Talk:Mexico

United Mexican States?

all the mexicans should learn how to speak english like the rest of us in the USA

The mexicans should have to learn how to speak english so we can talk derty to them and have phone sex with them and we could under stand them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Argentina is the most developed country in Latin AMerica. Many of them emigrated to ÑMexico during the crisis in 2001 but it's still more develop country than Mexico. Many others emigrate to Mexico because thye have more chances of getting rich than in Argentina because the Mexicans are very racist with their own people.

We are not fucking racists you idiot, and im speaking in english so what makes you have the right to say that, and why dont you learn spanish then?

This is very subjective. I don't think you can state that Argentina is more developed than Mexico, nor Chile than Argentina, nor Brazil than I don't know what. Every country has its own problems.

Here you have the development index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

According to a student that is majoring in Political Sciences, he declared that Mexico is one of the most developed countries in Latin America. I, personally, think it is, but like every other third world country, Mexico has its own politcal, social, and financial problems as well(Ert383 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)).

UMS? Hahha, I cannot agree on the spelling wikipedia makes on how to write Mexico in spanish. I've learn in my spanish class in Puerto Rico that it's written Mejico with accent on the e( I don't knwo how to do it on the kb). Another thing that is bothering me is that the USA needs to mind their business on how to teach others how to speak their own language. The USA can barely teach English in public schools, let alone in Latin America, and are always trying to inflinge on others national rights. Furthermore, determining whos most developed in the Latin American community is impossible because you need to define what is a developed country that isn't a reflect from other countries. Mexico isn't the most developed. It has influence, but I can shatter that logic during a seizure. Alexzandro Rivera

All I have to say is Mexico is the ONLY Latin American Country that was accepted in the OECD (10 years ago) and it is internationally recognized as more developed as its southern neighboors. Sorry if that bothers you. You should check what your government is telling you about your own country, because some governments try to "disguise" the reality by saying "we're the best in Latin America", and the people believe it... without checking. Surreal... =) AlexCovarrubias 08:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

it is truly amazing the ignorance of some Americans, they don't speak their own language properly, much less a second language, oh no! Lots of Latin Americans speak a second language, why cant you learn Spanish, too much to ask? i bet that this guy is the kind of person that yells at non-english-speaking folks

Crime and Poverty

I have removed the line, "Most Mexican officers, nevertheless, are honest people.", as it is redundant, among other things. On a personal note, I understand that you don't want to give away a misconception of officers being corrupt, but this is not needed and has no factual evidence to support it.

I don't understand?

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)

Currency

There needs to be a currency thing in here!!!!!!!!! Please someone put one in!!!!

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

Yes I'm Mexican, and I was just trying to update a couple of things about this article, and I found out that I can't!, how come!!???, it's stupid, then I'm gonna have to start vandalizing the US article, so nobody can edit it anymore.

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)

I corrected the part of the entry which stated Louisiana was part of New Spain. From its cession by France in 1763 to its secret retrocession in 1800 (although Spanish officials in Louisiana were not notified and continued to govern the province until the Americans arrived in 1803), Louisiana was never a part of New Spain. Louisiana and Cuba were administratively ruled by the Captain-General of Havana, and Louisiana was regarded as a Caribbean possession. In fact, when a minor comandant in Louisiana complained about Osage Indians taking shelter in neighboring Texas, the complaint had to be passed to New Orleans, then to Havana, then to Madrid, then Mexico City, and finally to San Antonio. Spanish authorities would not allow direct communication from one comandant to another, even though their provinces bordered each other.

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)

Méjico is the correct spelling. Spanish is from Spain, and Mexicans were born in the colonial days under Spanish rule. You can't erase history just to forget the pain in it. However, countries do reserve the right to change their name. For ex. Puerto Rico was actually spelled Porto Rico until it was changed by Congress at reformists requests, but the pronounciation changed much a bit, but the definition is the same. It's was transformed from colonial spanish to Latin American modern spanish. Which is totally understandable considering USA did the same separation from Britian, and Britian from Old English from Medevil times. So if Méjico is now México, I'll be damned to pronounce México as Méjico. That's a great insult to the purpose of the change. If you wanted it to be called Méjico, then this is how it's spelled. Don't change our grammar rules just to confirm to a stupid political utopia. Alexzandro Rivera

You should read Wikipedia Policies about begin WP:CIVIL. However, wether you like it or not, the correct spelling, for historial and use reasons is México, according to the Real Academia de la Lengua Española, which also advises to use the form México in all its derivative words. Your political comment is not only not helpful, but also very laughable. AlexCovarrubias 08:33, 1 November 2006 (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.

RESPONSE TO THE AFRO-MEXICAN.we mexicans are not hispanic/latino its not a race or culture still were labeld like this & youre offended? people that reffer to themselfs as hispanic/latino. trust me their ill-educated & ignorant because all they do is work & go home to watch tv were latino/hispanic concept is fueld. oh well our loss..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.233.180 (talk • contribs)

WTh you're talking about? Latino/Hispanic isn't a concept fueled by the USA. They Hispanics/Latinos came up on their own has to preserve their identity while in the USA. History does show that Hispanics/Latinos (all in this catogery were called Mexicans) were referred as Caucasian until it was decided to seperate the White from the Brown, because, in essense their not fundamentally the same culture. So people who are referring themselves as such, without revealing national identity, is to protect themselves from racism in the USA against us. What I'm trying to say is, think before you write. Why do so many Latinos (Latin American) think their more Latino than another. Just stupid. Alexzandro Rivera 10/31/2006

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).

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.

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?

1. 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)

2. In my opinion Mexico it's in Central America, because usually when someone says "North America" you think of EUA or Canada. I think the information about the location of Mexico should be changed and the info about Central America as well. Plus when you read the definition of North America, they say Mexico do not belong there that Mexico is Latin America, and when you read the definition of Latin America, it is included as a part of South America and finally when you read the info of Central America Mexico is not included. I am confused as well.Occurso

Latin America stands as for that Mexico is part of the American part that speaks a language derivated from Latin. Truth is, Mexico is in North America geographically speaking.

Mexico geographically is in North America. Most of the people from the US think about Mexico as part of Latin America socially and culturally speaking. Economically and Politically, Mexico is more and more frecuently linked to North America, specially since the implementation of the NAFTA. If you ask a Mexican what continent Mexico is at, they surelly will answer North America. If you ask a Central American or a South American the same question they will answer North America. Mexicans have never considered themselves as a part of Central America, neither Centralamericans consider Mexico as a part of Central America. South America is way too far from Mexico to consider it a part of this continent. The issue of the article about North America considering Mexico as a part of Central America has to do with the person or persons that wrote the article. It seems to be that they have a tendecy not to like Mexico as a part of North America. AlexCovarrubias 07:18, 14 August 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?

[[[User:Pauljeffersonks|Pauljeffersonks]] 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)} Can somebody get the pictures aligned under largest cities

• 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)

The section on racism it´s too anecdotical and does not explain the nature of the racism in Mexico. see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Mexican. The "racism" in Mexico is not related to race, but to social status. People (specially in the middle class) asociates a fair skin with wealth and status. As a result most of them has de ilusion of a fair skin. See the TV, magazines , adds, etc wich uses almost only white models. Probalby this requiers an article on it´s own to explain it, since it´s very diferent from ther racism in the US. Nanahuatzin 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with Nanahuatzin =). I agree, prejudice in Mexico is not racial; it is a matter of social status (hence the whole subculture of the "naco" as the object of prejudice) and perhaps culture (as long as a person adapts to Western culture, he is welcomed regardless of his ethnicity). Now, I don't think status is associated with fair skin nowadays, as it undoubtedly was in the past. But, it is true that, as a result of the social prejudice from the colonial times, "white" people have a higher social status than "indigenous" people, and hence the differnece between social-status prejudice and racial prejudcie is blurred. --Alonso 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch to put more about racism than a sentence about racism and a reference to another article. Anti-Mexico people in the US tend to focus on racism in Mexico, as if to show that their own racism against Mexicans is either not important, or is merely comeuppance for past wrongs, or simply trying to deflect criticism. Also, there are too many US-centric parts to this article. It should be about Mexico, and not the relationship between Mexico and the US. For example, racism should be described mainly by how Mexicans have dealt with racism within Mexico. Things like the idea of "Raza" or the mixed race could be raised, and then also linked to a more in-depth article. Racism isn't simply that one group has animosity toward another: it should be described historically, as a product of any factors which contributed to racism (such as war, enslavement, religious war, etc.) -- JohnKawakami

I agree with the above comment. Yet, I would even think that the "Raza" concept is Mexican American, and not Mexican. --Alonso 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofcoure there is racism in Mexico, Most white mexicans (like myself) are sick of those amerindians going illigaly to the states and giving a bad reputation to the country. It's not like I'm a racist or anything but most of them are dumb, just like in the US black people act and think different from white people, same in Mexico.

For example, education in Mexico is FREE unlike univercities in USA and yet, those amerindians don't want to go to school!, they prefer to get the first crappy job they can find, and then once they are 30 years old, poor, married and with 4 children, now they wanna cross the river, and who gets the ashame? the whole country ofcourse.

I can't believe you're mexican. I'm mexican too, but I find that you're nothing more than a preppy guy, and it is incredible to read your idiotic comments. I agree with you in the way ilegal immigrants in the USA give a bad reputation to us mexicans, and contribute to the negative stereotype of Mexico in other countries. But you seem to ignore that the harsh living conditions of the poor classes in our country contribute to the bad conditions in education and mentality. I think that racism in Mexico exists because of people like you, with such an unreal idea of the adversity in which millions of mexicans have been forced to live. You should try to investigate more about your own country. DEBERÍAS SALIR MÁS.--Francisco M. 12:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's incredible to read the lines above. Racism in Mexico does not exist, at least not how it exists here in the states. Like it was mentioned before is more of a social status than racism per se. Unfortunately the above words come from somebody who doesn't have a clue about the immigrant experience. By his writing you can tell that he has visited the states once or twice to enroll in some English course that didn’t do him any good or he came to the states late in life. He wants to distance him self by calling other Mexicans Indians. Projecting the racism that he has probably experienced on to those Indians as he calls us. Dou you mean Indigenous People of the Americas or are you talking about people from the Indian continent.

I believe that the comment in bold is just a troll.

Another thing is that the section contains RACISM and WEASEL WORDS (wikipedia does not allow that) about Regiomontanos. It says that Regiomontanos are cocky but doesn't show any source and I believe that the line along with the things that Alonso said should be eliminated. If you have sources about what you say, state them. Do not EVER use generalizations.

What are you talking about? Did I ever talk about regiomontanos??? --Alonso 02:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be racist people, like in every other country. However, we (Mexicans) enjoy meeting new people from other countries, races, creeds, etc. We welcome and respect them, since we liked to be welcomed and respected as well. Mexicans still have family and conservative values, but they also tend to open up easily and have respect to new ideas and lifestyles. Mexican society has changed throughout history, mostly in a positive way (Ert383 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)).

There are not too many things that are true in the lines above on this page. However, if anybody would like to ask me things about Mexico, I will be more than happy to answer them (even if the answers are harsh) by this respectable medium. Some of these people that said things about Mexico should not be considered Mexicans, since they are acting like ignorant and close-minded people do (Ert383 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)).

Whoever says there isn't racism in Mexico is obviously lying, it's not aggressive, but definitely moral; for example, if there are two girls, one white and one indigenous, and you ask a Mexican guy, which one would you choose? He would immediately choose the white one, and that to me seems like discrimination.

We all know that white people will always be better looking than people from other races, there's even a saying in Mexico that says "try to improve the race" in other words, try to get married with someone whiter than you so you kids will be whiter, and if that's not racism, then you tell me what it is.

You guys are all depressing the hell out of me. I don't know if I'm more Amerindian or more European, but I am of Mexican descent. To me it seems so criminal that the Pre-Columbian culture has been colonized and virtually wiped out, like an animal gone extinct, and then the European occupiers now expect the indigenous peoples to adapt to the white man's way of life or so be deemed inferior. Bold textI desperately want to know what a culture of southern Amerindian influence would now look like had it been allowed to flourish, without intrusion and meddling by European imperialists.Bold text But I guess that path's been tread, and now, unfortunately, we're forced to emulate a national-model akin to that of the "civilized race", just like every other country in the world. Just remember that Japan never wanted to "industrialize"; it was compelled to by threat of force. They knew if they didn't, they would one day get carved up colonially just like China. And yet pre-Matthew Perry, just because they weren't "industrialized" doesn't mean the Japanese were an inferior race! Why do people refuse to understand this; THEIR WAY OF LIFE WAS SIMPLY DIFFERENT, AND EMPHASIZED DIFFERENT VALUES!

This is why I suspect there's so much conflict within the Mestizo race . . .it's simply a clashing of cultures, which can't be resolved as quickly as you'd all like by combining two peoples who lived seperated, completely different lives for tens of thousands of years.

Historically, Europeans have been the biggest assholes in the world, and only relatively recently, in terms of overall human history, have they begun to mellow out and quit acting like such dicks. But of course, once you've stepped on the backs of other people to reach the top, it's no longer necessary to act like a dick--you already have what you want. That's how I view white liberalism anyway.

Lately I've been bitten with the urge to move back to my mother's homeland and try to do my small part in helping the economy by pursuing a career which will utilize my Bachelor's degree (halfway there so far). I want to entrepreneur in Mexico . . .I want to be a member of the small middle-class there and help it expand. But my fellow Mexicans here are depressing the hell out of me. If people who have been there for far longer than I speak in such morbidly despairing tones . . .how the hell am I supposed to be enthusiastic about these plans? Are we doomed toward being a laughing-stock of a country forever?

Come on guys, I'm fighting back tears over here. I don't WANT to be a Mexican living in a country that doesn't want me. I want Mexico to grow and prosper, and take BACK all those emmigrants who fled to the North. Please don't say these kinds of things about your own people! I know it probably often seems hopeless, but you HAVE to look at it from the context of time. Probably not in our lifetimes or our children's will our nation grow to be prosperous, but we can set the seeds! Well. . . my ride's almost here . . .Here's ONE Latino who won't forget one of the reasons why Che fought so hard against interlopers from the North, among other adversaries; to unite the Mestizo race. MondoManDevout 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF are u talking about?? if you wanna come to Mexico, your are free yo do it, racism in Mexico (as in any other country) is not because they have different customs, its because they are UGLY as hell, they look like monkeys, that's why white people are racist against them, I can tell you, if the illegal immigrants that go to the States were white and blond, the Americans wouldn't complain. The USA don't what that kinda people, white Mexicans don’t what that kind of people, and if you don’t think it's true, then why is it that European immigrants in Mexico earn way more than Amerindians?? or why brown people try to get married with a whiter one??? So of course there is racism in Mexico, but brown people just don't wanna accept it.

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)

I agree in that the "need" private investment in energy sector is not NPOV, but it is a fact that there is a need to upgrade infrastructure and modernize the tax system and labor laws; and it is true that Fox failed to win the support of an opposition-led Congress. --Alonso 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Mexican believe that allowing private investment in the energy sector seems challenging to national sovereignity. Mr. Alonso's view is more business oriented. AlejandroCorona 17:54, September 21 2006

Not business oriented. It really doesn't matter if the upgrade infrastructure comes from private sources or public sources. The point is, infrastructure needs modernization. --Alonso 02:41, 9 October 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?

We are only about 500 in whole Australia

--203.58.188.211 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.fecca.org.au/World%20Views/Countries/Mexico.html, they said 1,190, with the figures being given by the 2001 Australia census. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a surprise, Mexicans are found living in Italy, france, germany, canada, Japan and israel. I want to state the cultural connection of Mexico with the philipines (and spain) goes back 400 years. i happen to live in california of filipino descent but i've grew up among Mexicans and black Americans. i may want to look it up before i edit the article to confirm to wiki rules and academic standards. Australia is not only a desirable country for imigrants to live, its a small continent seem like it can hold a billion people (its a figure of speech). - Pisayan

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)

This article has been vandalised

This article has been vandalised, and in the first paragraph "History" somebody changed it and wrote some stupid words in Spanish trying to offend Mexicans, I don't wanna judge anybody but it was probably a #$&^@%! Argentine 'cuz it said he was South American and cuz they hate Mexicans and Mexicans hate them too, anyways if you guys can fix that I'd thank you so much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.177.80 (talk • contribs)

This is way too long in all the wrong places

For example at the beginning of this article it is spent almost half the page talking about the Pre-Columbian civilizations, it's like if in the article for the USA half the page was about the native people of America, in that case they should create another article called "Pre-Columbian Mexican civilizations" which explains all those things, so we would get rid of all that unnecessary space, in fact I think there is already and article called “History of Mexico“ that already explains that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.177.80 (talk • contribs)

No. Mexico is A LOT older than the United States of America, and really values its history. Pre-Columbian Mexican civilizations play a strong part in defining the culture and history of Mexico, especially since the Spanish colonists intermarried with the native Americans. If the United States doesn't have much about the native people of the United States, it is because of its short history, and aversion to culture and intermarriage. Deepstratagem 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

City images

The Largest cityu images need to be aligned --Pauljeffersonks 01:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaipas Conflict

Should this really be on this article? The armed "conflict" in Chiapas lasted all of 12 days nearly 13 years ago. The EZLN is popular on the internet, especially among American leftists, but it is virtually defunct in Mexico. I'm sure that there are literally hundreds of thousands of aspects of Mexican life, culture, and politics that are more important than the EZLN. Note the Colombia, which has been fighting a guerrilla army comprised of tens of thousands of full-time heavily-armed warriors for the past 42 years, does not have any section devoted to the war on its article. --Descendall 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Zapatistas are still active in Mexican politics (see the Other Campaign). But your point is well-taken. Perhaps the solution is to dedicate a section (or a subsection of "politics") to armed guerrilla movements since the Revolution. It could discuss Genaro Vasquez, Lucío Cabañas, and the EZLN in the context of armed resistance to the Mexican government, and would probably be a more balanced approach. And Colombia's civil war should definitely be discussed in that article.--Rockero 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that I should have said that the EZLN is virually defunct as a guerrilla organization. I'm certainly no expert on it, but the EZLN has essentially operated as a small NGO for most of its existance. Aside from its first 12 days, it never has posed any real danger to the state. In fact, I'd think that the various small "milita" groups in the US pose more of a security concern to the United States government than the EZLN poses to the Mexican government. As a political entity, the EZLN is nowhere as infulential as the PAN, PRD, or PRI, or, for that matter, Convergence, the Green Party, the Labor Party, etc. It seems pretty silly to give them a whole section on this page. Just because Rage Against the Machine liked them doesn't make them powerful. --Descendall 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize sections related to culture

I propose combining the following sections as subsections under a new section called "Culture"

7 Culture, media, and sports 8 Languages 9 Religion 10 Education 11 Crime and poverty

--Richard 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC

i think it is a good idea but i am not sure about Crime and poverty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexxxicano (talk • contribs)

crime and poverty

Hi Mexxxicano, good to run into you again. I too have my doubts about the "Crime and poverty" section. I think these two topics ("Crime" and "Poverty") should be in the "Culture" section but I don't like the title or the intro of the "Crime and poverty" section.

Here's the key question: "Does either poverty or disparity between rich and poor cause crime or increase in crime?" We know that there are many poor people in Mexico. We also know that crime in Mexico is increasing. (I have done some work on the Crime in Mexico article). However, do we know that poverty or disparity between rich and poor is the primary cause of rising crime in Mexico? At best, that is only one attribution of the cause and, as such, needs to be based on a reference to a reliable source. I would prefer to have a "Crime" section and maybe a "Poverty" section but not a "Crime and Poverty" section.

--Richard 07:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does either poverty or disparity between rich and poor cause crime or increase in crime?" yes i think poverty is one of the main reasons about crime, but we should write about other external reasons, like drugs, that come from south america to USA, etc.

you could write about how poor mexicans get into crime by necessity, even the people that are in drug traffic, sometimes they do it to bring money to their families (similar to the immigration),this could be in the crime section, and in poverty section the reasons of poverty their way of life of the poor people, their income,etc.so what are you gonna do?

--Mexxxicano

OK, I wasn't going to get into this debate here but since User:Squeakbox started, I'll add in the following text which I wrote on User:Mexxxicano's Talk Page.

:: Regarding "Crime and poverty"... I respectfully disagree with User:Mexxxicano. I fully respect his right to say what he wrote. Many people have beliefs along those lines. I don't.

Me personally, I don't think poverty is the root cause of crime. It may be that certain kinds of crime are more prevalent among poor people but maybe that's because rich people are better equipped to commit crime non-violently and also better equipped to escape capture and/or punishment.

I believe that most poor people are honest and therefore poverty does not cause crime. I think poverty creates an environment where crime can happen but criminals are criminals because they want to be not because they are poor. I think it is a myth to say that poor people become criminals because they are poor.

I think external conditions such as drugs, urban gang culture, etc. are a major influence on people becoming criminals. Admittedly, it is harder to resist these influences when you are poor. However, poverty does not by itself cause crime.

Look at the Crime in Mexico article. There is hardly a word about poverty in it. You may think that's wrong. That's your right. However, I hope you will recognize that there is more than one philosophical opinion about the nature and causes of crime in poor areas.

--Richard 03:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If poverty caused crime we should see a huge decrease in crime as the world gets richer and that once individuals overcome poverty they commit less crime whereas the reality is that as Mexico and other countries have become richer crime has increased and not only the poor, cl;early, are criminals. Cocaine, on the other hand, is responsible for a huge amount of crime, people seeing easy money as well as those addicted to crime. If Mexico is like Central America (and on the surface it looked that way on my one visit) it'll be crawling with crackheads, SqueakBox 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Crime Section Bias?

How come the United States of America article doesn't have a section on crime and poverty? I personally hear more incidents of crime, especially school shootings and murders in the United States than in Mexico. Maybe its something to bring up at the United States talk page, but it seems a little biased to cover it here and not there. Deepstratagem 02:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"mestizo"

Hi, i´m mexican and i also disagree the means or the term "mestizo". I think that all the world´s population are "mestizos" in some grade; because most of them probably has different races in their ancestry. In Mexico about 60% of population are considered mestizos,and in many countries they asume that all this people are dark skinered with indian features.This is the stereotype of mexicans. And that´s right most of Mexicans are; but many people who is considered "mestizo" are light skinered with European features. I´m one of them, i´m white with light brown hair and "caucasic features". And i don´t know about anybody in my family who were european. I think that all depends of the heredity and not to have direct europe ancestry.

If "all the world´s population are 'mestizos'" then the term mestizo would not exist or have any possible use. Beyond this i fail to see your point, although your comments are interesting.

Page Protected

Page is protected now, and will be protected for sometime due to vandalisms by puto's out there! Pls. Discussed it here first before making any changes to unlocking the Protected article. --Ramirez 05:30 25 August, 2006 (UTC)

User:Rune.welsh deleted the above comment with the following edit summary "no, you did not, and watch your language please". I am restoring the comment so that we can discuss the underlying issue and hopefully clear up Ramirez's confusion about how page protection works.

I have to think that Ramirez is misunderstanding how protection and semi-protection works. Perhaps he thought that he could protect the article just by adding a {{sprotect}} tag to it. I admit that I was one of the anon's who took off the tag last night( User:69.236.173.62). I had to do it anonymously since trying to edit the article as a logged-in user was not a test of semi-protection (being logged in would allow me to edit despite semi-protection). I would guess that User:67.121.243.44 thought the same way when he/she took off the tag later.

I took off the semi-protection tag last night because, when I went to ask for the page to be unprotected, I found out that it wasn't protected in the first place.

The reason that I was going to request unprotection is that there is no rationale for this page to be protected at this time. The rate of vandalism is running about 3-4 incidents a day which is manageable since this article is on a lot of watchlists including my own. I rarely have to revert vandalism on this page because someone else usually gets to it before I even see it.

If it hadn't been so late at night, I would have taken the time to explain to Ramirez how protection works. I'm going to do so now.

Only an admin has the ability to protect or semi-protect an article.

Relevant Wikipedia policies are Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy

Simply slapping on a {{sprotect}} tag on a page does NOT protect it. If you are not an admin, you cannot protect or semi-protect the page. That's why people kept taking the tag off. It was stating something that wasn't true.

If you want the page protected, go through the protection request process and an admin will consider your request. As stated above, I do not think the rate of vandalism on this article in the past 24-48 hours warrants protection of any kind. Moreover, Wikipedia policy is that protection should be temporary and should only be used to stop current, ongoing vandalism and not as a way of preventing possible future vandalism especially on highly watched pages such as this one.

In any event, it is really silly to have an edit war over a {{sprotect}} tag that doesn't actually effect a semi-protection and it's silly to have an edit war about trying to stop vandalism. The edit war itself starts to look like vandalism after a while.

Can we just stop it?

Hope this helps and sorry for annoying Ramirez to the point of incivility.

--Richard 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather silly that the page was actually protected because of this edit war... oh well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Useless text?

The derogatory term naco (bad-tasted), was forged by the middle and upper class Mexicans to refer to people of low class (often including loud U.S.A. tourists with a lack of cultural tact and poor morals). The term allegedly comes from the word totonaco, which is one of the ethnic groups in Valle de Mexico. Its use has been made popular even among the poorest classes. Mexicans differ in opinion about the meaning of the word. Some would use it for a person who dresses in a tacky or tasteless manner, others use it to mean a person that speaks in a non educated manner, some use it to refer to the natives, some to the poor classes, and other for people with less education or culture and other ideology.

The term fresa (preppy), is in some terms the opposite of naco, and it is not always derogatory and means always some relative high economical status of the person termed in that way. Traditionally, people with more European looks and belonging to the middle or high classes are called fresas. Fresa in Mexico is also generally directed to describe a young woman that dresses well and likes objects that are considered adorable, for example a Hello Kitty doll. In general, a "fresa"-being is followed by a way of speaking and dressing. Nuances in the meaning are a complex subject. The term has been made popular in other Latin American countries since Mexico is the largest exporter in the region of TV productions.

Is this important? i dont think so, can we eliminate it? Mexxxicano

These terms have their own articles, so all removed text could be merged there. I don't see how it could possibly fit in this article as it stands right now anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It does seem quite irrelevant. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Inmigration

"The standard of living in Mexico is higher than most of other countries in Latin America drawing people from places like Argentina, Brazil or Cuba to the country in search for better opportunities." (under Standard of Living)

It may indeed be true that people from Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba have migrated to Mexico, I don't really know the numbers. It seems to me though that it is suspect in this case to, in an attempt to establish that Mexico has a higher standard of living than most of Latin America, to cite three Latin American nations with comparable, if not higher standards of living. Perhaps it would be better to mention Central American nations or other Latin American nations with which the gap is more distinct, or to better explain reasons why, for example, people would migrate from the Southern Cone to Mexico. Triphook 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it surprises me how the main source of immigrants historically (Spain, particularily during Franco's rule) is not mentioned. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is anecdotical information, but may be interesting/amusing to some: I've known a handful of Argentineans and Cubans that emigrated to Mexico with the intention to become actors, with a couple actually making it into some indie movie or the odd TV ad. This motivation, of course, does not account for the totally of immigrants from those countries but I thought the coincidence to be quite curious. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

History section too long

The history section in this article is too long for a standard country article. I realise that Mexico has a fabulous history, but the detail belongs in History of Mexico. I have reviewed about 150 countries over the last 2-3 months, and the only article I have seen with a longer history section was Spain, which has been trimmed a little since I pointed out the problem there. For example: Mexico, 11 screens; Peru, 7 screens; France, 2 screens; Japan, 4 screens. This would help trim this article from the current bloated 87 kB. Walkerma 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I think it should be divided into only 3 sections: Pre-Columbian civilizations, Colonial period, and Revolution onward. I mean, the Zapatista movement is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of Mexican history, for inclusion on the main Mexico article (especially since it's not much of an issue any more). --MateoP 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Conservative elements of the upper class? How about change that to the upper class. There were no liberal or conservative elements of the upper class, it was just the upper class and the lower class.

Tijuana B.C.

TIJUANA B.C.

Tijuana is what most people call "The Party City". Other than "The Party City" Tijuana is very poor. It is also a dangerous city, as you know there's many kidnaping. Tijuana has everything, A close border, clubs, beach and sun.

"a /s/" shound be "an /s/"

Gramatical error "a /s/" should be "an /s/"

Nice Pictures

I would like to say that this article has a few good pictures! :) 172.191.128.197 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's needed to erase some unnecessary stuff

It's spent way too much space talking about all the pre-Columbian civilizations, especially when they already have an article for their own.

There are some other areas that need to be talked about, but no one seems to care, such as “Geography and Tourism” of Mexico, which I think there was a section before, but it was erased.

Music

Mexico has a extremely diverse society. There are many kinds of things that affect positively the Mexican culture, such as in music, fashion, etc. Like in every other country people are open to any kind of music. For example, Mexican people like to hear hip-hop as well as reggeaton. One of the most popular genres of music is Electronic Dance Music. Many mexican teenagers and young adults like to attend places were famous Electronic djs perform their best music. Many people called them "raves", but they are not since the Mexican Government allows does kind of events to occur. The Electronic scene is growing faster and faster in the Mexican culture. However, we are still connected to our own roots, since we also like traditional Mexican genres of music (Ert383 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)).

Fraccionamientos

On the article they are described as "walled villages", its much more comparable to an American gated community. I live in one, it's definetly not a village, that makes it sound like a pueblito.

Heheh.... yes I agree the proper name should be gated community. --Alonso 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam in External Links

Trademarks and Patents in México Information about Intellectual Property in México 201.139.54.204 08:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regions of Mexico

The so-called Regions of Mexico are not an administrative division of Mexico. In fact, I've searched the INEGI site to see if there was such a classification, but I coulnd't find it (I only found a socio-economical classification of the states [22]). Mexico is only formed, oficially and constitutionally by 31 states and the Federal District. The regions shown in the map are totally arbitrary. --Alonso 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The current redaction of the paragraph gives the impression that the regions highlighted in the map are considered "Administrative divisions". That's wrong. There is a geographical division of regions in Mexico (very similar to the one presented in the map), but it is not official, only referencial. In the public educational system they teach us about this regions, but again, everybody in Mexico know they are only referencial. The only administrative division in Mexico is Country > State > Municipality. I will produce a new map and edit the section to prevent confussion. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues...vandalism...porque?

Why is there vandalism in this page and why would someone want to do this to the Mexico page? I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. [[user:Bardock the Mexican|Bardock the Mexican]