard of?

To the editors that seem to have an special interest in having mentions to the above mentioned companies in THIS ARTICLE:

please explain why and how are these mentions worth including in an article that is supposed to be about A COUNTRY.

I'm once again removing this irrelevant content from the article the time being.

Before reverting this edit or replying, please read wikipedia's policies about undue weight thanks.Cerealito (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This Content is not irrelevant and just because something doesn't interest you or you haven't heard of it dose not give you the right to eliminate other peoples right to know this in information. Hydra technologies is relevant because Mexico is trying very hard to become to become a major aerospace power and Hydra represents the first internationally recognized aerospace innovator of Mexico. Zonda telecom is actually fairly well known even as far away as Russia and Europe so i don't get why this can't be mentioned since Mexico is a country which is becoming ever increasingly known for it's telecommunications sector. Lanix is a world contributor to the electronics industry so it seems very weird that you say it should not be featured in the scienc and technology section. I've read the undue weight section and talked it over with another editor and the undue weight doesn't apply to this. Also, corporations play a huge part in modern Mexico so they will have to be mentioned so there is no reason to revert things just because they involve private companies. Just because a private company is mentioned and positive things are said about it, it doesn't mean that it's a wikiad Rahlgd (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the content is not irrelevant `just because something doesn't interest me`. As matter of fact I do work in the aerospace industry. I'm deeply interested on UAVs. And that does not make Hydra technologies more or less worth mentioning in this article. Don't be ridiculous, I'm not taking anyone's right to know anything. They still have their right to know whatever they want, they just have to look it up in the appropriate sources, NOT HERE. The greatest example is the paragraph about the `Leonardo Da Vinci` prize. I'm not claiming it's not true I'm just saying it does not belong here.

`Mexico is trying very hard to become to become a major aerospace power` (sic). First of all, Mexico is not a person. Mexico can not be 'trying very hard' to do anything. If there are official policies to make the aerospace industry grow, that's cool. THAT might be of general interest in the article, maybe in the industry section. For now I just see a minor, not-well-known company taking two out of the seven paragraphs of a section that is supposed to be about the GENERAL state of science and technology in a country. How you ruled out undue weight there is completely beyond me.

`Zonda telecom is actually fairly well known even as far away as Russia and Europe.` Citation needed, please. I'm writing from a western European country right now. Never did I hear of Zonda Telecom until I came across with its mention in this article. We can keep the mention to Lanix if you want, at least I remember considering buying one of their computers.

As for your statements defending mentions of corporations in the article, I don't understand why you wrote them. I never had a problem with those, as I stated from the very beginning. Cerealito (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to achieve concensus in the Industry/communications section, I'm removing the image of Zonda Telecom but leaving the text mention. I've requested citations though; the information given is very dubious. Cerealito (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The glowing mention of Zonda, Hydra Technologies, and Lanix certainly fall under undue weight. This is not because I'd never heard of them (I hadn't, except for Lanix, neither in Mexico nor in Canada, where I live now), but because they are not representative of Mexico. Think the disaster the Mexico page would be if every moderately large company that won some award, or that exports to Latin America, or that does business with Europe or Russia, was featured on the page. JorgeAranda (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fellow wikipedian Rahlgd: I deeply regret that you keep adding content to the article that is not relevant to it. We have a serious discussion going on here and you just reverted changes without any further explanation. Reverting changes without any explanation is against wikipedia's spirit, so please take the time to explain your reverts in the future. Let me assure you once again that I don't have any kind of problem with private companies. Please stop insinuating that, it is simply not true. There are many mentions to them in the article and I have never attempted to delete them, I'm fine with them and I will try to add more if they make a better article.

The point here is: the mentions to Zonda Telecom and to Hydra technologies are completely out of scope. I've given you my reasons and replied to your arguments. Fellow wikipedian JorgeAranda gave you more reasons. Looking for a consensus I edited the article removing the images but leaving the text mentions and asking for further references. You responded with a revert and silence...

could you please at least read the concerned sections as they are? I'm waiting for your reasons and arguments, don't you think that we could get to an agreement? Cerealito (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do think that it is completely appropriate to have at least Zonda telecom mentioned in the communications section because they have contributed a lot to the Mexican telecom industry and have made large strides to advance mobile technology in Mexico and as far as not being recognized internationally i don't see why Zonda would not be considered multi-national considering the six meter high zonda mptrez billboards in Moscow. I do understand the your issue with Hydra however and i will not attempt to over state them in the science and technology section but i do think that we can have the Zonda phone in the communications article because even using the logic that Zonda is not big outside of Mexico (which is not entirely true) it is still a major company in Mexico and the article is about Mexico and that section is about the communications of Mexico. To not include zonda in the communications article would be like talking about the automotive industry of Japan and not mentioning Toyota or Honda. Rahlgd (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rahlgd, thanks for replying. I see that you didn't completely reverted my changes. As a gesture of good faith I will do my best to get to an agreement here before I commit any changes to the concerned sections.

`I do understand the your issue with Hydra however and i will not attempt to over state them in the science and technology section` - OK now, I guess we just agreed on one point. Hydra technologies has text mention on the industry section. I guess that's already enough for a company that does not represent Mexico at all. Can we just leave the s&t section without any further mention to Hydra technologies? Moving on to Zonda Telecom...

`Zonda telecom (...) they have contributed a lot to the Mexican telecom industry and have made large strides to advance mobile technology in Mexico` - According to whom? please point me to at least 3 reliable sources stating this, otherwise this is just original research or your very personal point of view; In this latter case there is no reason to mention Zonda Telecom in the article.

`i don't see why Zonda would not be considered multi-national considering the six meter high zonda mptrez billboards in Moscow.` - Where are you getting this information from? This is the kind of statements that make me think of a Conflict of interest going on. How did you get this specific information? Anyways, I won't even ask you for further references on this. Even if Zonda Telecom is considered 'multi-national' they do not represent Mexico at all and an image of their products has no place in this article. If their billboards were double the size and they had them in London as well, that wouldn't change a thing: Zonda Telecom is not relevant here. You can add that to the Start-up Companies based in Mexico article if you want, but not here.

Finally, I do not think it is legitimate to just erase tags. I did add them because some statements seem dubious to me, and I ask for reliable sources. Content that is not verifiable is subject to be deleted in a reasonable amount of time. Cerealito (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fellow wikipedian Rahlgd: You keep removing tags instead of adding sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources stating the information you insit to add to the article and that I find very very doubtful. I'm kindly but firmly requesting you to assume your burden of proof.

I'm also removing this statement: `Many Lanix products and other Mexican electronic products are marketed in the United States and Europe by Phillips, Sony and other companies under royalty agreements.` That was 'supported' upon this citation: http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/mexico/403485-1.html. As any editor will be able to see, that webpage has nothing to do with the Lanix corporation.

Cerealito (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i don't know how else to prove to you that Zonda is major representative of the Mexican telecom industry. That's like asking someone for proof that Samsung is a major representative of the South Korean electronics industry. It's just common knowledge. And yes there are Zonda billboards in Moscow right outside of Domodedovo airport and in downtown which i have seen so i'm pretty sure Zonda is known in other countries. I don't know why your so transfixed on getting rid of Zonda Telecom. Why would you even try to delete it's main article? If anyone has a conflict of interests it looks more like you just have some problem with Zonda. Zonda is representative of the Mexican communications industry for the following reasons:

1.It's Mexicos first indigenous mobile phone designer and manufacturer
2.It's products are used by large companies such as Telcel and America Movil
3.It is a Mexican company that other foreigners may know about
4.It has a large revenue and is a major corporation in the cell phone industry in Mexico and is known in other countries
5.It has integrated very advanced technologies and has been the first Mexican company to implement these
6.It employs over 19,000 people!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahlgd (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I can see that some Mexicans may be proud of this list, none of its items are compelling reasons to devote a fragment of a page on Mexico to Zonda. A firm need not be mentioned in a country's page because it designs and manufactures mobile phones indigenously, nor because some other companies use their products, nor because foreigners may know about it, nor because it has a large revenue, nor because it features 'very advanced technologies', nor because it employs lots of people. Again, if criteria like these were to be used to accept mentions of firms in Mexico's page it would soon become a long and uninformative business directory.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I, too, sense a conflict of interest. I find it strange (but not impossible!) that a neutral Wikipedian would spend so much effort squeezing in a mention to this particular telecom. Perhaps you have nothing to do with Zonda and it simply makes you proud, and I sympathize with that, but I wish you could also see that, from a neutral perspective, a firm like that has very little to do in an article about a country. JorgeAranda (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rahlgd: please review these very important wikipedia's policies Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:ADS#Be_careful_when_giving_examples. In a nutshell:

`The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.` (emphasis mine). None of your claims have been sourced. Common knowlege does not apply here: I've been around for a while...

`Examples in articles tend to attract spam. Sentences such as, "For example, Chevron Corporation has ..." tend to attract editors to add more examples. Examples should be sourced with independent, reliable sources. Such examples should also be highly relevant to the article topic.` (emphasis mine). Even if you provided sources to the information you state, HOW relevant is it to THIS article?

`Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. ` (emphasis mine). You say that I have a problem with Zonda Telecom. Well not directly with it, but with their fans adding carefully masked promotion to wikipedia.

I'm sorry but I still don't see WHY should an article about Mexico have a big picture and a glowing mention of Zonda Telecom. In the best interest of Wikipedia and the present article, the disputed content should be deleted. It would be a real shame to take this discussion to the COI noticeboard Cerealito (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sources, the poor relevance of the disputed content to the article and the lack of response from the interested editors, I'm once again deleting this information in spite of the lack of consensus. Cerealito (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Armed Forces

• The Mexican Armed Forces section, as many would know, suffers constant vandalism by fanatics who love to attribute all sorts of weapons and equipment that doesn't belong there. In this section I saw that it stated that Mexico was operating the Su-27 Flanker and it gave two outdated sources which only elaborated on the fact the the Mexican Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR) was contemplating the purchase of the Su-27, but these articles never actually said that the purchase had been fulfilled. I know for a fact that the contract to aquire the Su-27 by the Mexican Navy never came to pass because the SEMAR (SECRETARÍA DE MARINA) stated in their website that the offer to purchase the Su-27s was declined as you can all see for yourselves here: [11] Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate in Mexico

The information about Mexico's climate is poor because is missing much of the information of the northern desert climate and the extreme temperatures of 45 °C of more in the desert. {{editsemiprotected}}--Mario 181193 (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Mario 181193

Please explain exactly what changes you want made, and provide a reliable source supporting it. AJCham 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this section should include the geography of the desert in Northen Mexico like in Sonora, Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and small portions of Tamaulipas. It should include the extreme temperatures of 50 °C and upwards in the Sonoran Desert in Baja California and Sonora and the extreme temperatures of the major city Monterrey of 40°C adn upwards in summer time and that northern mexico is located at the same latitude of the deserts in northern africa and Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario 181193 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected

On the right section where it shows Mexico's declaration of Independence as sept 15 1810 that is incorrect the real date for Mexico's declaration of Independence is Sept 16 1810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlochacon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)