Talk:Mexico

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?

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

mexico

many of our modern foods now come from mexico do to all the imigrents takeing there culter with them, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereal21 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

with population of 111 million, it is the 11th most populous country. Two amazeing to beleeve--all these 1s in a only place. is it be true? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many images?

This article has multiple issues, the most visible, perhaps, is the unnecessary amount of images. I've removed some myself (size has been reduced by nearly 8 KB), but I think it'd be better if there were a clear consensus concerning which images should be removed. Kraft. (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have been deleting unecessary images for months! Sadly user Rahgld is to blame. He sometimes adds images that have nothing to do with Mexico, such as the one of Burbj Kalifah (world's tallest tower) or one about Voladores de Papantla is the sports section (C'mon!). Some very short sub-articles such as culture or tourism, have been stuffed with 2 or even 3 pictures in the past, something that is just too much. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

Reverting Rahlgd's edits

I felt I had to revert the recent edits by user Rahlgd for the following reasons: First and most upsetting, Rahlgd vandalized some numbers, such as the estimate of population in prehispanic times. Second, he continues to add pictures to an article that has already been discussed, several times in the past, as having too many of them. Third, several of the pictures suggest personal bias or conflict of interest issues. Fourth, some of the edits consist of dozens of small changes, few of them objectionable on their own, but together they add up to present the subject matter on a very different tone than what had been agreed by the community before --this is notable in the Industry and Military sections. I am sorry to revert other people's edits along with this. JorgeAranda (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers in the pre-hispanic times were sourced from national geographic. Also while you mean good faith in your revert you also reverted other peoples work and shouldn't have just reverted everything. If you want to get rid of some images, we should go over them instead of just reverting the whole thing. Also i am confused on how any of the images are a conflict of interest. I am going to revert the most recent edit and from there we can then decide what we should change. Rahlgd (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you Jorge. Rahlgd has been adding some dubbious information here and there, and while I personally am not against adding industry examples of success (such as Zonda), I am of adding too much pictures that are not representative of Mexico, such as the Burbj Kalifah or Aztec dancers. Rahlgd, I understand you want to portray better the image of Mexico to the world, but sometimes your edits are very childish, they lack of verifiable sources and sadly, other user might consider them objectionable due to the fact that it seems boosterism. The discussion about too many images has been long in the past... with you. You seem not to understand that a good article doesn't require that many pictures. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been very active lately because of personal issues, but I had been thinking of reverting a number of Rahlgd's little changes myself. It's really sad that some people just don't get that Wikipedia is about verifiable, neutral content and not about promoting their very personal idea of things. Cerealito (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay that sounds reasonable. Okay then, i'll not add information that might sound dubious without sourcing then. Sorry if i added thing that could be portrayed in a personally advancing manner, i realize what you mean now. I must disagree on the statement that Aztec dancers don't relate to Mexico. I'm not at all advocating the removal of of the other image in the culture section but i think that there can be both without the article having too many images. Rahlgd (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No one (at least NOT me) has ever said that Aztec dancers "don't relate to Mexico". Current Mexican culture is far better represented by folkloric dances. Every single Mexican state have one typical dance. No state is represented by an Aztec dance I can assure you. And nationally, Jalisco dances have always represented the country and certainly Jarabe Tapatío is one of the most known Mexican folkloric dances in the world.

Also, there is the issue of too many pictures. A subsection with only one paragraph does not need two pictures. I have erase and will continue to erase the Aztec dancer picture. It simply does not belong to a subsection of culture.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Prehispanic culture is definitely an important element of Mexican culture. But Prehispanic culture is already represented throughout the article, and this "Aztec Dancer" picture is of dubious representativeness. I traced it back to its source in flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dawn_perry/1120985813/), where I found that the picture shows "Aztec dancers demonstrate for the "Queen" at "tea time" at the Bristol Renaissance Faire in Bristol, WI." It is a bizarre picture, actually, and a caricature, and I do not think it is representative of Mexico at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeAranda (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that the Aztec dancers can be considered a relavent cultural aspect to the culture section but i do see your argument that it could be considerd none-representative of the country as a whole. However i don't believe the current picture is completely representative to Mexico as a whole either and i think massive segments of the national population would agree to neither of the pictures as being not universally representative. So i believe that both can be considered equally relevent. If we only leave either one it is not completely representative of the whole nation and will lean to one stance or the other so i think that having just one is not trully representative of the cultures that make Mexico. Rahlgd (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing out the most important point: it is a sub-article. Sub-articles should not have that many pictures. So if one picture is displayed, let it be the one that represents better the "culture" of Mexico. Aztec dancers are not better to portray Mexico than a Folkloric dance, which is far more actual and more spreaded in all of Mexico. Also our marvellous prehispanic cultures are already well represented in the article, in other sections. Using too many pictures of ancient cultures only promotes a stereotyped Mexico. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I only want to point out the fact that Raghld has attacked me in a very uncivil way. He went for "help" to other user talk page kinda spreading a prejudice against me. He said that I'm against native Mexicans because I find the Aztec dancer picture not suitable for the culture section. WE have given him our arguments, yet he decides to make this a personal battle. So I'm not sure how productive is to "talk" to Raghgl, when it seems that the only thing that matters to him is to get the things done his way. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I said that because you have made those kind of remarks against me in the past and called me a racist because i said that there were more indigenous peoples in Mexico than whites. YOU CALLED ME RACIST! If anyone has spread prejudice it's you! You had no right to call me racist against anyone just because you disagreed with what i said! I'm not even indigenous so the fact that you said i had prejudice against whites and mestizos was ridiculous and purely you venting on me because you didn't like the information that i presented! I don't think that the Aztec dancer represents a stereotype at all. In fact it seems like you just have some problem with showing the Aztec dancer because it does not adhere to the culture you have in your mind as being the "true" culture of Mexico. And in the above text you failed to mention how you were the one who said i was racist in the first place, and i did not say you are biased because you did not want the Aztec picture, i said you were biased because you called me racist for saying there are more indigenous peoples in Mexico than whites and how you kept changing the numbers in the demographics section so it would look like there are more whites than indigenous people behind my back even though the information i presented was cited and accurate information! You were the one that lied and tried to inflate the white population and then you call me racist for presenting accurate information that went against you! That is why you appear to be biased against indigenous! It also appears that you are biased against them because you won't put a picture of an indigenous dancer because you say it does not represent the culture of Mexico! IT DOES REPRESENT THE CULTURE OF MEXICO! If you think it gives Mexico the wrong image then that's a shame because it does represent Mexico and it should not make you think it's the wrong picture of Mexico for people to have. It is downright disrespectful to think of a certain aspect of Mexican culture as wrong! It's no different than saying the people that practice it are wrong! If you really think that it is a stereotype than i don't get you at all. There are indigenous dancers because there are indigenous peoples. Just because you think that it may not look good and you may think that it is a stereotype doesn't mean that it is not a true representative of a part of Mexican culture. There are indigenous peoples all over Mexico and there are still people that adhere to indigenous cultural ways, and that doesn't mean that they are not representing Mexican culture. Maybe not the culture of Mexico you know but, still it is representative of Mexican culture! If you don't think it does than i can't do anything to change that. Are you honestly saying that 30% of the population does not deserve a single picture on the culture section showing an interesting aspect of they're contribution to Mexican culture as a whole? I could say that the Jarabe Tapatío does not represent Indigenous culture of Mexico so why should that be up any more that the Aztec dancer? Rahlgd (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: The Aztec dancers are folkloric dancers since they are predominantly a custom of the common people (hence the name Folkloric). These dancers are also found in professional schools of dancing and theater across Mexico. They have a very wide presence all over Mexico (even in the U.S.) and vary in style from amateur to professional. I have seen Aztec and other native American style dancers perform in the prestigious Teatro Degollado in Guadalajara Jalisco alongside other folkloric dances. As the people in this discussion have already said: these sub-sections are stubs and only the most general and wide ranging elements should be used as brief narratives, details should be saved for the main articles. In short words, we must stick to the "stereotypes," that is, those images that are immediately identifiable by the widest audience possible as being Mexican for the sake of overview. Putting up an image of an Aztec dancer will not affect the article at all and they are just as legitimate as the Charro if anyone wants to argue that only Mexican folkloric images should be included.

Also, You guys have hit a very complex snag which is basically the tip of a social iceberg. I have noticed that there is an ongoing battle in the Mexican community over conflicting identities with some arguing towards the Hispanic image while the rest argue towards the indigenous image with the "mestizo" awkwardly stuck in the middle. It's no mystery that the poorest people in Mexico are the indigenous and the upper classes are predominantly white Hispanics. Mexican politics and the media contain a mostly white staff despite the fact that the majority of Mexicans are darker. The racism and racial stratification that is a legacy of colonialism is still very present in Mexican society and attitudes. Many Mexicans are just resentful of Hispanicism and want nothing to do with a Hispanic identity thus lean and identify with the indigenous ancestry and heritage and try to uproot the Hispanic element. This is happening because Mexicans are feeling discriminated in their own country as the Mexican media mostly caters to a white upper class audience and promotes a culture that feels alien and foreign to the common Mexican. This harbors a cultural cringe as a result of the upper entrepreneurial classes judging the common Mexican to be inherently inept at being independent and autonomous which causes them to have to import almost every complex and manufactured thing (technology, training, machinery etc) from Europe or the United States while at the same time diminishing incentive and initiative in Mexican society. The resulting inferiority complex is only exasperated by the government and the upper classes welcoming all types of foreign nationals while deliberately oppressing it's own people as it.

Now I think I have gone way off subject. I only wanted to give a very brief explanation of what is happening behind this seemingly simple debate. These are very murky waters in the middle of a storm so the best advice I can give here is to stick with the facts and keep idealism and opinion at bay. Keep it simple as well because if you get into too much detail you will end up with the paragraph I wrote above. The article should only include what is relevant and encyclopedic, I personally believe that pictures are better than plain text. The number of pictures should be limited to somewhere between 1 and 3 if the text is long enough, and they should be relevant to the subject. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ocelotl. I also think that folkloric indigenous dances are perfectly acceptable material for the Culture section. But the picture in question (source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dawn_perry/1120985813/), from a "Renaissance Fair," is a bizarre candidate to fill this role, as it doesn't represent any culture (Amerindian or European) appropriately. JorgeAranda (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowfall in Sierra Madre del Sur

I have never heard of such a thing... is there a reference? Snow is common in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (a.k.a. Sierra Nevada). In fact, the picture shows pine trees, which are not common of the Sierra Madre del Sur, but are very common of the Sierra Nevada. The author of the pic, describes it as "Snow in the mountains of central Mexico", but Sierra Madre del Sur does not cross central Mexico. --the Dúnadan 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Improving the history section

I noticed that recently someone changed the history section by adding a heading that said 20th century. That got me thinking that maybe we could expand the history section and provide more in depth explanations of specific times or Era's like in the Russia article. I think this would be a great way to improve the article and it would give a lot more understanding especially if each section in the history area explained how these specific times effected the people and influenced specific cultural or societal aspects. If anyone has ideas please share them here. Thanks, Rahlgd (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted sentence from lead

I saw AlexCovarrubias and Bambuway working on this sentence in the lead: "Despite Mexico's position as an emerging power, the increase in drug-related violence and uneven income distribution remain issues of concern."

It appears that Mexico is a middle power and an emerging market. However, when I read the whole sentence, I started to feel that it is not quite right. Here's the problem: the structure of the sentence is "Despite the fact that X is true, Y is true." The use of the word "despite" suggests that one would expect Y not to be true when X is true but that in this particular case Y is surprisingly true. If we look at the list of middle powers in the middle power article and the list of Emerging markets, there are several other countries that also have drug-related violence (Colombia) and uneven income distribution (Brazil, India, Phillipines, Indonesia). Thus, I don't think the sentence gives the reader the right impression so I deleted it. There's no problem with either half of the sentence. It's just that when joined together with "Despite", the sentence implies something that is not true which is that it is exceptional for a middle power or an emerging market to have drug-related violence and/or uneven income distribution.

--Richard S (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. The sentence was misleading in many ways, especially for implying Mexico as a great power, and the idea of a drugs problem being rare for a middle power / emerging market. Bambuway (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think you're right, and I think that information doesn't belong in the lead paragraph not just for syntactical reasons. The lead paragraph should give a very broad overview of the article's topic; drug violence and income inequality are important topics in Mexican society, but I think better dealt with later in the article. So, I commend you for being bold. Moncrief (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexican period. Starts in 1910, not in 1821.

For some reason, the U.S. or Wikipedia considers Mexico as a country since 1821. That is a totally different and disrespectful point of view to the Mexicans'. Mexico will celebrate it's Bicentenary in 2010. For Mexicans an for nowadays Spanish too, Mexico is a country since 1910. The 100 year anniversary was in 1910. 2010 is the year of the big bicentennial celebrations. Wikipedia has to change their wrong and disrespectful point of view. In 1821 the Spaniards (the ones from Spain, the ones from Mexico considered themselves Mexicans) finally gave up and signed, but for Mexicans, this doesn't mean that they were not a country since 1910. This is true not only for Mexico, but for many other countries in Latin America, and if you have any doubt of it, Spain is going to be present in the bicentennial of all these Latin American countries. Spain also acknowledges 1910 as the big date. Why the U.S. doesn't? This is true in many references to the History of Texas, the history of Arizona, and many more, where they state that Arizona became independent from Spain in 1821. Mexicans had their own congress long before, even if the Spaniards repeteadely killed their leaders. That should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean 1810, not 1910? Moncrief (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Image cramming

Does each section really need to have as many as 8 or more pictures? There are so many pictures that they dominate the article over the text and cause the text to be squashed between loads of pictures. Many of these pictures carry little relevance to their section. There are so many pictures the article looks more like a picture book. Especially bad is where 2 pictures sit on either side with the text squashed between them both. It's a symptom of image cramming. Sections should only have pictures which are relevant to them and only as many as the section can fit. Most sections can only fit one picture comfortably, with maybe 2 for large sections or perhaps 3 for only the very largest sections. There's really no reason to have any more pictures than this per section. See other country articles such as France. Too many pictures make the article less easy to navigate when reading, make the article look worse and make it look more like a picture book. A reduction of as many as half would make the article look much less cluttered and better all round. Bambuway (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico's official name is in Spanish

I am very confused and frustrated. One user is replacing the official name of Mexico to a strange version in Náhuatl language. I have reverted his changed twice but he seem not to understand. The infobox requires the official name of the country. The official name given in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", in Spanish.

On the other hand, this "issue" has been discussed in the past and the resolution has always been that the official name is in Spanish, even if it is a de facto language not officialized in any part of the constitution. There is no other official name for the country.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person you mentioned as "One person", and I'd written the reason in the "edit summary". Again there's no federal official language of Mexico, even though Mexican Spanish is the current lingua franca. But lingua francais is by no means the official language. There're 63 government recognized "native languages", so the "|native_name = " should be filled the 63 native languages. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, no official language, but there is de facto language, the primary language and that is Spanish. But the most important thing here is that THERE IS an official name of the country IN SPANISH and it is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". There is no other official and native name. The name is in Spanish because it IS the native language, the mother language of present day Mexico. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the Constitution of Mexico written is Spanish (or Mexican Spanish, as you may want to call it), or is it written in 64 (63 plus Spanish) languages? what is the official name in that document? Was it written (and approved/signed) in one of the native languages and then translated into Spanish and (possibly) the other 62 languages? what is the foficial name in that doc? Is it translated into 63 other languages or is it translated to 63 other langagues plus various others languages (such as English, French, etc) possibly without any other official approval? Maybe it was written in Spanish and then translated into the 63 other languages. what is the official name in those docs? You may want to call the original document the Constitution was written and signed/approved on, the official document, and work from there for what constitutes the official name of the country.

Consider also that, as it is the case with other countries, there may be more than one official language and, form there, more than one official name of the country, that is, an official country name in Spanish, an official country name in Náhuatl, and (who knows?) an official country name in English, French, German, etc for the rest of the world. Consider then what consititutes "official", Is official only something that is put out by the Federal Mexican government? Or is official also if some other official body says so? the Federal Mexican Judicial branch? the federal Mexican executive branch? or because it is the name for Mexico in the Int'l World Court of Justice? Or the UN???... maybe the United Nations has an official name for Mexico (in each of its 7 authorized languages)...?

Consider also that to the rest of the world the de facto language in Mexico is Spanish. I am not going to take the time here, but I believe we could easily find most (all?) international organizations state Spanish is the official language in Mexico IF they had to pick one from its 63 languages, just based on the fact it is the one most widely used there. This may help work out your differences. Just population the infobox field "Official county name" with one the country name in one of the 62 other recognized languages of Mexico just to make a point (in particular when Spanish is the lingua franca) doesn't do anyone any good.

Also if the issue has been discussed before, and resolved in favor of Spanish, you may want to show the wiki diff for such resolution. Issues that have received consensus among editors are very rarely changed again.

Further, be sure everyone understands (and agrees on) the difference between lingua franca (de facto) language, recognized language (or recognized native language), and official language.

Finally, I'd suggest you don't lose focus of the fact that the issue here is not, What is the official language of Mexico, but instead, what is the official name for Mexico. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Mercy11's approach is correct. As we know, Mexico does not have an official language, and all 63 languages are (at least in theory) equally valid. So the question is what is the official name of the country.

Let's keep in mind that the Constitution was written in Spanish. In fact, Mexico has had several constitutions through its history, and all of them have been originally written in Spanish. The Constitution refers to the country as "Estados Unidos Mexicanos".

I don't know if you could even find the Constitution written in all 63 languages. A search for Nahuatl suggests that a Nahuatl version will be published (for the first time?) this month: http://www.publimetro.cl/nota/noticias/publicaran-en-nahuatl-constitucion-mexicana/CPIjaB!Sx@zAynsSOSURIDRYug73g/

In summary, if there is such a thing as an "official name", it would be Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in Spanish. Wikipedia's own article on the Name of Mexico states as much. So Alex Covarrubias seems to be right. JorgeAranda (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can make a compromise and publish both. While Mexico's most spoken language by far is Spanish, the name Mexico is in fact derived from it's Nahuatl name, Mēxihco. The nation info box does not ask for the official name but for the native name so both can and should be present and if anything the Nahuatl has a more valid reason to be there but for the sake of reality Spanish must be included as well. And yes the Indigenous names all are equally as valid by law. The Spanish name should go under the common long name category of the Infobox. If i was to go to a government office and request official paperwork but i didn't speak Spanish and only Nahuatl then the government is legally obliged to provide me with those papers in Nahuatl, even though this dosen't happen many times it is law and these languages and their names for Mexico share just as much equal validity as Spanish. To answer another statement,the constitution has been published in Yucatec Mayan, Zapotec and it has been translated into Nahuatl before, so i don't know why they're making a big thing about it in that article, probably because it's the offial copy of the document translated by the Federal government. Regarding the comment that most people know Spanish to be the offical language of Mexico: Wikipedia is meant to explain true things not reinforce incorrect information even if most poeple incorrectly think that it's common knowledge. Based on the fact that Mēxihco is the native name given to Mexico i think it should be included. There are multiple names which can legally be regarded as legal official names fo Mexico, the same way that there are eleven legal official names for South Africa, in English, Afrikaans, Venda, Tsonga and other languages. And you can't say that Mexico's de facto official language is Spanish because there is no government odcument that says it is and many Mexican people still don't use Spanish as their main "de facto" language with some not even knowing how to speak Spanish. Rahlgd (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there an issue of undue weight when you insist on adding the Nahuatl name but not the name in other native languages? You also frame the issue in a strange way, suggesting that providing the Spanish name is a magnanimous concession of some kind. Spanish is nothing less than Mexico's principal language. Nahuatl comes nowhere near the importance of Spanish in most areas of Mexican life. SamEV (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, "native name" means the local name, since that might differ from the English name. To give you an example: in English we refer to a particular country as "Germany", but its "native name", i.e. its local name, is "Deutschland". Why would we ask for a country's name in one of its indigenous language(s), but not the principal local name, if this happens to be in an introduced language? SamEV (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually in all honesty and fairness, I do think we should have the name in as many languages as possible, with a drop-down list as is used in the South Africa article, so yes if i did know what the name for the country was in other indigenous languages i would use them. The fact of the matter is that the original name that Mexico is derived from is it's Nahuatl name and i do think we should have the Spanish and Nahuatl names (I don't have a problem with leaving the Spanish name there as well. I am not the user that keeps removing the Spanish name.) I see no reason to remove the Nahuatl name if the Spanish name is kept. Spanish is the most spoken language in Mexico and therefore must be kept and the original name for Mexico is the Nahuatl name, Mēxihco so it should be kept as well. Rahlgd (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is shown to be merited for the country's name be given in all 63 languages (a big "if", IMO), then a drop-down list seems like the best solution. But until then you can't give so much undeserved weight to the Nahuatl name, even if Nahuatl is the most spoken of the native languages and the language of origin of the name "Mexico". And again, you seem to deliberately misunderstand what the "native name" parameter calls for. You're making a very specious argument. Nor can you equate the Mexico of today with the Aztecs's. SamEV (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I just want all of you to notice that despite the fact that the issue is still on discussion, Rahgdl has introduced again his personal POV, reverting not only my edit, but Jorge Aranda's and SamEV's. That's just plainly uncivil and very childish. Some points:

1. This is not an "official language" discussion. There's a discussion about Mexico's official name.
2. The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States is, and has been through history, the most important legal document regarding Mexico's political ordianance. It has always been discussed, written and approved by the members of the various congresses in Spanish. The Official name of the country has always been given in Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos or Estados-Unidos Mexicanos (in the older constitutions).
3. Native language refers to "local language" as brightly pointed by SamEV. It differs from the Spanish primarily conception of the word "nativo" (because it can also be understood as it is in English). So we're not discussing about what language is the "origin" of the Spanish word México. Clearly that was Nahuatl, but the Official Name of the country was given in Spanish and in Spanish only, using the Spanish adjective "Mexicanos". So it may be derived from Nahuatl, but the native and official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The other "versions" in the varied indigenous languages are translations, and that doesn't mean there's 63 "official names". In that case, one should include Mexico's official name in German, Italian, Russian... because I'm sure there is translations to those languages too.
4. There is an issue of Undue Weight when, as already noted by SamEV, user Rahgld tries to give the impression that Nahuatl is near the percentage of use of Spanish, when clearly it is not. That's a fact. So let's not fall into the hypocritical "poticial correctness". There's no need to include translations of the only official name of the country into 63+ languages, just because this user wants to include a Nahuatl translation. He seems to be willing to include all that many language just to conquer his personal agenda.

Thanks for reading and sorry if I'm a little agressive, but to be honest, I'm very desperated and frustrated. Why should one person change the stability gained in YEARS of honest work by several users, just based in loose arguments? Pardon me. =( AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologize. Your tone seems appropriate. And I agree that Rahgld may be enlisting the PC sensitivies that most of us at WP have. But PC is something to avoid in our editing. SamEV (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have the following points:

1. Mexico's native languages includes 63 official recognized national languages

Here, we're NOT talking about the "primary language", "official language", "de facto language" or "lingua franca" (even if we're talking about that, Spanish is not a "official language" of Mexico, merely a "de facto official", we need a de jure one). Native languages, means all language origined, developed and used in Mexico. Spanish is a language developed and used in Mexico, but not origined in, so it's a half-native language, and we placed it in the last place. The 63 official recognized national languages are origined, developed and used in Mexico, they're the real native languages. Till now, I mentioned nothing about "native name" - we should clear what is native language first, and then the concept of native name can be easily derived.

1. We should fill the native name, and "native name"="name in native language"

In the previous discussion, AlexCovarrubias explains that we shou use the "native name", which does not equals to "names in native language". But in {{Infobox country}} it explains "|native_name" as "Long-form name in native language", so we ARE talking about native LANGUAGE, for native name is EXACTLY name in NATIVE LANGUAGE according to Wikipedia rules. We need to follow the Wikipedia style - if there're a "|lingua_franca" tab I will straight out fill Mexican Spanish.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. There is no official language, nor 63 official languages. No legal document gives any language the status of "official". Indigenous languages are considered only "national" languages just as Spanish. However, Spanish is by far the most used (98% +) and the lingua franca or de facto language. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Nahuatl translations of the Mexican constitution the official name of The United Mexican States is given as Mēxihcatl Tlacetilīlli Tlahtohcāyōtl which translates literally into "Mexican United States" this proves that the Spanish name is the official name only in Spanish not in all languages. And for some reason you seem to have the concept that the Spanish name is the only "local language" which is incorrect as all languages which are legally national languages are local languages. The reason that the country's Spanish name was given in the constitution was because the document was written in Spanish. I am not trying to say that Nahuatl is as widely spoken as Spanish but i am saying it is just as valid a name to add. And you said "Why should one person change the stability gained in YEARS of honest work by several users, just based in loose arguments?" well just because something is stable dosen't mean it's correct and even if there is only one user trying to change something than they have a right too if they have a credible reason to change something. And by the way there are multiple editors arguing for this not only me. Things shouldn't be left the way they are just because they have been like that for a long time. If that was the argument given than no progress would ever be made. And please don't give the argument that i am being uncivil by reverting edits because you do the exact same thing to me and 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) and i provided reason and explanation of my changes. Rahlgd (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that stable doesn't mean right, necessarily. But stability means something, and Wikipedia etiquette asks that in a situation where your position is not the majority position or is controversial you refrain from unilateral changes and try to achieve consensus via discussion, instead of edit warring. SamEV (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, nobody has provided a link or scan to see the Nahuatl translation of the Mexican Constitution, just to see if the name is given in Nahuatl or Spanish. And however and most importantly, if they translated the name that doesn't mean it is "another" official name (used in legal documents, the Seal of the UMS, coins, bills). Should we consider the name "United Mexican States" an official name, because of the English translation? [1]. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep an even position while we figure this out by keeping both the Nahuatl and Spanish but you keep deleting the Nahuatl and Yucatec Maya therefore not giving a fair balance for the time being. Please leave both until we all reach a consensus. Rahlgd (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On replying to SamEV: Stable means "something", something that this article was once be in a consensus among the initial contributors, but this means by no means the article will be forever stable. Wikipedia is not a patent of initial contributor, and articles are not eternal. As the time elasps, when someone find a flaw, we need to put it into discussion. So give your comment to "I have the following points: " on the talk page before revert my edits. Thank you. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I found nothing of substance in your previous comments; that's why I didn't reply. I only saw the same misunderstanding of "native name" that Rahgld has.

Sure, consensuses change. But right now you guys are clearly outnumbered, so it behooves you to respect the majority and seek to sort this out via discussion with us. (Have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus) I repeat: it's not as if you can claim to represent consensus or even the position of most of the editors who are discussing this matter, so you have no business acting as you are. SamEV (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to disentangle this. There are two sets of edits going on simultaneously here. The first is about the "native name" of the country in the infobox. The second is the list of names and pronunciations of the country in several of its languages in the first paragraph of the article.

Regarding the infobox edits, a comparison with other countries is useful. The articles on Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, among others, show their names in English and Spanish only, even though they have other official languages as well. The infobox on the United States article does not acknowledge any native languages. The article on Spain has the name in Spanish (Castillian), but not in Basque, Catalan, or any other of its languages. For the People's Republic of China we get what I think is Mandarin and Cantonese, but not any of its other recognized languages. The article on South Africa, as has already been pointed out, has the name in English and a drop down with the other ten official languages of the country.

I think the example of South Africa is the most enlightened: by default the list of names does not distract from the content of the article, but readers can easily see the name of the country in its other official languages if they wish to. So, considering that significant minorities of Mexico speak Nahuatl (about 1.5%) and Yucatec Maya (about 1%), perhaps we could reach a compromise by including the name of the country in those languages in a drop down list, as with South Africa. We could also include the name of the country in its other commonly used languages. If the list becomes unwieldy (at 63, it would), a separate page with the list of names could be created.

Regarding the first paragraph of the article, can we agree that it has become too cluttered with the latest additions? None of the articles of the other countries that I listed include the name and pronunciation of the country in more than one of its official or recognized languages. Considering that Spanish is the lingua franca in Mexico, I see no reason to clutter the paragraph with all of the other names and pronunciations. JorgeAranda (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

:I agree entirely. SamEV (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree only with including the pronunciation on lead paragraph in Spanish (because of linga franca fact), because with other languages it'll be too cluttered. As for the drop down list, I don't agree. Just because the name of the country is translated to other languages, that doesn't mean they are "official" names. Also the drop down list in the article South Africa does have a reference that shows that all of the 11 names are official. That can't be proved for Mexico's name. The only official name, used in legal documents, coins, bills and the seal of the UMS is in Spanish. Should we also include Mexico's name in German, English, Chinese or Korean? Because there's also translations to those languages.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuation...

Hello everyone, I just read the whole discution, and IMHO I don't think it's a good idea to put all the Amerindian languages in a list form either. Mexico's de facto language is Spanish, it is spoken by more than 97% of the population and it is indeed almost the "native language" of the country if you will, for better or for worst it has been the main language of Mexico ever since its creation (back in the New Spain). I'm all in favour of mentioning the other amerindian languages that exist in the country in their respective section, but trying to put them in the same level as Spanish is realistically speaking not true. If there were just a few Amerindian languages (such as South Africa's case) I could agree to put them in a list, but there are 62 of them, we just can't put them all, and selecting some of them over others is completely arbitrary and "unfair" to the rest of them.

As Jorge Aranda mentioned above, let's look at the examples from other articles, Spain for example does have a real linguistic diversity, almost every region has its own language and its inhabitants do speak that language along with Spanish, nonetheless the Spain article only shows Spanish in its infobox. Now Mexico unlike Spain does not have a real multilinguistic society, almost all of Mexico's population speaks Spanish only, don't you think it's a bit too pushy trying to over highlight these Amerindian languages despites the fact that they don't play a bigger roll than say Welsh does in the UK or Alsatian does in France? Again for better or for worst that's just the way it is. Supaman89 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think it's too pushy to bring Nahuatl and other Amerindian languages front and center, and particularly to give the impression that they are at similar levels of usage in Mexico as Spanish is. I liked the South Africa example because it is not intrusive ---although, as Alex points out, South Africa differs from Mexico in that it recognizes those eleven languages as official--- and because it could serve as a guide to solve this. Personally I am OK either with the article as it was before this discussion or as it would be if the South Africa example was followed. JorgeAranda (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I have throughout remained convinced that so far the other side hasn't shown that any of the Amerindian languages should be treated on a par with Spanish in Mexico. So I vote to show only the Spanish name and the English translation in both the lead and the infobox. SamEV (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think that we should only have the Spanish official name (after all it is the only official name) in the lead and in the infobox. I just found in the website of the Presidency of the Republic an English text in which it is clearly stated that the official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos [2] (in Spanish, not translated to English). I have added that source to the article and to me, that source ends the debate. Adding translations to Nahuatl and other indigenous languages is too pushy and a problem of undue weight. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving for somedays, and these days I'll not edit the article. But this means nothing for my attitude of this issue, that is, I keep the right of state "still not consensus" and edit this article when I'm back in Feb. 23rd GMT+8. Have a good day! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil threats like this will not be welcomed. You have the right to disagree but you do not have the right to threat us with an edit war saying that no matter what the sources say, or the majority say, you will edit because of your personal opinion. Opinions are subjective and do not count as a source. In fact Wikipedia rejects them.

So far there is a source indicating that the official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos[3]. Adding other translations to other languages will be considered undue weight and most importantly, will be unsourced changes. So we keep the right to state the notion of unsourced changes, vandalism, edit warring and acting against majority, unless a reference indicating directly that the official name of Mexico is in a certain language or languages. I urge my fellow editors to say something about this threat. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Alex. 虞海, it seems to me that your objections have been properly and thoroughly discussed, and that instead of acknowledging this discussion you are threatening to plow ahead and try to impose your opinion. Please refrain from doing so ---consensus is not supposed to be established through bullying, but through good will and debate.

{{editsemiprotected}} 2009-2012

Typo noted:

"In the 2009-20012 Congress of the Union, seven parties are therein represented; four of them, however, have not received neither in this nor in previous congresses more than 4% of the national votes.[80]"

Should be changed to: "In the 2009-2012 Congress of the Union, seven parties are therein represented; four of them, however, have not received neither in this nor in previous congresses more than 4% of the national votes.[80]"

 Done [4] — The Earwig @ 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

im jimmys friend \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.111.6 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)