Talk:Mexico

Previous version of this page

The previous version of this page now lives at Mexico/Old. Any remaining information that's there but not here should be moved either direcly into Mexico or into the appropriate subtopic (for instance, pages on the individual states). --Brion 18:25 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

NB: At first glance, it would appear that the entire section on "Divisions of Mexico" has been removed from the current version of this article. This is not quite the case. There is a section titled "Political Divisions of Mexico" in the current version of this article. However, rather than providing information about each state in the Mexico article proper, an enumerated set of links is provided to the Wiki article on that state. Not all of the information in the "Divisions of Mexico" section below has been folded into the Wiki article for each state. However, to determine what has and has not been folded in would require someone comparing the information below against the Wiki article for each state. Hint, hint: anybody want to volunteer? Richard 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening comments

Why so much strife among the vandals on this topic. Not so much for other countries. It cannot be proximity, because Canada is also nearby. Is it fear of Spanish, hatred of people who look like Indians? Why this silliness? Is it resentment among a group who feel Americans are too arrogant? Is it an old grudge. This topic itslef seems to qualify -- Mex-USA hostilty -- for an article itself. I find it silly. John wesley 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question here: Are any of you people here actually Mexican?

-Jack Sinatra Castro 28 February 2006

History

The history section is a bit long I think. I just finished doing some copyediting on it, and I will probably also look at the history article and try to cut move some material into that article, as right now the History section profoundly outweighs all the other sections. I think it should be more introductory, with the History of Mexico article going into more depth. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I consider the History section in the Spanish arcticle to be well written and as concise as possible. I'd like if we could translate it here and move the long section we have here to the main Mexico history article. --Fito 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

err... i think i overdoit, yes is a bit to long, i will try to make som cuts and move some material. i just see the spanish article, and it,s all right. Nanahuatzin 07:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the history section is too long. It should probably be shortened. I would, but I have limited knowledge about the topic. Gflores ^Talk 23:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was very bold and moved the entire history section out of this article and into the History of Mexico article. I admit that the History section now looks too anemic with only the "Main Article" reference to the History of Mexico article.

IMO, what's needed now is a short (say, 7-8 paragraphs) summary of the History of Mexico. What I have in mind is 1 paragraph on each of the following eras: Mesoamerican, Spanish conquest, Colonial Mexico (New Spain), French occupation, Revolution, PRI, post PRI. A timeline of important dates would also be helpful.

When I have more time, I will try to write this summary but, of course, others are welcome to contribute.

Richard 18:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the time to start the summary. It's longer than I expected but I think it's a good first cut. What I did was go back to the merged text of the History of Mexico and pull out the first couple of paragraphs of each section. This extracted text became the History section in this article. This didn't always work. The subsection "War with the United States" is the worst example. That subsection is incomplete and needs another paragraph or two to summarize what happened in that war. I'm sure there's room for improvement of my summary. My only request is that anybody who adds to this summary tries keep it a summary and leave the detail for the History of Mexico article and other subsidiary articles.

Richard 05:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

National motto (more)

In the Federal Government all the officiall documents have to be signed at the buttom with the motto "Sufragio Efectivo No Relecccion" (Effective Elections No Relection). This was the the slogan of the non-relection movement of Franciso I. Madero during the first stage of Mexican Revolution. Madero demanded at that time free elections without the participation of president Porfirio Diaz.

I just want to share my opinion about all of this "pages" and comments. I am originally from Mexico D.F. and I am very happy of its contents. Thank you all.

 Things you may take in consideration. 
 The "Sufragio Efectivo No Reeleccion" can be considered as the "motto" of the Government, but not to the country itself... If by any situation and/or "inquiry" it would be the nation anthem itself.
 Also, The Mexican-German "situation" then, the Mexican Government never negotiated, accepted or recognized such document. It was a proposition from the Germans to the Mexican government for them to invade the US, and as a "token of appreciation" they would give back at least Texas back to Mexico. Mexico has always been a neutral country... well unless we get invaded of course!! like Spain, USA, France to name a few...
 Anyway, just so you can take a deeper look at that, and again, thanks for making such a great page!!!

sincerely, Alejandro. 63.105.65.10 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

National motto

Does anyone know if Mexico has anything resembling a national motto? I haven't turned one up so far via google searches. --Brion

I have a books at home which may list it, but the coat of arms (the eagle on the cactus) doesn't seem to have a motto below it, so maybe it just doesn't exist? Jeronimo

Could be. As far as I know, there's not actual requirement for every state of the world to have a motto. ;) Speaking of the coat of arms; there's a nice one at Flags of the World, but with the usual caveats. --Brion

That I don't know, but there's a very relevant motto inscribed on the seal of the UNAM, which says "Por mi raza hablara el espiritu." That's great, but why does it matter? The motto, as well as the seal itself, was created by Jose Vasconcelos, who REALLY needs to be included in this article. Jose Vasconcelos is one of the major players in Mexican history: a member of the 1910 revolution who would later become the Mexican Minister of Education. To get an idea of his significance, take a look at an essay he wrote called "La Raza Cosmica" in which he predicts the rise throughout Latin America of a universal race that would result from the continued mix of indigenous and european bloodlines (mestisaje). It was controversial for sure, but for better or worse it goes quite a ways to summing up Vasconcelos's worldview, and given the extent to which his influence resonates in modern Mexican society, it can't be overlooked. So what does "Por mi raza hablara el espiritu" mean, then? It is a symbol of the rise of Mexican and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Latin American Universalism. The twenty years following the revolution were the most important in the evolution of modern Mexico because they were where the modern Mexican identity was defined. Vasconcelos was part of a major government-sponsored effort to make Mexicans view themselves first and foremost and Mexicans, the sole heirs to several of history's most remarkable ancient civilizations. That's why Vasconcelos paid the muralists to plaster renderings of Mexican history and identity throughout the nation. So yeah, long comment, and you still can't post it as the national motto, but you should mention it. Keep in mind also, that Mexicans define themselves in symbols as much as they do words. The best example of this is the Mexican Flag, the significance of which I can't explain in less than 1000 words. Let it suffice to say that it goes well beyond the story of Tenochtitlan being founded where the Mexica saw an eagle on a cactus eating a snake. Hint: it represents the feathered serpent (Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan), the mesoamerican Prometheus/Christ figure. It's almost the same as putting a Christian cross on the flag in that it symbolizes the deep religiousity of the people.

---

Mav, I thought the Mexican Revolution was the 1910-ish one, with Pancho Villa and the PRI? --Brion

---

Brion, maybe we should wait with moving the template articles until at least all of the headings have been reasonably filled. Pages with empty heading don't look very good... Jeronimo

People kept editing the old page and ignoring the new one. If you think things are missing, fill them in! --Brion

Oh, that's silly. I'll try add some stuff when I have time. Jeronimo

---

What the hell is going on? I put in a lot of info about states, and now it's gone. I agree it didn't really belong on the main Mexico page, but should have been allowed to remain there until it was all moved somewhere else, and now some jackass has just removed it into the ether. You know, editing these articles actually implies some responsibility towards the information and towards other authors. Get a clue. --John Knouse

Did you not read the message at the top of this page? Thank you. --Brion 00:02 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)

Your message at the top of this page states that the old version of this page was moved elsewhere. Do you MEAN that the old version of the MEXICO page was moved elsewhere? Say what you mean. --John Knouse

Cute. Just take the chip off your shoulder and follow the link. --Brion 11:19 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)

---

Could someone who knows the subject add Cajeme into the Mexico article? Kingturtle 05:59 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

hi , i don't want ot be mean or anythimg but you need to organize your website better i have no idea what it's saying it just.. just there. i am trying to find the motto of mexico to.

          -hannah

---

Motto, motto, motto: I'm not sure there is an official one, but I suspect "sufragio efectivo – no reelección" is a better candidate than "el respeto al derecho ajeno...". (In any event, neither has the enshrined official status of, for example, E Pluribus Unum or Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité: the notion of "official state motto"just doesn't apply here). –User:Hajor 13:51, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would agree would Hajor. There is no official motto in Mexico, yet the best candidate is "sugragio efectivo no reeleción", as it is printed in many official or notarized documents, including university diplomas called "titulo profesional" (the official diplomas given by the Department of Education, SEP. As to why university diplomas should inlcude that phrase... that is an enygma...

Some anectdotal background from a native: "sufragio efectivo, no reelección" means "effective vote, no reelection", and was a banner for the revolution that deposed Díaz; it's also the reason Mexican presidents can only serve one term. While it was a motto of the revolution, and was institutionalized into stamps and stationery by the (aptly named) Institutional Revolution Party, it's not much of a rallying cry for the general Mexican. Not a motto. Can't think of one... --wolfe 20:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

About what I changed:

1. Mexico has no national or official motto. What you had before was a quote by President Juarez, which is nice but it has never been a motto.
2. Spain did not recognize the independence of Mexico until December 28, 1836. Look at the top of this link (from Mexico's Education Ministry, in Spanish).
3. Central America used to be part of Mexico, the declared themselves independent almost at the same time when the First Empire was dissolved.
4. Mexico has no parliament but a bicameral Congress.

Ruiz 11:32, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

The spelling Méjico is occasionally used in other Spanish-speaking nations; in Mexico itself, however, this variant is considered incorrect. Some Mexicans see it as a throw-back to colonial times and an insult to national identity. This spelling does not change the pronunciation.

This is quite an incredible claim. I have already toned it down, as can be seen, but can anyone offer any first-hand evidence for Mexicans breathing huge political overtones into this insignificant spelling variation? — Chameleon My page/My talk 16:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a very old discussion; and I did say "at worst". The political content is in the question of whether a sovereign nation has the right to determine how its name should be spelled; "Méjico" smacks of the madre patria and its interfering Academy telling us how to spell our own name. EFE's Vademécum, for example, recommends "México, mexicano: Escríbase siempre así (pero se pronuncia Méjico, mejicano)" [1]; and you can follow a discussion on the question, with references to insults/discomfort, here (with a particularly vitriolic contribution here). I suspect it's similar to the early 1990s ¡nos quieren quitar la eñe! flap in Spain: national identity expressed in orthography. –Hajor 16:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh -- here's my original wording. I think the "at best / at worst" helps mitigate the "incredible claim".

The spelling Méjico is occasionally used in other Spanish-speaking nations; in Mexico itself, however, this variant is at best considered incorrect and, at worst, as a throw-back to colonial times and an insult to national identity. It does not change the pronunciation.

–Hajor

Oh my god, that "vitiolic" contributor clearly needs locking up. I'm shocked. I still don't believe that such bigotry is the norm in Mexico, however. I have a little more faith in that nation. It's just like Catalonia. A loony minority want to force Spanish speakers to write Catalunya and Lleida, whilst most people have better things to do.

The problem even with putting stuff like "at best", "at worst", "some say" is that they look like weaselly ways of putting forward a loopy opinion as fact. We might as well say "some think the earth is round; however, this is considered at best incorrect and at worst offensive by other people." It may well be technically true, but it gives too much credence to a silly idea.

It looks like I'm going to have to write a whole article section with incontrovertible facts. It's the only way to stop people putting in snide-sounding little comments that make out that everyone who writes Méjico is some sort of helmet-wearing, codpiece-sporting, Maya-slaughtering, sword-wielding, mustachio'd conquistador. — Chameleon My page/My talk 21:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're being rather POV in your edits, Hajor, but I don't wish to waste too much time on this article, so I'll let it slide. The important thing is that it no longer contains the smear it had before. — Chameleon My page/My talk 17:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As POV as you, for example, in asking for first-hand evidence and then dismissing the source of that evidence as an extremist bigot who deserves to locked up? We're approaching this question from different sides, but I think the text, as it stands (ie, 98% written by you with one or two minor interferences from me) is acceptably neutral. And we don't even have to touch on the question of whether or not a sovereign nation can call itself what it chooses. –Hajor 19:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it might really exist a parallel in this idea of every region trying to establish its own form of writing as the right one. In this case we would have Mexico and in Spain Catalunya, or Bizkaia, too (for give only examples). It might even not be important but in a way something that might have to be respected, since it has to do with national identity and history and even a sort sovereignity. "Mexico" with "x" acts as a symbol of part of the roots, that are as well Spanish as Pre-Hispanic (Mexico is origilally a Nahuatl word for the capital of the Mexicas). If Mexicans are interested in retain this symbols, then it is their right to do it. The "x" can then be seen as a letter that reminds that the word was originally spelled in another way. Second, the official name of Mexico is has more to do mith "México" than "Méjico" (One can see it in "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" or in "Ciudad de México". If the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language says "Méjico" is right, then the official name of Mexico is written with orthographic mistakes in Mexico (what I see as contradictory). In Spain, it is that canalonians want the Catalan name of "Cataluña" to be the official one, since the historic language of the autonomous community is co-official with Spanish. Now, as far as I know, both can be used. It is possible to write in a Spanish text "A Coruña" or "La Coruña", "Lleida" or "Lérida", etc. If it is not important, then one does not lose anything respecting that. If one has something against it, there is the Spanish name.Nbez 14:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC) N.M.B.R.

I had heard that the "X" for the "sh" sound was borrowed from Portugese when the need arose in transcribing Mesoamerican names.

I'd tend to say that the name is "Mexico" in English and "México" in the language of the country. Are there some parts of Latin America where "Méjico" is common, and if so where? Or is that spelling pretty much restricted to Spain? -- Wondering, Infrogmation 17:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, good question. Off the bat, I'd have said the j-spelling was more common in the Southern Cone than anywhere else in LatAm, but let's ask Google. Searching for instances of "méxico" vs. "méjico" on "site:xx" (my random choice of countries -- feel free to add your favourite if it's not here), restricting the results to Spanish-language pages:

• site:mx (Mexico) = 1,310,000 vs 1640 (6896:1)
• site:cu (Cuba) = 39,200 vs 369 (106:1)
• site:gt (Guatemala) = 9220 vs 107 (86:1)
• site:cr (Costa Rica) = 31,100 vs 109 (285:1)
• site:co (Colombia) = 54,400 vs 691 (78:1)
• site:ve (Venezuela) = 39,800 vs 1140 (64:1)
• site:pe (Peru) = 38,000 vs 617 (61:1)
• site:cl (Chile) = 106,000 vs. 764 (138:1)
• site:ar (Argentina) = 328,000 vs 6030 (54:1)
• site:oas.org (OAS, just out of idle curiosity) = 11800 vs 27 (437:1)
• site:un.org (UN, more curiosity) = 2440 vs 15 (162:1)
• site:es (Spain) = 262,000 vs 25,800 (10:1)

So, massively a minority use in Mexico itself (and most those 1640 are foreigners writing on mx pages or Mexicans setting spider-traps); more popular in relative terms in Argentina than anywhere else but still outnumbered 50 to 1; and one in eleven in Spain -- a "better" result than I expected: things have certainly changed there in the last quarter century. (Standard Googletest disclaimers apply.) –Hajor 18:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me when the Real Academia approved the use of "méxico"?

From what I read from this article, apparently in 2002. - Alan MB 01:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[words]

To any Mexican , please define the meanings in colloquial Mexican or Nahuatle. These are Filipino words, thanks.

Donde andas?(Chavacano) denotes 'Where are you going?'. (Spanish: anda - to walk or operate)

Seguro means 'Maybe'. (Spanish: seguro-sure, secure, stable) Do they have different meanings with European Spanish?

Siempre means 'Of course'. (Spanish: siempre-always)

Pirmi (Visayan, Chavacano) means 'Always'. (Spanish: firme-firm,steady)

Basta - as long as (Spanish: basta - enough)

Maske - even if (Spanish: mas que - more than)

Cubeta - toilet/outhouse (Spanish : bucket)

Casilyas (Visayan, Chavacano) - toilet/toilet seat/to shit (Spanish: casillas-Chess squares/hut /cabin)

Lamierda - 'paint the town red' (Spanish:la mierda- shit, excrement)

Nanay-Mother (Nahuatle:Nantle -mother)

Tatay-Father (Nahuatle:Tatle -father)

Palengke - Town Market (Mexican?) - Anecdotally: in Mexico, a palenque is a place where cockfighting takes place (yes, it does); the event always includes music, drinks and debauchery, and in modern times happens mostly without the cockfighting. I suspect cockfighting used to happen in town markets and such in times of yore, and came in from there.

Chico - A fruit

Avocado -A fruit

Guava -A fruit

Sabon - Soap (Spanish:Jabon-soap)

Relos -watch (Spanish :Reloj -watch)

Thanks from --Jondel 00:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some additional translations in italics. --wolfe 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Avodcado derives from Nahuatl 'ahuocatl', Nanay from Nahuatl 'nantli', Tatay from 'tahtli'. Palengke may be derived from Palenque, but I'm not sure about that. --Mixcoatl 12:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another question. My Spanish is not so good. Seguro should mean for sure or guaranteed to happen, stable.Doesn't it? In the Philippines, it means --Maybe-- (quizas). How about in Mexican?--Jondel 00:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means the same in "Mexican". It's probably used (or originated) in a sarcastic manner or with questioning tone, and evolved like "mañana", but I dunno. --wolfe 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh , you mean siguro means 'maybe' in 'Mexican' when it should mean 'for sure' in Standard Spanish? I was thingking that the siguro of Mexico evolved from 'siguramente' Is this only in Mexico? --Jondel 00:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Seguro" means "for sure" in Spanish, including Mexican usage. It does not mean "maybe"; rather, it's like the use of a sarcastic "yeah, sure" in English, which doesn't mean "for sure" either. As in English, you know from context. Hopefully this is clearer. --wolfe 19:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nahuatl

I remember reading somewhere that Nahuatl was recognized as an official language in 2002. Can someone verify that?--129.125.103.28 12:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No - Spanish continues to be the only official language of Mexico, at least as of January 2005 (date on my reference book). --wolfe 19:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a little town, in the state of Mexico, that declared nahuatl as the "oficial" language. Of course is not really oficcial, is more an statement to try to keep nahuatl as a live language. Nanahuatzin 06:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nahuatl, official language?

No my friend, spanish is still the only official language of Mexico, though there are almost 2 million nahuatl speakers, most of them are bilingual with spanish, so, not yet. Government has started to teach in nahuatl or any other local dialect (along with spanish)in some rural communities and even printing books in these languages.

Removing content

Just letting you know that I removed the following offensive material from the introductory paragraph:

"Mexicans go around the country and capture Americans buying weed. Then they cross the river to USA. They live in a huge but cramped houses. THey like to eat chinchilla, la curcarachas and monkeys. They play HALO 2 and buy weed on XBox Live."

I didn't read the article thoroughly, I'm just browsing around looknig for some obscure historical information, so I just wanted to give everyone a heads-up in case any more stuff like that is hidden in the article.

That was junk added a little earlier today by a passing vandal. That user has been warned to stop adding junk or risk being banned from editing. You were quite correct in removing it (though know if you hadn't, someone else would have). Thanks, -- Infrogmation 21:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Afro Mexicans

How come Black Africans are never even mentioned in this article? Me being a member of this community, I fell particularly offended by the fact that our history is some how neglected or ignored. I would be happy, though, to add it later.

wey, they don't!, well, you are in the 1% others population of mexico since most of the africans that the spaniards brought here were assimilated between the "mestizo" population (the same happened with most of the chinese) remaining actually only a few "pure" blacks, but if you want to know the estimated of black slaves in mexico before independence granted them freedom was supposedly 20,000 as far as I know they were brought here when the local priests started protectionist actitudes towards the converted amerindians and they occuped a point in the Hispanic "racial hierarchy" lower than the amerindians. yeah, pinche racismo (although know you see more blacks than mestizos in Mexican television).

I'm not sure who it is using the term "mulato" but I would like whoever it is doing it to know that the term is offensive. It comes from the word mule, implying the its a mix with some strange species.

This is an article about Mexico, here mulato is not an ofensive term, and most of the people of black ancestry is called mulato or mestizo, although this terms are really rarelly used, since ussually we do not clasify people in racial terms. Anyway, i am trying to mend the article in relation with black africans, an realtin it to the main article of afro-mexicans. Nanahuatzin 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

See Afro-Mexican, SqueakBox 19:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

-Maybe "mulato" is offensive in its root, but "mestizo", too. I know it is used in some parts as something bad, under the ideology that mixture of blood is not good.

-Along with mulato, there are other words, like zambo, that, so far I know, was originally used for the mix with Indians. However, there were a lot of definitions for explaining ancestry of the persons during the Colonial epoch. Some exist nowadays, mulato, too, although not widely used. Personally, I think it is good not to have to use it and not to have to see the difference all the time. As much as I know, mulatos are nowadays often integrated under the concept of mestizo, so there is spoken of black, white, indian and mestizo in statistics (where one ends and the other begins is not clear).

-I think, and I am not alone with that, that the word of Afro-Mexican is not so good. Such a word is not known in Mexico, expecially since "Afro-Mexicans" are not Africans: they are Mexicans. Moreover, if an hindu comes to Mexico, how would people know that he is not Afro-Mexican? And if they believe he is African-American, it's wrong, too. He has nothing to do with Africa! The same for some African-Americans in the USA. They might be Africans (and there are white Africans, too), or Hindus. And if they are American citicens, they are not less Americans because of their skin. Moreover, Africa is not a unity in itself, as Europe is not one. There is a concept of Africa, as there is one of Europe, but Euro-Americans is not a concept! In what refers to Mexico, a land that tries to characterize itself as the union of races (c.f. Vasconcelos with its Raza Cósmica and Por mi raza hablará el espíritu), it is not good to give such distinctions so many importance. It is a problem if white people see themselves as either European (and many times because of that better) and it is a problem if they then try to characterize others in the same way, so making them less Mexicans.

-The concept of XXX-Mexican or terms alike is not established in Mexico and of discussion as not less racistic. To say "someone is black" is not per se racistic there. To say a Mexican is less Mexican because of that (or feeling that one is), might be more dangerous.

N.M.B.R.Nbez 13:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The term Afro-Mexican is wrong. It compares a continent with a nation. So is AfricanAmerican since America is a continent; but like always the gringos think it is a nation. But it seems the black ethincal comunity in Mexico and Latin America take pride in being black and being refered as that, unlike the respective comunity in the US and other 1st world nations which get easily offended. Sorry not sure how to place that, I am not being racist.

States and the Federal District

The Federal District should not be included in the list of States, as it is NOT consdiered a state. (The article was saying that Mexico is divided into 31 states yet the list contained 32 names of states!).

According to the Mexican constitution, and as children are taught every year at school: "México está dividido en 31 estados y un distrito federal", that is "Mexico is divided into 31 states and a Federal District" making the distinction. It is pretty much the same way as in the US, DC is not consdiered a state, and people usually make the distinction.

It should be interesting to know, though, if the representation of the Federal District in the National Chamber of Deputies and Senate is the same as for every state or whether it is like Washington DC that has limited representation.

Senate: the DF gets three senators (2+1), just like the states. In the Chamber: similar population-based representation as the rest of the country; currently 30 of the 300 first-past-the post deputies. There's no functional difference btwn senators/deputies from the DF and those from the rest of the country. Hth, as they say. –Hajor 22:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On New Population Figures

I noticed that the population figures in the section of Important cities were changed by 201.129.30.7 (yet he/she didn't bother to change or update the source of the data). I have been trying to look on INEGI's web page whether these figures were official, or whether they were only an estimation by 201.129.30.7. So far, I haven't been able to confirm 201.129.30.7 figures.

Still haven't confirmed 201.129.30.7 changes. Besides he only changed some population figures but not others (as if population hadn't grown in those cities... quite unlikely)... I guess that's one of the risks, or weaknesses of Wikipedia, anyone can change anything or write anything, even if it is just a personal belief or estimation...

By the way, I recommend reading the discussion on Mexico City's article, as it explains why an overestimation of its population is not statistically plausible...

Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves. YA BASTA!

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

"very unequal"

"Income distribution is very unequal" ... unequal is not a adjective to be qualified; in fact, it seems pointless to characterize the incomes of 100 million people as unequal at all -- of course they are unequal. Instead, there could be a mention about the relative size of the middle class, or the fraction living below the poverty line. Figures like "the top 20% make 55% of the money" are misleading since this is typical in a capitalist society. In fact, the Gini coefficient for Mexico is 0.546; hardly noteworthy. For more, see Income inequality metrics.

portal

Does anyone know how is a portal created, or where can it be proposed? I think we should create a portal of Mexico, that would allow us to improve and create more articles related to this country, as they do for other countries. --J.Alonso 23:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

See Portal:Mexico. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. After I had written this I found the portal. The thing is, the link was located at the bottom of the page, not at the top (as it is with Brazil and Germany, for example), and I didn't scroll down enough to find it. --J.Alonso 01:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This is very true.

Check this (Alarma! magazine)

I wonder if article Alarma is correct? Or is this magazine some kind of urban legend? As the only sources online seems to reffer to a single book which mentions it, called Muerte: Death in Mexican Popular Culture. The competitor magazines Alarde, Enlance and Poliester seems to be mentioned just in one page online except for wikipedia mirrors; Poliester magazine is mentioned elsewhere too, but it seems to be writting something about culture rather than dead bodies. Also, the stated 15 million copies per week would mean that like over 10% of all Mexicans buys it every week; it would be strange that magazine of this size wouldn't even have its own website and be mentioned only in a few pages online. Or maybe there are more refferences in Spanish about it? Matsuhito 11:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

¡Alarma! is most definitely for real. 15 million a week is unbelievable (although it is sold in other countries) but as the article states, it's the mag's claimed circulation: banging up the numbers like that is exactly its style. No website? That's surprising, but maybe they just assume that their target audience doesn't have net access. Or maybe they just don't know where to find someone willing to host their kind of material. –Hajor 12:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No web site may appear to be surprising but actually it isn't. Very few commercial magazines of this type have a website even in rich countries like the UK. Partly because of the burst of the internet bubble in 2000 but mostly because they make their money from paper magazines and the internet is nowhere near as lucrative, there are a lot less of websites for these type of mags than one would think (I know because I work in this area), so don't assume the lack of website means anything. On the other hand 15 million sounds a lot, as the successful mags in the UK (with half the population) have a half a million circulation,

SqueakBox 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

About 6 years ago I worked in a newspaper stand in Mexico City, close to a Metro station, and back then I hardly sold any copies of Alarma! Newspapers like La Prensa sold a lot more. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 09:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

¡Alarma! was real at least in the mid-80's (I was in secondary school - junior high). As far as I know the publication of it ended years ago although there are some "heirs" of it. It was absolutely disgusting.

New figures

It's been 5 years since the last INEGI population count and in four days we must update many numbers in the Mexico related articles.--Fito 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the figures for current conteo wouldn't be available till 2006 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that so? I just assumed that the new figures would be up as soon as the conteo ended. I guess I was very wrong XD. Ok, we'll just have to wait.--Fito 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Xochimilco

I just wanted to say that the sound of x in Xochimilco is not like the sound of sh in shop, but like the sound of s in sea.

Also, for the common speaker in Mexico, the letter x has four different sounds, depending on the word, this often causes confusion on the speaker as to what sound corresponds to the letter in a new or unknown word:

• x in the words México, Oaxaca and Xalapa sounds like ch in Scottish loch.
• x in the words Xochimilco, Xenón and the proper name Xóchitl sounds like stated above (s).
• x in the words taxi, conexión and axial, sounds like x in English exit.
• x in the words xoloescuintle, axiote and Xólotl, sounds like sh in English shop (sometimes, this sound extends to non-nahuatl words such as xenofobia, xenón and xileno; xilófono is always pronounced this way).

Of course, the pronunciation of these words can vary depending on the knowledge of the speaker and on the region the speaker comes from, sometimes we can hear shenón and senofobia; but never ksileno, due to the difficulty of pronouncing two consonants at the beggining of a word in Spanish.

Demographics (reliance on CIA Worldfactbook)

I'm curious about the 60/30/10 breakdown of Mestizo/Indian/European population demographic used to describe Mexico's ethnic population. I bring this up because I've noticed these figures regurgitated on other forums not just here on Wikipedia. From what I've gathered, the CIA references demographic reports conducted by the Mexican government, so why is THAT information not referenced here? I've also searched for this information, but can't seem to find anything online.

On another note, why hasn't the CIA broken down any "mestizo" demographics for North America (Cananda & the United States) where it is historically obvious that many Americans/Canadians have at least some Native American ancestry, despite their European surname and outwardly looking European features? I personally disagree with the term "Mestizo" because it implies that a person of this background is exactly 1/2 Spanish and 1/2 Native Indian, when in fact intermixing between Mesoamerican and European (not just Imperial Spanish) has been going on for over 500 years throughout the Americas (North and South). I'm an American of Mexican heritage, but my ancestry consists of Mesoamerican, Spanish, German, Italian (all via Mexico), but people in the U.S. would assume that I am White because my eyes are green, my hair light brown and I stand over 6', 3". I have no problem acknowleding my heritage, but it's ironic that a lot of white Americans I have discussions on this about try to argue that I'm not "truly" of Mexican heritage because I don't look Mestizo, and they use recent poor Indian immigrants as "examples" of what a Mestizo looks like. I think a similar observation can be found on the Vicente Fox Wiki discussion page where some people are arguing that he's not really Mexican but Irish/English, and that he doesn't really look Mexican at all! What nonesense, especially from people who aren't even Mexican Nationals.--Bourbon King 19:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It a bit diffilt to gather oficial data on this issue. In México, mestizo has became an ethnic o cultural term, not a racial term. No demographic studies by the Mexican goverment include statistics about "race", since this is considered a form of racism. Instead the census of populations implied that indian is someone that speaks a native language of forms part of any of the 92 ethnic groups indigenous to Mexico. The last census in Mexico (2000) by the INEGI (http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/2000/archivospdf/oportuno.pdf) records 6.3 millions of people, older than 5 years that speak a native language. So proportionally, this yield a 7.3% of "indigenas". So far i have been unable to locate How the estimate of mestizos has been made. Nanahuatzin 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of demographic composition, as far as I know, CIA figures do NOT come from the Mexican government, since the Mexican government does not make any racial classification in their census, as they do in the US. The only official figure available is the one provided by Nanahuatzin, which is based mostly on language and not on race. Moreover, since Mexicans have found their national identity as mestizos, there is certain tendency, from the government, to overstate the "mestizo" heritage and to ignore all other racial groups. For example, even if a European nowadays marries a white Mexican, their children are automatically considered mestizos. In Chipilo, where the population speaks the Venet language (in fact there are even more speakers of Venet than other indigenous languages), some of the speakers have asked the government to provide resources in order to protect their language from extinction (similar to the resources the indigeous communities receive) but the government has been unwilling even to recognize their language as a minority language in the state of Puebla. (A similar chase if that of the menonite communities in the state of Chihuahua). Other racial groups that have been ignored are the mulato, located mostly at the coastal regions of Veracruz; their physical features crearly show a different heritage.

Coats of arms

Does any one know if the coats of arms of the Mexican states that have been uploaded here, can be uploaded at Commons, so that the rest of the wikis can use them, or do they have a special copyright status?

Cornish?!

What? Cornish-speakers in Mexico?! Cornish is supposed to have become extinct in the 19th century, and the variety today spoken by a few people in Cornwall is a revived dialect with a phonology disputed by most linguists. If the language really survived as a mother-tongue in Mexico, this seems almost to good to be true. Bab

Miners went from Cornwall (or Wales) to work at the Real del Monte silver mine in Hidalgo. It is attested to in several historical souces.

Cornish survived into the 19th century only in the most remote areas on the Duchy's southwestern coastal fringe. We're talking about isolated individuals, such as on the Isle of Man today, who have varying degrees of native knowledge of a language that is no longer used as a community language or learnt (except very exceptionally) by children. The difference is that Man now has a language revival movement, whereas Cornwall had to wait a century (and even then the Cornish revival didn't pick up much steam till after the 1960s). But I digress. The point is that hardly any emigrant miners would have been old enough, by the time of Cornish migrations to Mexico, to have picked up any significant amount of Cornish. The idea that Cornish survives to the present day as a community language in Mexico is far-fetched, bordering on absurd; somebody probably put that sentence in as a hoax. There is, unfortunately, no Cornish Gwladfa. Oll a'n gwella, ha Kernow bys vykken, QuartierLatin1968 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

yes I see it has now been changed to 'dialect' , and whilst this is probable, after the previous claim I would rather still check for a reference. Does anyone know one? Pbviously I know there is still a significant cornish influence in some areas where miners settled... Its also quiite easy for people without knowledge of this to get confused between the cornish language and dialect, an unfortumatly somewhere around the early 19th century it might just be plausible that somone with an impressive knowledge could have left in the emmigrations ( there have been several less varifiable reports of later speakers and certainly there were old people even later into the 19th century with knowledge.) 2006 (WPM)

Bunch of stuff taken for granted

There is so much stuff Mexicans take for granted that is never questioned; there is so much stuff whose only authoritative source is vox populi like the inflated and irrealistic population estimations for most of Mexico's metropolitan areas. However, there is one more thing that I am not quite sure if it is official or not. As I was about to write an article on the "Languages of Mexico", I started researching about the 62 indigenous languages, that according to the CDI [2], are oficially recognized by the Mexican government. I then went to the Constitution of Mexico (three sources: [3], [4], and a .pdf file with the most recent changes: [5]) and to my surprise I did NOT FIND A SINGLE ARTICLE that says that Spanish is the official language of Mexico. I decided to review other legal documents, like the Código Civil Federal (Federal Civil Code) [6], and of the 3074 articles, there is NO SINGLE ARTICLE that specifies that Spanish is the official language of Mexico. I then suspected that Spanish is a de facto language, in the same way as English is the official de facto language in the US, but not de jure. So, then I started to review a couple of the constitutions of the states, to see if they specify an official langauge at all: Puebla [7] does not, Veracruz [8] does not, State of Mexico [9] does not, Yucatan [10] does not, and then I gave up.

So, my question is: is Spanish truly the de jure official language of Mexico? Does anyone know of another strange and unknown legal document that specifies it? (Please don't direct me to the webpage of the Presidency, a webpage is not an official law, the constituion is). --J.Alonso 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, I also reviewed the Ley Federal de Derechos (Federal Law of Rights) [11] to see it "to learn Spanish" is the right of every Mexican (just as it is in Spain), but again, no article about that. --J.Alonso 01:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is de facto, as you correctly pointed out, just like with English and the USA. So that should be noted, somehow. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's buried somewhere in the current Constitution. If not, try looking at the either the 1824 or 1857 Constitutions. As long as it's mentioned in one of those we could say that Spanish was the de jure official language at some point. It is also interesting to note that for education purposes the "default" language of teaching is Spanish, although people who speak indigenous dialects have the right to be taught in their own language. (Also, are you sure it's only 62 languages? I've read there were around 75 instead). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the link to the 1857 constitution: [12], and no article on Spanish as the official language whatsoever. I wonder, in which other document could a country specify its official language, besides the constitution? As for the indigenous langauges, like I said, there is no mention of their names in the 1917 constitution (though the second article defines Mexico as a "pluricultural nation" (maybe we should mention this), and declares that the government will do anything within its means to protect and promote the native languages. Here: [13] you will find that there are 62 indigenous languages officially recognized and "many more variants". --J.Alonso 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Article 4 of the "General law of linguistic rights of the indigenous peoples" says Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio, localización y contexto en que se hablen. (The indigenous languages recognized in the context of the present Law and Spanish are national languages due to their historical origin, and have the same validity in its territory, localization and context in which they are spoken). So there you go. I will not go into the debate of equating national==official since that's a debate that belongs to the Courts, not Wikipedia. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. I had heard of the law, which was just approved 3 years ago (so there was no "national" language before). True, we should not debate into equating national==official, yet, if this is the only law that speaks of an "official language" then Spanish and the 62 indigenous languages are official as well (and I wouldn't venture to say that). I would then say that Spanish is just the de facto official language in Mexico, and then say, as a footnote, that Spanish, as well as the 62 indigenous languages are considered national languages and have the same validity under the law. What do you think? --J.Alonso 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't venture to say it is the de facto language either, given the evidence above (after all, it is mentioned in some law, just the meaning of "national" it is not clear). Just say that it is considered a "national" language, without going much into details. This also doesn't preclude the mention Spanish as official language in some other law we are not aware of. I'm actually thinking of filing a request to IFAI on this... (After edit conflict: why did you erase some of your previous text?) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the IFAI? I was citing another article, then I realized that, even though it used different phrasing, it was the same idea of Article 4 that you cited. I thought it made no sense repeating the same stuff, so I deleted it. Sorry. --J.Alonso 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No probs about the removal, I just thought it was strange. IFAI is the Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información Pública. A request to IFAI is the equivalent to a request under the Freedom of Information Act in the US. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

inserting link for factbook

when I attempt to add the link for the factbook into the infobox that I copied and pasted from mexico in the sandbox, it works but I get a summary of what the link is..

I enter it as [[14]]

and it comes up with a number with "List of Countries by GDP" in the infobox

Economy

Questions about their banking sector.John wesley 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on the economy reads like someone took it out of a Mexican tourism brochure. Don't you think that it's a little misleading to say such wonderful things about an economy that has to get bailed out every couple of years? Mexico is better known for its large and relatively cheap labour force--and subsequent illegal immigrants (economic refugees) to the United States than it's privatisation scheme. A more accurate message would be that Mexico and most Mexicans are horribly poor but the situation is improving. 66.98.99.154 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And your "accurate message" surely deserves to be part of an economic report made by the World Bank and not a "tourism brochure". And as I am sure you know so much about the Mexican economy (or economics in general for that matter), your simplistic message surely reflects reality. --J.Alonso 18:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I regret your ad hominem attack and would refer you to Wikipedia:Civility. I happen to have graduated from a very respectable institution with a degree in international economics, but my comments are in no way based upon my credentials. My point stands that the economics section lacks important information on the deplorable state of poverty in which many Mexicans live. 68.33.74.123 02:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for referring me to the aforementioned link; I had read it before. While I apologize if the sarcasm of the comment offended you, I do not recant from the opinion expressed in it. See, I happen to be a graduate student in Economics from a very respectable institution. So please take the previous comment and this comment as a "peer to peer", or "colleague to colleague" remark. Given your credentials (and mine) I even sustain what I said. If anything, this section must be written as academically as possible, if Wikipedia aims to be a respectable encyclopedia. Therefore, I completely oppose normative (and to my opinion) simplistic arguments such as: "horribly poor but improving" and "deplorable state" of poverty; since both "horribly" and "deplorable" cannot be measured, do not have a universal meaning, and do not allow for comparisons (i.e. what would be a "less horrible" porverty? and what would be a "non-deplorable" state of povery?). However, if you wish to say that, "according to the World Bank, 27% of the rural population in Mexico lived in extreme poverty (as defined in income perceived daily) in 2004 (a reduction from 42% in 2000), while urban poverty has stagnated at 11.3% since 2000" then I would not oppose such a statement. Moreover, it reflects in quantifiable and verifiable terms the "deplorable" state of poverty you so want to stress in this article.

As for the rest of your comments, related to the "cheap labour force" and "being bailed out every couple of years", while simplistic, I do believe they need to be included after being polished, but should not be the "only" things mentioned as if Mexico were "only known for that". This section is not about stating "what is Mexico is better known for" (or, to state it more properly "what Mexico is better known for in this or that particular country and/or by this or that particular user of Wikipedia"), but about giving a comprehensive yet concise description of the overall state of the Mexican economy, which must include a lot more than just having a "qualitative" remark on poverty. I must also add, that in the last 50 years, as far I recall, and I might be wrong, Mexico has "been bailed out" only twice: in 1982, when it defaulted on its debt (the first of many Latin American nations do it in the next two decades) and in 1995 when the American Senate granted Mexico last-minute economic aid to avoid default (which I must add, was repaid during Zedillo's administration); that was 11 years ago. If these two constitute enough proof for the statement "has been bailed out every couple for years", then I guess you can add your statement; but again, in my opinion it is too simplistic; I prefer my statement.

I am sorry I am addressing you in this Discussion page and not personally in your own Discussion page, but both your comments have been anonymous. --J.Alonso 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey experts on the economy, why hasn't anyone said OIL ? John wesley 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC) and PEMEX John wesley 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the first comment saying that the Economy section seems like a brochure, I tell you: re-read it. Richard, me (and maybe others) have helped in making it a realistic section. Silversink 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook has plenty of information about the economy Viihde 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Asian Population?

Mexico has a sizeable population of Asians numbering around 21, many of them Chinese, the majority of which reside in Mexicali, Baja California and Japanese.

Should that be 21,000? References? Pretzelpaws 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [15]

migration from the USA? after the railroad work ended? [16] John wesley 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Aschkenasim

Are the Jews fro Mexiko Aschkenasim or Sefardim? Simon Mayer

From what I read at [17] it seems the majority are Sefardim, immigrating to Mexico since the 16th century. Immigration in the 20th century included both Sefardim and Aschkenasim --J.Alonso 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Central or South America?

Is mexico in North America or Central America?

Mexico as a whole, is considered to be in North America, although it is also considered that the southern portion of Mexico is part of Central America. If you need more info of this, just reply. Silversink 01:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 GDP

I changed Mexico's GDP based on the IMF 2006 numbers. You can find the info at the IMF website: [18] -Doug Johnson

Though well meant, unfortunately the 2005 and certainly 2006 figures from IMF are for now still estimates. Till IMF updates (hopefully soon), we normally use the “real” 2004 figures. --Van helsing 16:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing economic and social concerns

Silversink suggests that the subsection entitled "Ongoing economic and social concerns" belongs in the History of Mexico article and not in the Mexico article. I disagree. If anything, it should be the other way around. The text below (which I did not write) is intended to describe Mexico today and thus is more of a description of the current situation than of historical events.

- Ongoing economic and social concerns include low real wages, underemployment for a large segment of the population, inequitable income distribution, and few advancement opportunities for the largely Amerindian population in the impoverished southern states, even though the Mexican government has made efforts to improve these problems especially in the area of inflation. The country has continued to struggle with such issues as economic control and development, especially with the petroleum sector and the evolution of trade relations with the United States. Corruption and violence stemming from the drug trade have also brought problems to Mexico lately.

In order to avoid a revert war, I'm not going to revert his edit at this time. I do wish to hear other opinions on this question first before proceeding. I might propose that the above text be moved into a separate section outside of the History section. Would this be acceptable? Richard 06:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard. First of all I want to say that I appreciate your recent hard work. But I really think that "Ongoing economic and social concerns" shouldn't be in the "History" section. Lets see for example the History section of the United States article. They stop in the 19th century and they don't talk about "recent problems". I think that this new section that you added today and I deleted later should be merged in the "Economy" section (economic concerns) and "Demographics" section (social concerns). Any opinion is welcome. Silversink 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Silversink. Thanks for the compliments. I agree with you for the same line of reasoning as I used in the comment below. The History section should be for events that are mostly in the past. Descriptions of Mexico today should not be in the History section. I have implemented my interpretation of your suggestion in the article. Check it out and let me know if that's what you were thinking. I also deleted the text from the History of Mexico article while I was at it.

NB: I didn't think "social concerns" should go in the Demographics section since demographics is really more about population statistics and not social issues.

Richard 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just checked the United States article. It is ludicrous that the History section there stops where it does. It completely omits a century of American history. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq are history. The current occupation of Iraq is arguably not history yet.

I *HATE* you for pointing me at that article. I was just getting ready to take a break and relax from a week of heavy Wiki-editing. Now, I have another project on my list. This gringo has to "go home" and fix the History section of his own country's article. Sigh....

Richard 07:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the changes I made and tell me what you think. Good luck with your new project =D Silversink 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to explain it here. I merged your new 2 sections to the "Economy" section. I deleted redundant information. For example, the "Ongoing economic concerns" section says: "Ongoing economic concerns include low real wages, underemployment for a large segment of the population, inequitable income distribution..." and in the "Economy" section says: "Income distribution remains highly unequal, with the top 20% of income earners accounting for 55% of income.". Silversink 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the changes you just made and described above. For the most part, I think what you did is good and addresses the issues we've been discussing. I disagree with the drug trade sentence being folded into the Economy section, at least in the way that you did it. However, IMHO, the "right" solution is to have a section on drug trade either by itself or as a subsection of the Economy section. Since I'm not volunteering to write that section, I will leave it for somebody with more knowledge to do it.

Richard 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I kinda rearranged the Economic section. In fact I'm going to delete the sentence "Corruption and violence stemming from the drug trade have also brought problems to Mexico lately." and put instead "Corruption and crime continue to be chronic problems". If anyone is interested in adding more info, do it!. Silversink 08:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of PRI, PAN and Vicente Fox belongs in the History section

I am a newbie and this is the first time that I have overriden somebody else's edit of one of my edits. I have tried to be deferential to other people's opinions but after giving this some thought, I think that Silversink had the right idea (remove redundant text which I missed) but the wrong execution (removed the new text rather than the old text).

Here's my rationale... By the time of the 2006 general election on July 2, Vicente Fox will be headed to history since he can't be re-elected. Also, the PRI's loss to the PAN was a gradual historical development that started in the 1980s and culminated in the victory of Vicente Fox in 2000. Even that victory in 2000 is now history, having happened almost 6 years ago.

Thus, the discussion of PRI, PAN and Vicente Fox belongs firmly in the History section.

If you look at the Government and Politics section, you will see that it doesn't really suffer from having that text taken out and moved to the History section.

I hope this explains my reasoning sufficiently and that you will find it acceptable. Richard 06:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is to define the "History" section. In my own personal opinion, we should stop the history section in the 19th century, and only put some essential information of the 20th century. PRI's loss to the PAN belongs to the Government and Politics section and not in the History section. As I said before, we should merge "Modern History" concerns (like NAFTA /Economy/, PRI's loss to the PAN /Politics/, ongoing economic problems /Economy/ etc.) in their respective sections. But hey, that's only my opinion. We need more. Silversink 07:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What, you don't consider WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War and Watergate to be history?

Richard 07:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thought: The breaking of PRI's hegemony is history and belongs in the History section. To the extent that the PRI still wields power in Mexico and I would guess that it still wields considerable power, that discussion belongs in the Government and Politics section.

Richard 07:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Richardshusr, I meant to say that I think that the history section should stop with important events of the 20th century and put only some essential information of the 21st century. And yes, I've been thinking about it and I'm not going to argue about the NAFTA and PRI's loss to the PAN sections because both are important modern events. "Government and politics" section should say that the actual president is Vicente Fox. I'm going to add it. Hope you don't mind. Silversink 07:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle... I was thrown by the fact that the U.S. section ended with the Civil War and so it was weirdly plausible that you thought the Mexico article should do the same. You're not as crazy as I thought you were. I have fixed the History section of the United States article so that it runs up to the present.

I'm fine with the G&P section saying the current president is Vicente Fox ("actual" in Spanish means "current" in English). Just as long as somebody updates it in July.

Richard 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is vandalism more frequent on this page than others?

Seems to me that the Aztec, Mexico and Hernan Cortes pages have been getting more vandalism than most other pages. I have 30 pages on my watchlist and these three pages have had multiple instances of vandalism in the last week alone. The other pages have had far fewer instances.

Do you agree that the frequency is higher than normal? If so, what, if anything should we do about it?

• Should we attempt to block the IP address (it keeps changing so it seems futile to do this)

• Should we put the page(s) on the Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages list?

• Should we get the pages protected or semiprotected?

Please weigh in with your opinion.

Thanks.

Richard 06:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• We try to block the IP addresses and also accounts who do the vandalism
• Go right ahead, if you want to.
• If the vandalism gets very bad, we do place it under semiprotection. Also, we have the article under a move protect, so that only admins can move the page (in the very unlikely case that we have to). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in the past few hours has gotten worse. If it continues I will place this article under semiprotection Silversink 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I personally believe the vandalism is over the immigration debate in the USA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Immigration law

User Darkstar1st added a section named "Immigration law" [19]. It was very long so I moved it to the article:Politics of Mexico because in my personal opinion I think it belongs there. If you want it back please use this talk page first so we can discuss it or you could also make a summary. Thanks!. Silversink 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Illegal migrants

Associated Press writes:

The National Human Rights Commission, a [Mexican] government-funded agency, documented the abuses south of the U.S. border in a December report. "One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South," commission President Jose Luis Soberanes said. [20]

Racism in Mexico

I think that section is completely inappropiate for an encyclopedia. Why not write a section about racism in the US, Canada, Spain...? A section of "prejudice" or "segregation" can be written in the Demographics of Mexico article, but writing a section ib the main article about "racism" is inapropriate. --J.Alonso 16:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it inappropiate? There is discrimination in Mexico as well. Most of the illegal immigrants in Mexico is because they end up discriminated there.

I don't understand what you are saying. In any case, not all illegal immigrants that come to the US are of Amerindian origin, and they don't emigrate because of prejudice, but because of the harsh economic conditions. --J.Alonso 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WW1

"At the outset of WWI, a secret aggrement was devised between the Mexican government and the German government. The Mexican government would support the German war effort against the United States in exchange for German assistance in invading the Southern United States."

Huh? Is there a reference for this? I always thought that the Germans proposed an agreement. But I have never read anywhere that the Mexicans accepted, or even seriously considered, an agreement. The Zimmerman telegram page has, IMHO, a more accurate description of the events.

Crime section

User:Polaron took out the crime section on the grounds that it is unencyclopedic and needs sources. I agreee. Here is the text that was excised.

Crime is a problem in Mexico stemming greatly from the great polarization between the rich and the poor. Criminal elements play a large role in the importation of illegal drugs into the United States. The Gulf Cartel,and Tijuana cartel and several other drug cartels play a major role in the drug trade. Corruption in the police throughout Mexico is rampant. Corruption in Mexico's elected officials and their association with criminal organizations prevents effective control of this problem.

--Richard 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiapas

The text in this section was copied from the Chiapas article. It's true that the Chiapas article needs sources but I disagree that the text is unencyclopedic. --Richard 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The statement "The present administration is cognizant of the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize the tax system and labor laws, and allow private investment in the energy sector, but has been unable to win the support of the opposition-led Congress." is hardly NPOV. That there is a "need" to allow private investment in the energy sector, specifically, is only true from a certain political perspective, and indeed, it seems that the majority of Mexicans do not agree. It's not simply the administration versus the opposition-led congress, this is a complex issue, where the public debate in Mexico is vigorous. This needs to be changed. JZ 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So change it already. Be bold!--Richard 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime and poverty

There is an edit/revert war going on where an anonymous editor (User:68.154.34.192) and User:Mexxxicano have been deleting text about "Crime and Poverty". Unless there is a valid argument that there is little or no crime or poverty in Mexico or that the crime and poverty is not noteworthy, then the text should stay. If there are questions of accuracy, then fix them or challenge them but deletions of text without explanation and/or discussion here are unacceptable.

--Richard 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Robert talan created an article on Mexican crime. That article has now been nominated for deletion. If that article is deleted, the content will probably be merged here. Please read the AfD and express your opinion.

--Richard 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Culture

We need more information about the culture

--Mexxxicano

Vandalism misattributed to User:Mexxxicano]

User:Drini reverted vandalism that was apparently caused by User:Mexxxicano. My investigation seems to indicate that the vandalism had been introduced several edits earlier by User:64.90.241.179. Here's the evidence [21]

I have fixed the problem by reverting to User:Mexxxicano's last edit and then removing User:64.90.241.179's vandalism.

I'm sure User:Drini's action was an honest mistake based upon a cursory look at the first part of User:Mexxxicano's edit. My guess is that User:Mexxxicano did a revert followed by adding his edits not realizing that his revert may have reverted to a vandalized version.

--Richard 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mexicans in Australia

HI My name is Michael and I am in year 7. I need to know for a assingment, how many Mexicans live in Melbourne and what suburbs do they live in? And Why?

I know this isn't directly related to the Mexico article but I'm curious...

There's a discussion going on at Talk:United States about what to call residents of the United States in English. Being American, I think you should call them "Americans". Yes, I know there are good reasons to use the phrase "Estados-unidenses" in Spanish but there isn't a good translation of that phrase into English. Thoughts? If you don't think this is a good topic to be discussed on this Talk page, feel free to reply on my Talk page.

--Richard 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Word Reference translate "estadounidense" by American or US citizen. In French, this distinction may also be made (as in English, the Americas vs America), "étatsunien" is the exact translation of the adjective or noun "estadounidense"; although Américain or Nord-Américain is commonly used, étatsunien is used when one emphasize that the US are only part of the Americas and not the whole of it. This is especially relevant when discussing Latin American topics (by the way, that's interesting to see English Wikipedia have a Latin America entry, I thought this was a French expression, and that in English Central & South America was rather used). In any cases, I'm sure there is no good translation for this in English, apart from "US citizens"... But well, since English is a so inventive language, I'm sure it could come up with something if it looked for it:) !!! Lapaz 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See also thread on Word Reference; "United Stater" has been proposed, along others... Lapaz 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation but my guess is that Latin America is a somewhat obsolete term from the days of Yanqui imperialism which kind of lumped all Spanish and Portuguese (Latin) speaking countries together thus mixing together Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and everybody else as if they had more in common than they had differences.

I suspect that what we were saying is that there is English America and Latin America.

This whole topic is discussed in nauseating detail over at Talk:Latin America

These days, we Americans are sophisticated enough to know that Central America is different from South America. However, only some of us know that Mexico is in North America and not in Central America. I admit that I myself sometimes forget that because I grew up thinking it was in Central America.

--Richard 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fucking jews.