Talk:Mexico/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Issues...vandalism...porque?

Why can't the editor change the racial line on this top page in reference to gays? DonDeigo 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 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]

I agree with you totally. But, unfortunately most vandals I've seen from this article are peoplr who probably have a personal hatred for the country, while others are just bored and randomly vandalize pages. It's sad that articles like this are frequently vandalized. --Moreau36 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"SOME" Americans hate Mexico because of all the illegal immigration issue, "SOME" Latin Americans hate Mexico because as much as they don’t like it, Mexico is better than them in many aspects, like your mom and "SOME" other people in the world hate Mexico because of the stupid stereotype that Hollywood movies have shown them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.177.5 (talk • contribs)

TOTALLY AGREE,"SOME" people from USA have this issues against Mexican people, they (ignored) totally taht we are not a country like they think, Mexican people living in USA "pochos" hates Mexicans as well (cuase they know we have a status in our own country and our identity, culture and education is something they never had and will never had) Most people from Southamerica hates Mexico because is the richest Latin American country, so that is why Mexico is one of the most potential articles to vandalize. Anyway we're lucky to be Mexicans and speak more than 2 languages.

cheers! Raveonpraghga

  • ReplY:The Vato who made the comment above, is stupid and dumbed and has serious "Mental issues", that's just POV Bullshit!. --Ramirez 07:12, November 11, 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: The above statement made is a POV statement, written by an unknown coward who has "mental problems" against Mexicans. You should have your self checked with a doctor. That is discrimination!!. Fuck You, Puto.!! --Ramirez 05:22, November 11, 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: The unknown writer who wrote the most stupidiest comments against my fellow Mexican country men, seems very familiar to me. May be this unknown user is the one, who has been writing silly Poin OF View statements in The Mestizo article, with no sources to back it up. The unknown user has been writing about racist comments about mestizos in The Hispanic America section. I' am watching and monitoring you! Vato!, beware--Ramirez 07:45, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to Ramirez72: Chill out. The "unknown" writer (User:70.25.177.5) was simply making a statement of fact. There are various categories of people who hate Mexico and Mexicans for a variety of reasons. I believe that his statement is not that it is reasonable to hate Mexico. His statement is that "Some people hate Mexico..." with a statement of why those people think that they should hate Mexico. You can believe his statements are true (i.e. that "SOME people hate Mexico") without believing that they have a justifiable reason for their hatred. I suspect that 70.25.177.5 would agree that the hatred of these people is unreasonable. Moreover, even if User:70.25.177.5 did say and mean POV, racist things, your response violates Wikipedia policy on civility and Wikipedia's prohibition of personal attacks. Please refrain from this sort of language in the future. --Richard 14:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To Ramirez, Probably you didn't understand my message, if your English ain't that good I recommend you to use a translator, how am I gonna say shit against Mexico when I'm Mexican myself, I was just saying the reasons why SOME people hate this wonderful country, which as I said before is because of envy (South Americans) or ignorance (Rest of the world).

Just to finish, if I didn’t put my name on it's because I don’t have a userpage or I don’t know how to access to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.177.5 (talk • contribs)

    • Reply to Ramirez72: LOL. Yes, we South Americans are very - very - envy of a people who spend half of theirs lives trying to get into the US and the other half trying no to be caught doing that. Curious, is this migratory circle, isn't it? Specially since Mexico is such a rich country. Come talk to me once you're one of the 10 largest economies in the world.
So, get a username now! We'll help you learn how to use Wikipedia. Feel free to ask any questions on my Talk Page. --Richard 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Most of you are making Latin Americans look bad with your stereotyping and your nonsense. The guy that made the first comment was just trying to reason behind the vandalism, though his reasoning wasn't all the best. Also, yes Mexico has a huge economy, 14th largest in the world, but it isn't the richest country in Latin America...that trophy goes to Brazil. Mexico is second. But its worthless comparing countries simply by the size of their economy, you also have to look at standard of living, quality of life, and income equality. Even then though, Mexico is at the top of the list (compared to the rest of Latin America).

So if Mexico has problems with immigration, imagine if some other Latin American country were next to the United States instead of Mexico... Americans would be complaining about Colombians, Argentinians, Brasilians...etc. So, Richard, don't bother mocking Mexico for its immigration problems when South American economies aren't doing that much better. Did you know that Mexico is home to the most Argentinians outside of Argentina? Mexico's economy is faring better than Argentina, plus they share a common national language, so it makes it easier for Argentinians to adapt. People should stop bagging on immigrants, because, for the most part, they make our countries better and richer.

71.156.42.72 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Rudy D.

71.156.42.72, we've already had this discussion before. Mexico is not the home to most Argentinians outside of Argentina.
I find it very interesting that you treat a statistic like a "trophy" (i.e., you say, "that trophy goes to Brazil", implying that Mexico has 'won' other 'trophies' like "standard of living, quality of life, and income equality", which, by the way, the article documents that Mexico is not so great in them after all...)
I would encourage you to not look at statistics as competition, or at least not do so for wikipedia. Our job should be to record the facts, not to pass judgement on them. The article, and its editors, shouldn't care who is better. You may have a blog for that, if you wish. Wikipedia, however, is not a blog, and arguing about the might of one or another, or what makes "latin americans look bad" is not the concern of this article, nor its talk page.
Enough with the nonesense, lets move on.
Hari Seldon 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ok people, we understand that everybody in here are having some sort of personal(whether-not)and racial confrontational problems, mainly for what? Just because somebody decided to post a none sensical refeeance to Mexican citizens, but I have a question, can anyone post something other than immoral references to a race, something intellegent perphaps? Let's just get off the race issue, can we? Be men for once, not chimps...--Andres Flores 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo of "racial differences"

Does anyone else find this photo misleading or at least inappropriate for an encyclopedia article? Maybe I'm being too sensitive here, but I think that for a country with such a large diversity of people, it's strange to use a photo of three very similar-looking people (in terms of "racial differences") to represent the variation in Mexico's races. I don't see anyone that seems to represent quite the many groups of indigenous Mexicans seen in the parts of Mexico I've been to (granted I've only been to Mexico City, Puebla, and Tijuana). Instead I see people that seem to show what I, the ignorant American, would see as different shades of "white". I am quite aware that "mestizos" can have features ranging from what could pass as fully European to those that could pass as fully Amerindian, and that these three students could easily be of three different backgrounds (say "Spanish", "mestizo", and "German", maybe) but I just don't find this photo representative of Mexico's actual diversity. Either way, I don't think such a picture is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. You can describe diversity in numbers and labels if you absolutely must, but do we really need to have a picture for this sort of thing? Does anyone else agree with me? --SameerKhan 11:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply: Yes I agree with you, firstly the photo does not represent all Mexican people, because it's focusing on just full blooded white Mexicans. That's just discrimation. They should include all types of Mexicans including the Amerindian peoples, Mestizos and Afro-Mexican peoples etc. Can some one change the pictures, including the picture in the sport section. The picture of a woman is a fan, it does not represent what football (soccer) is all about. The picture should contain actual players kicking or running with a soccer ball. -- Ramirez 04:51, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its suppose to represent discrimination it is an information format and even if some of it is a little controversal doesn't mean that the write or w.e was trying to be racist (badxogurl)

Ok, so what's the point, you guys are going from one extreme to the other, you changed the picture of three Mexicans, (one brown, two whites) and instead put TWO pictures of Amerindians, if you've got a better picture that shows Mexico's racial diversity, you're welcome to post it, but the picture that was before definitely represents more accurately Mexican society, therefore I'm changing it back, and when you get better picture, please post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)

Okay I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough, but I would actually prefer to have no photo at all ("Either way, I don't think such a picture is appropriate for an encyclopedia article."). I don't see equivalent photos in the demographics sections of other country articles, including very racially diverse countries like India, Russia, or the US. They may have maps or statistics, but no photographs. Can we remove the photo altogether? --SameerKhan 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we leave it like that for a couple of weeks, while someone get a better one, anyways I don't think it's a bad picture, just because no other country has something like that it doesn't mean is inappropriate. “Mexico, always innovating hahaha”. By the way, why do you care so much about this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)

I may not be from Mexico but I can still care! My reasons are also somewhat personal. I personally don't find it at all appropriate when encyclopedic articles give pseudo-objective information about racial differences like "look at this picture of racial diversity". It's more commonly seen where articles state things like "one gets a sense of the diversity of Los Angeles just walking down the street" or "Indians come in all skin colors" etc. (obviously I made those lines up but you get the idea), where it's supposed to be some sort of "wow, look how great my country is" when it always sounds to me like "wow, look how racist I can be by pointing out the differences I see in people". Now, I am not calling anyone names here or anything like that, so please don't take me out of context. Thus far this is my own personal belief. Now, for my reasons for actually bringing this up, beyond my personal feelings - I don't believe in attaching labels to other people, and I don't believe that is Wikipedia's policy either. If we discuss race or religion or sexual orientation, this should be self-reported information, if it is given at all. You wouldn't use that photo to say "look at this photo of the diversity of Mexican sexual orientation" - that's something that we cannot judge as an outsider - even if those three people were straight, bi, and gay, or whatever. So if we talk about the racial diversity of Mexico, show it with maps and statistics of self-reported identity (i.e. census data), not with a picture of people where readers are supposed to use their own subjective stereotypes to understand the meaning. To me, an American, I can hardly tell that these three people in the photo are supposed to be from different "races". I would have much more easily believed the caption if it said "examples of white Mexicans" alongside another photo of other Mexican people. Now, that is just because of my subjective ideas on what white people look like, being from the US. Someone from Mexico will see the photo differently, maybe. Someone from Argentina might see it a third way, etc. But this is drawing entirely on subjective outsider beliefs, and not self-reported identity. This is what bothers me about the photo and why I think it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. It makes Mexico look like it's trying to prove something that it can just show with statistics and maps, if anything. I think Mexico is a great country and shouldn't stoop to such things. Maybe I'm alone on this. If that's the case, let the picture stay. --SameerKhan 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SameerKhan, the picture is not encyclopedic. Moreover, the picture shows (to the eyes of an American) three Caucasians! Where's the diversity? I believe the point of the picture was simply to show that white Mexicans do exist. Like SameerKhan said, statistics can show that point in a more appropriate and encyclopedic way. The picture should be eliminated from the article. --Alonso 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all they are not three Caucasians, in case you didn't notice one of the was brown skinned with European features, therefore a Mestizo, the other 2 where definitely white, the only racial group still to be shown where the Amerindians, that's why I said that picture wasn't perfect, but is more accurate than the ones that you insist on posting. Why is it that people always try to show the worse of Mexico, they are always showing small towns and people with sombreros, which couldn't be more distant from reality.

I'm guessing that you are an American with a Middle Eastern background and maybe that's why you think that I'm being kinda racist by posting those photos, but I'm not.

I don't think we need to start fighting over this specially when you're not even from Mexico, but if you wanna contribute to this matter I already told you to look for a better picture, but please don't keep on posting the photos of those Amerindians, insinuating that we Mexicans are like that, we already have enough with Hollywood movies.

As soon as you get the picture with the three mayor groups (Whites, Mestizos and Amerindians, or even Afro-Mexicans) you're welcome to change right away, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)


I am not of Middle Eastern background. I don't think my background is relevant - please don't make assumptions. And I'm not saying you're racist. I'm just saying that's how people will interpret a photo like that. And I think I made it quite clear that I know those three people are probably from different "races" but my point was that any non-Mexican (i.e. the majority of people reading English Wikipedia) would not be able to know that. A non-Mexican (like myself) might just see this photo and think "wow, the racial diversity of Mexico is just three white people?", even though a Mexican might be able to say "oh, a mestizo and two Europeans".
In addition, I didn't say we needed "people with sombreros" or "small towns" (not that this should be considered "the worse of Mexico"). I just didn't think the photo should be included.
The point of Wikipedia isn't that only people from Mexico can edit or comment on an article about Mexico. If we made that kind of a rule, all articles would be biased. Wikipedia is open to all editors who follow the appropriate guidelines, and that is what both you and I are doing. I don't think it's appropriate to label someone as not having a good enough opinion to use a talk page. I agree there need not be a fight, which is why I didn't make edits to the article unilaterally. By the way, that wasn't me who put the photos of Amerindians on there. I don't think that was a better representation of Mexico either. I'm not looking for a better photo. I'm trying to question the need for a photo at all. --SameerKhan 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry man, I was at school.
Basically what we are debating about, is if this section should have pictures or not. If we agree that it's ok to put pictures, at least you agree with me what picture is the most appropriate one, until we get a better one. But if we agree that there shouldn't be pictures at all, well... then we don't have to worry about which one to choose, right.

Now, let me show you some articles that have photos of actual people in their Demographics section: Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, etc. didn't you say that there was no other article that showed pictures in their Demographics section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)


You're right. There seem to be some countries that have photos in their demographics sections. Still, none of them claim to be "a photo of diversity", which was my point. Photos can of course have white people, brown people, or whatever, in them, but it's ridiculous to have a photo "of diversity". Anyhow, I'm not arguing. You guys decide on your own. I've said what I need to say. --SameerKhan 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, as you said before anyone who wants to contribute to wikipedia may do it, and again if you wanna keep editing to this article please do it, as long as is for its improvement. I think we're done with this discussion, finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but whoever changed the picture to that one with only amerindians is just showing his/her ignorance about Mexican "racial" diversity. I'm kind of sick of people with such prejudices. I'm not sure if having this picture is "good" or "bad" or "innapropiate", but if we are going to have it there, we should present the most accurate versions. I think that a well balanced picture should have a white person, mestizo with brown skin, mestizo with white (lighter) skin, amerindian and afro-mexican. I am Mexican and I know the diversity of my people. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, but a picture like that is hard to find, I think the easiest way to do it, is by taking the photo ourselves, Alex if you have a camara could you please take a picture of some of your friends, one white, one kinda white, and one brown, and then post it. Yo tengo rato que no tengo camara si no, ya la hubiera subido, asi que si lo puedes hacer pues bien no.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)

I just created a graphic (it is what I do most in Wikipedia :D) with what I would call a well balanced diversity of Mexicans. All the people in the pics are friends of mine. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok Supaman89, now what is the logic behind your deletion of my newly created picture of racial differences in Mexico? Because you just deleted the pic, period. I created a more accurate work, with males representing all racial or ethnic differences in Mexico. Well, can you tell me why you deleted the pic? I mean, you asked me to create it (I was gonna do it anyway). I just wrote your talk page and you have there some accusations of "white supremacy thinking". I'm not sure about what to think about it, because you were perfectly "ok" with the first picture they posted, a pic with 2 white girls and 1 mestizo (more european looking). I really don't want to believe it so please, explain your logic. (And by the way, you should sign your comments).
Here is the graphic I produced, so all the community can compare it and post what they think:
vs.
Ok, comment. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I know man, I should sign my comments, but I don’t know how, anyways yeah man of course your picture is better, but I left a message that probably someone erased, that said that your picture was good but if you could make it simpler and also put a couple of girls, cuz I don't know it just feels too gayish. When I wrote it I was just joking around (It was way funnier in Spanish), and I erased the picture because I thought you had red it and were working on the new one.
About the dude whom left me a message in my talkpage, I saw it as well, you probably also saw my answer to his accusations, by the way if you erased all the messages in my talkpage could you put them back please, why would you do that in first place?, saludos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.177.5 (talk • contribs)
I never mess with everyone else's talk/user page. It was not me. You can sign your comments by writing 4 tildes like this ~~~~ or if you can't, just click the "Sign your name" link in the table below. Saludos. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the pictures posted by User:AlexCovarrubias. Forgive my straightforwardness but I think User:Supaman89's idea of taking personal photos is a bad idea. User:AlexCovarrubias's pictures look amateurish and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is not meant as a slam on Alex. It's just the difference between a photograph taken by an amateur and a photograph taken by a professional. I think no photo is better than a poor quality photo. Can we drop the idea of taking a picture of our friends and calling it "diversity"?

You don't need a photo to show racial diversity. IMO, no photo will do a good job of conveying the idea that you want so give it up. Just talk about it in the text.

BTW, here's my insight on the diversity problem. In the United States, society is dominated by Caucasians (not mestizo with Amerindians or Africans). Thus, when we talk racial diversity, we are talking about non-Caucasian ethnicities (African, Hispanic, Asian).

Mexico is different from the United States. According to the statistics given in the article, Mexico is 60% mestizo, 30% Amerindian and 9% Caucasian. To talk about racial diversity is to focus on the non-majority races and ethnicities i.e. the Amerindians and the Caucasians. I think this is why some editors of this article get heated up when racial diversity is "illustrated" by a photo of Amerindians. I don't think the person who inserted that picture meant to say that Mexico is all Amerindians. I think he/she was just trying to say that Amerindians are a significant racial minority.

--Richard 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Alex, thanks for telling me how to sign my comments, now, I understand that you took your time to create that picture, which is pretty good but again, I don't know... it just doesn't feel right, don't get me wrong man, it just looks weird, What do you say if we put the picture of the mestizo and Caucasians and also the one with the Amerindians.

Now, Richard, I know you think we shouldn't put pictures at all but then why don't you go and say the same thing at the articles of Argentina, Brazil and Taiwan?
--Supaman89

Superman89, as to why we don't complain on the Argentina, Brazil and Taiwan articles, I think it is self-evident, the pictures in these articles are professional, not just the photos of me and my friends (mostly white people). If you really like the Brazil example, why don't we put the picture of the Maya people in San Cristóbal that is shown on the Indigenous peoples of Mexico article (which would be equivalent to the picture of Amerindians of Brazil) and perhaps a professional picture of the Mennonite plautdietsch communities in Durango and Chihuahua, which would be equivalent to the picture shown of the "Southern European Festivals" both in Brazil and in Argentina. I just don't think that taking pictures of ourselves to show the diversity of a country is appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Alonso 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is not "the pictures look amateur". As a Mexican I know the diversity of my country because I live here and I have traveled all over Mexico. Those persons may be familiar to me, but they certainly represent very well Mexico's diversity. Ask any other Mexican. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex you haven't answered me yet, what do you think about putting the picture with the mestizo and caucasians and also the one with the amerindians? --Supaman89

I'm not sure if I understand what you're suggesting. You want me to edit the current picture? And present only mestizos, whites and amerindians? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a user, but I feel that the labels used to classify each person in racial differences photos are misleading and inaccurate. While I fully acknowledge the diversity of ethnic roots and different phenotypes found in Mexico, I feel that the majority of people featured in the photos are probably mestizos, regardless of whatever "race" someone may want to place them in. I particularly have a problem with the people labeled as Amerindian, as they are not nearly as indigenous-looking as other Mexicans considered to be Native Americans. I'm sure they're Amerindian ancestry is strong, but they, too, are most likely mestizos, and most people of Mexican descent would probably not consider them to be "indios." I think that race is very fluid in Mexico, and this should be the template to set for the photographic supplement (which is what is the example used in the Brazilian photographic supplement). Thank you. 69.235.144.199 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)James Lopez69.235.144.199 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 69.235.144.199 regarding the Amerindians. The rest look fine to me. --Alonso 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that these images (both for male and female are not professional, although I agree with the concept of the images shown. The main problem is that it's too clear that the image has been made "cutting and pasting" other photos made in different contexts. A possibility to improve this would be to take photos of people with a blank background (or the same background) and looking at camera. -- John C PI 15:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Hopefully i'm not WAY too late to reply)I agree with Sameerkhan's point, the picture that was posted in the Mexico article is of 'tempting' nature. Just as you reffered, i'm not trying to sound race "sensitive" (even though I am of Mexican relativity, and decent) but yes, most should consider the fact that OTHER PAGES (such i've seen with chechen people; i'm unsure about others)base the same features with other races. Other than that, I think this isn't much of a standing matter to worry about. (I apologize for unavailability of a link, it's 10:54 P.M. I feel groggy)

The images have long changed, and rechanged. Unless you oppose the current images of the Menonite and the Maya of Chiapas, you needn't worry about it. By the way, I was also trying to find an image of a crowd (like in a political rally or a soccer match, or any other event) to show "racial diversity" instead of a picture of "me and my friends", which, in my opinion looks unprofessional for an encyclopedia. If anyone happens to have one and be willing to upload it to commons let us know. --theDúnadan 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


CAN SOMEBODY CHANGE THE PICTURE OF THE GHETTO "MENONITE" FROM THIS PAGE.. THE PICTURES THAT WERE HERE BEFORE WERE BETTER.. SOMEONE CHANGE IT.

Security Issue

There is no reference about Mexico's police, nor military, there should be at least a reference in the main body konegistiger November 18, 18:30 (UTC)

Like the wall that is being built along the mexican border to prevent immigrants too pass on over here to the United States? I don't think I saw that in the article.....maybe I should check again... But if it's not there, it should be. Kyo catmeow! 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about that wall, maybe it's something important, but that should go on USA article, not in Mexico's one, cause it's being built on USA side. What I was talking about was about police, insecurity and all that stuff konegistiger November 22, 18:44 (UTC)

I don't think that's part of the Mexican article, if you wanna create an article about the USA-Mexico immigration issue, and put all the information related to the wall, why don't you do it, but there are more important things that this article needs for instance "Geography and Tourism of Mexico". -- Supaman89

Oh. --Kyo catmeow! 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with konegistiger that their should be more about Mexico's police, military, domestic and foreign policy.SageAndroid 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article United States has a small, two paragraph subsection to discuss these issues. I don't see why this article shouldn't have one too.
For Mexico, to my knowledge, there exists two federal police units, the PFP and the AFI, who have been recently united into a single Administrative command. At the executive level they have been under the control of the Secretariat of Public Safety since its inception. Both federal police contain previous members of the Army. Apart from the Federal Police, some states have a consolidated State Police and most municipalities have a local police. In the case of large metropolitan areas, like Guadalajara or Monterrey, it is not uncommon for local police to have a united administrative command (though, at the executive level, they each report to their respective municipality).
As for Mexico's armed forces, they all sweare allegience to the President, the Flag, and the Nation. The Military and the Air Force are under the Executive command of the Secretary of National Defense (SEDENA), while the Navy is under the command of the Secretary of the Marine (SEMAR). Legend states that tradition dating back to Benito Juarez has encouraged the Mexican Armed Forces to be small, and a-political. This legend was propagated in public schools through history books published by a then undemocratic government, however, there is no independent reference to consult and confirm this legend. Despite the legend, Mexico has been surging its military budget. For a few decades, as the Army has been engaging more and more in the fight against narcotics, military expenditures has been steadily rising. Recently, President Calderón has raised the salaries of the Armed Forces, and the PRI congress members have recommended buying military equipment recently. It is not uncommon for the Mexican army to fight federal crimes, such as drug trafficking. But its main activity still is, and has been for decades, to aid remote communities hit by natural disasters, build roads, and other peaceful missions.
Mexico has a long traditon of neutrality. The Estrada Doctrine, created by famed Mexican Diplomat Genaro Estrada led the country with a very enclosed view of sovereignty that remains popular today, specially in the opposition. Critics of the Estrada Doctrine argue that the policy was an excuse for impunity in internal Mexican politics: Mexico's undemocratic and corrupt officials will fail to condemn human rigths abuses elsewhere, as long as foreign governments would not criticize their handling of internal affairs. However, since the government of President Fox, then Chancellor Jorge G. Castañeda gave Mexico's foreign policy a new, more open and globalized direction. Academics call it "the Castañeda Doctrine" and critics argue that this foreign policy is a sell-out of Mexico to the US. However, it is no different to that of France or Germany: close cooperation with the neighbor to the north, respect of foreign sovereignty, but an increased promotion of human rights and free trade abroad. Just like France and Germany, Mexico refused to back the US-led invasion of Iraq, but continues to trade with the US.
There are ample sources for all of the above in many wikipedia articles dealing with these subjects. I suggest that if there is an active interest in adding this to the article, then gather the sources and write!
Hari Seldon 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BABEL MOVIE

Has anyone seen "BABEL" yet, what do you think about this film?, do you think it promotes stereotypes about the Mexican society?, cuz I think it does, and being Mexican myself I couldn't feel more insulted by that movie, everything from the music that they listen to, the wedding, the way they dress, is totally absurd, because of that kind of crap is that people think we live in towns, kill chickens, carry a gun and wear sombreros. --Supaman89

Yes let´s accept it any one fears to go to the board of Mexico, drugdealers kill people. the presidents give a worst reputation to the mexicans rather than an artistic film. It is our reality Dude think, Dont you wath TV or news? And the Board with the US is still today like Speedy Gonzalez or popeyes cartoons. Yes guys with guns and sombrero, in ugly houses like in the 50s theres no evolution since then.

Sorry but the truth is Mexicans live like that at least the 75% of the population, the 8% lives richly but What is the cost? to have a poor market without serve the real needs of the mexicans. President Calderon wishes to have an agreement with president Bush, conclution send more poor people to the US to reproduce like rabbits. Poor people has about 8 kids, Do they know condoms exist? and educated people has what? 2 kids. Mexico city is like a country town and people lives like that not with chickens but the same miserable way stucked into traffic. And we should be proud of cowboys, and about real country lifestyle, to understand what a real farm is not a ranch in mexico with a ford mustang or a truck and with no water, and sickened cows what comes out to be the real mexican country life.

The US media's endless stereotyping of Mexico and its' people (Mexican Americans) has damaged the social status of US Hispanics (or American Latinos, depends on what title to use is appropriate or P-C to many people). If the American people in the US opposed such negative portrayals and exaggerations of racial and national minorities, and other cultures (African-Americans, Asians, Jews, Arabs, Native Americans, white ethnics like Irish or Italians or Poles, Southern rural whites, homosexuals and the disabled), how come it remains acceptable to offend or defame Mexicans and other Latin Americans? The Babel movie, if done by accident or some of their writers hold prejudice on Mexicans, seems to depict the country and people as backward, criminal, dirty, happy (or "child like"), lazy, macho (i.e. Latin males harass white Anglo women), patriarchal, submissive, uneducated and violent "non-European race" of "brown people". I mean in the year 2006, the Hispanic/Latin American countries and peoples are targeted like this by TV, movies, cartoons and comedy clubs like it's allowed for the US or "white Americans" generalize what or how they view Mexico, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central or South Americans, etc. I don't think it's racist or nativist to view Mexico a "third world" country, but Mexico is geographically and historically in North America like the US and Canada are, and I thought the US has a diplomatic friendship with Mexico as a war ally (but neutral), tourist destination and trade partner. The Mexican people may have their own ideas or stereotypes of Americans, Europeans and other nations (Guatemalans, Salvadorans or Hondurans come to Mexico or as a springboard to enter the US gets bad ethnic/national jokes in Mexican media), but so far most Mexicans, esp. immigrants and multi-generational Americans of Mexican descent, don't view America as full of "cowboy racists", "yanqui imperialists" or "moneyed gringos". It's true at this time, a wave of kidnappings of American tourists and businessmen is gonna affect the tourist industry Mexico depends on, but it has a diversified economy (unless for hotel resorts on the coasts). 63.3.14.1 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Babel is a Mexican-US coproduction, it was written and directed by Mexicans. Indeed, I don't feel that it promotes a stereotype, as some people in Mexico do live that way, though not all... Hari Seldon 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I do think the movie promotes the classic misleading stereotype because there is no reference making clear that is not the only way Mexicans live. It suggests that all Mexicans are like that. Even if this wasn't made on prupose, however it sadly promotes a stereotype because of the lack of clarification. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter! The movie isn't part of the article! Anyway, the move depicts stereotypes, but it doesn't promotes them. In any case, it criticize them. Hari Seldon 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's standard of living as compared with Argentina's

In "standard of living" (6.2) it says “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”. This sentence tries to imply that Argentina has a lower standard of living than Mexico.

Such reference to Argentina as a country with a lower standard of life than Mexico is wrong not only regarding Human Development Index, but also considering GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy, among many other indicators.

Additionally, and regarding a comment of konegistiger below, it should not forget that the size of the aggregate GDP (konegistiger said "I recall the only two Latin American countries which are trillionare economies are Mexico and Brazil") does not translate into an indicative of development or standard of living: India is trillionaire (in fact, three-trillionaire), and Australia, the Netherlands and Switerzland are not (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)), but the last three are clearly (far) more developed and with a (far) better standard of living than India.

I think that we should acknowledge that, at least regarding Argentina, the debate about whether it has a higher or lower standard of living than Mexico is at best arguable, and that it would be incorrect to state any conclusions in the article. At least, it should indicate that Argentina has some indicators that place it above Mexico (specially, those that state that the Argentines live better, earn more, live more and are better educated than Mexicans), and that the issues of development or standard of living between Argentina and Mexico are debatable.

I think the most correct and practical solution would be to remove any reference to Argentina in the referred sentence. November 27 2006, 22:01 (UTC)

This is not Argentina article to indicate such things you ask, you better go and edit the article Argentina. Also you are not considering the size of the population. There's no doubt Mexico have more people with better standard of living than Argentina because the country has 106 million people and Argentina only around 39 millions. Not all the population of Argentina live in good conditions, so even if the 39% of Mexico's population would have nice living conditions, it would be 41.34 millions. Of course not only 39% of Mexico's population live in good conditions. ¬¬ AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh also, the largest Argentinian community outside Argentina is in Mexico. Why not in the US for example? In 2004, Mexico's and Brazil's government decided not to ask eachother citizens for visas. You know what happened? In 2005 Mexican government had to step back because the Brazilian immigration tripled. So... I don't see Mexicans going to Argentina or Brazil to seek "better opportunities and better standard of living". (And don't say it is because we have the US nearer, becasue then why the Argentinians aren't going to the US?). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you in the sense that this is not the article where to discuss which of Argentina or Mexico are the most developed. As evidenced by the different standards used in this debate, it is possible to support both positions. Consequently, do you agree that the reference to Argentina in the sentence referred to standard of living should be removed? 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the anonymous user: the standard of living takes into account the Human Development Index, life expectancy, literacy, secondary school enrollment and completion, access to health services, amongst many other indicators, and in many of them Mexico ranks below Argentina. Also, Alex, we cannot say why Argentines emigrate to Mexico, arguably it could be a better standard of living, or simply better short-term opportunities, but it is still an assumption. Now, what the article originally said was that Mexico has the highest income per capita in Latin America as measured in GNI (Gross National Income) as reported by the World Bank. That is a fact, and that's what the article should say. --Alonso 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we reached an agreement. I have recently registered and hence cannot modify the article. Could you please delete the reference to Argentina in the sentence regarding standard of living? 02:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would rather wait until Alex and more users contribute and express their opinions. So far only us two have reached an agreement. We need a consensus. --Alonso 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait, let's say, 1 week, and if no contrary opinions were rendered we can deem the corrections approved. 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Argentine article, it also says that many Mexicans immigrate to Argentina, implying that Argentina offers more opportunities for immigrants that Mexico, and no one says anything about it, so if you want to quit any reference of Argentina in this article, please go and say the same thing to the argentine article.--supaman89

Wow, that is news, Mexicans emigrating to Argentina?? Could you please reference that? At least it can be referenced that Argentines do emigrate to Mexico, and it has been shown Mexico has the largest number of Argetines overseas. If the Argentina aticle says that Mexicans emigrate to Argentina, I hope, for the sake of the quality of our encyclopedia, that they can cite the appropriate verifiable sources (if that is true). In any case, the point I was trying to make is that "standard of living" involves many aspects besides income per capita. Mexico does have a higher income per capita than Argentina, in fact, Mexico's Gross National Income is even higher than that of Brazil. That is a fact. The rest, like I said, about literacy, secondary school enrollment and completion, are another story, and therefore we cannot say anything about the overall standard of living, unless, of course, a source can be cited that clearly states which ranks "higher". --Alonso 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The person who wrote the Argentina article does not cite the source, and according to the Argentine official statistics office it does not appear to be many Mexicans in Argentina!!: http://www.indec.mecon.ar/ I guess we can assume that there must be at least one, in which case the assertion would still be right, but I am putting a "citation needed" header in that sentence in the Argentina article anyway.
What is problematic in the Mexico article is not the assertion that there are Argentines in Mexico (in fact, I am not contesting the sentence "Mexico is also home for many other Latin American emigrants, many from Argentina (making Mexico home to the largest Argentine population outside of Argentina, an estimated 150,000 in 2005", which would be equivalent to the sentence included in the Argentina article), but the inkling that Argentina's standard of living is lower than Mexico's (as derived from the sentence "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"). It is the connection between standard of living and migration in the same sentence what is objectionable.--Diegou 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the Argentina article and the reference to the Mexican emigration has already been deleted by the administrator of the page. Apparently it had been the product of vandalism. Coming back to our issue, let's for a few more days to see whether someone has a good reason to keep Argentina as a country with a standard of living lower than Mexico, and if no one appears let's delete it. --Diegou 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I strongly recomend not to delete or edit that sentence. Mainly because this is a Argentine nationalistic issue, a bias. The main key in the sentence these Argentinians try to delete is:

"The standard of living in Mexico is higher than most (it does not claim to be the highest) of the other countries of Latin America (which is true) drawing people from places like Argentina (true), Brazil (true!) or Cuba (true) [...]"

The sentence is not saying Mexico holds the highest Latin American standard of living. And the immigration from Arg, Bra and Cub is true and can be heavly referenced. Is they are soooo bothered by this, we could (theorically) rewrite the sentence like this:

"The standard of living in Mexico is higher than most of the other countries in Latin America. Many people from countries like Argentina (largest Argentine community overseas is in Mexico), Brazil and Cuba comes to the country seeking better opportunities."

But, oh well, I honestly believe they will be also bothered by this. They rather want the sentence to say "Mexico is not better than Argentina but only to the other Latin American countries". Hehehe, practical joke. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 09:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I think that I treated you with respect, and kindly ask you to treat me the same way. The basic assumption when I debate in Wikipedia is that the others are intelectually honest, and I demand to be treated like that as well. I never assume from scratch, unless there are good reasons, that a person is "biased" or driven by "nationalism". If you read all my entries here, you will see that all I am bringing are: (i) objective and verifiable data to demostrate that it is not possible to assert that Argentina has a lower standard of living than Mexico (or the opposite), as signed-off by Arturo (who I think is Mexican!!), and (ii) arguments explaining why the sentence is problematic and may drive to a conclusion that is not true. Specially regarding this second point, your reasoning in your post reflects exactly what I wrote two days ago above in "Major sabotaje":
I know that someone may say that the sentence has two parts and that the reference to Argentina, Brazil or Cuba does not imply that those countries have a lower standard of life, but the structure of such sentence is clearly misleading and induces to think so.
Alex, you happened to be that "someone"!! I am not trying to make a nationalistic argument or try to demonstrate who is better than who, but simply to make this encyclopaedia as accurate as possible. This is not a contest, and the whole purpose of the Wikipedia is to make this encyplaedia as better as possible by accepting that, maybe, your views are not shared by others and that, maybe, there are some things that can be written better.
My suggestion is to rephrase the sentence like this: "The standard of living in Mexico is higher than most of the other countries in Latin America", and leave the migration issue to the Demographics chapter where it belongs. In fact, in that chapter already says that there a lot of Argentines in Mexico, and I am perfectly OK with that because: (i) it is accurate, (ii) it is the right chapter where to talk on the issue and (iii) it is not linked to another issue (like standard of living) that can drive to inaccurate conclusions.
I hope that now my thoughts are clearer and you may accept my proposal, which I think should be acceptable to everybody. --Diegou 12:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is merely semantics then I think the sentence should be edited. The sentence reads: "The standard of living in Mexico is higher than most of the other countries of Latin America drawing people from places like Argentina, Brazil or Cuba". According to the sentence, who or what is "drawing people from other countries"? Well, the "standard of living" (the object of the sentence). So the sentence does imply that a "higher standard of living" is the reason behind Argentine immigration, like Diegou pointed out. While all separate statements are true (like Alex pointed out) causation might not be necessarily true (we cannot say one thing causes the other even if they are both true).

Now, arguably , people do emigrate because they seek better opportunities (caeteris paribus); that is to say, it seems logical that immigration is caused by economic and social factors and that families would, under normal circumstances, emigrate to places where they could enjoy social and economical freedoms they are deprived of in their home countries (not only better economic conditions but social conditions as well; some people seek refuge from political or religious persecution as well). I believe this was the case with the "first" wave of Argentine immigration during the 1970s when a military coup forced thousands of Argentines to "disappear" or emigrate, while it seems that this "second" save of immigration in recent years could be caused by economic factors (the 2001-2002 economic crisis). However do "economic opportunities" imply that "standard of living" is higher?

Two problems arise: (1) how do you define or measure standard of living quantitatively in order to make objective comparisons between two countries? and (2) how do you infer from a mean (or average) statistic that measures HDI to the whole population? Usually (like the UN does) standard of living is simply measured with the Human Development Index (HDI), which includes poverty rates, literacy rate, life expectancy and income. If that were the case, Argentina ranks 36 while Mexico ranks 53, and it would seem contradictory to say that a "lower" standard of living is "drawing" Argentines to Mexico. HDI in itself is problematic: even Cuba and most ex Soviet nations rank higher than Mexico! The reason behind this is that in most communist countries health care and education are accessible to everybody, and in fact Cuba enjoys the highest literacy rate in Latin America, and one of the best health care systems in the region; however, income per capita is well below that of Mexico. Cubans (or Argentines) emigrate to Mexico seeking better economic opportunities and not because Mexico's literacy rate is higher nor because hospitals and health care facilities are available in rural communities.

Secondly, even if we take HDI as a measurement of standard of living, this is just an average. How can we infer from a simple statistic to the whole population? A small group of rich individuals in a country will "pull" the HDI average up even if the majority of the population is deprived of basic needs. I believe the Gini index could assist us in this matter: Argentina's inequality is worse than that of Mexico. (Given that Mexico's income per capita is higher than Argentina's we can rule out that Mexico ranks higher because "they majority is poorer", like it would be the case with Sri Lanka, which ranks higher than both Argentina and Mexico in income inequality). But then we are not talking about "standard of living" but of "income inequality". But migration, in my opinion, is much more complicated than this. Why is it that Mexico's net migration rate is negative then? (and Mexico probably has the greatest emigration rate in Latin America)? What type of immigration is taking place and what type of emigration is taking place? For example, are immigrants extremely qualified (they have a university diploma) while emigrants are not (they do not have a high school diploma) or vice versa? Are there "more opportunities" for the "university qualified" (even if they are foreigners) while Mexican peasants have to emigrate?

While it seems logical to say that Argentines are immigrating to Mexico in recent years seeking better economic opportunities (or why would they?) it does not necessarily follow that "better economic opportunities" means "better standard of living" if it is measured with the HDI. I would rather say that which is factual: "Mexico has the highest income per capita in Latin America (GNI or Gross National Income) as reported by the World Bank, and enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the region". Then, like Diegou proposed, move the immigration stuff to the Demographics section. If something has to be said, then it can be said that "higher income" or "better economic opportunities" could be "drawing" immigrants to Mexico (and avoid the "standard of living" phrase). --Alonso 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your well balanced post. I might not agree with everything you say (e.g., on the issue of income per capita I would make clear that Mexico is highest in Latin America if measured with GNI, but fourth if measured with GDP (PPP), as it says in the chapter of Gross Economic Product in Economy of Mexico), but I do not want go further (at least this time!!) and would settle with the solution you propose. It was great to share this debate with you at such a high level. --Diegou 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

True, GDP PPP per capita is the fourth largest. Yet, I (like the World Bank) prefer National Income and not GDP for two reasons: GDP includes production generated by foreigners even though the income (or some utilities) might be perceived or retrieved by foreign countries, and secondly PPP "adjusts" GDP with a purchasing power exchange rate instead of using the nominal exchange rate. Given that the Argentine peso has been greatly devalued, GDP per capita jumps from 4000 to 12000 using PPP. If Argentina was a closed economy, I guess I would use PPP, but in a globalized world Argentina has to import and export products at the nominal exchange rate not at a fictional purchasing power parity. That is why I like GNI better, but that is a personal opinion, and some economists would argue otherwise. --Alonso 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In effect, neither GPD(PPP) or GNI (nominal) alone give an accurate picture of national income, and it should take into account both of them.
If the matter is the evaluation of standard of living, as pointed out in List of countries by GDP (PPP), "Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates which may distort the real differences in income".
However, and pointed out in List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, "Great care should be taken when using either set of figures to compare the wealth of two countries. Often people who wish to promote or denigrate a country will use the figure that suits their case best and ignore the other one, which may be substantially different, but a valid comparison of two economies should take both rankings into account, as well as utilising other economic data to put an economy in context."
So, following such advice, I would put both figures. --Diegou 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GNI is neither GDP (nominal) nor GDP PPP; it is a different way of measuring income (in fact you could create a GNI PPP if you wanted to). But that's not related to the argument here. By the way, It was good to debate with you too =) --Alonso 20:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the GNI. Too many different figures ...
According to the article on GNI, "Gross National Income comprises the total value of goods and services produced within a country (i.e. its Gross Domestic Product), together with its income received from other countries (notably interest and dividends), less similar payments made to other countries. For example, if a British-owned company operating in another country sends some of their incomes (profits) back to UK, the UK’s GNI is enhanced. Similarly, the repatriation of profit from a US-owned company operating in the UK will count towards US GNI, but not affect UK GNI."
I guess that in the case of both Argentina and Mexico the GNI would be lower than the GDP, since there is more foreign investment in both Argentina and Mexico than investment of these countries abroad. But I have not found any numbers to check this theory. --Diegou 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

J. Alonso, thank you for your message on the GNI.

Alex, please let us know if you have any good reasons not to accept J. Alonso's proposal to correct the sentence we are discussing about. --Diegou 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that nobody opposed, I have modified the sentence in a manner that I think it is acceptable. I did not touch the Demographics section since I think it is already well balanced, indicating the different sources of inmigration (economic reasons, exiles, U.S. expatriates, etc.)--Diegou 12:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Reverted the information deleted because there is no concensus. I don't know why you edited the section citing "concensus reached". That is false. So far there's only 2 people debating about this, and I'm revising their edit history because I suspect sockpuppetry. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alex let's cool down. We've been waiting for you to debate, but you haven't debated nor commented anything at all. Obviously, without talking there will be no consensus. Also, realize that you are reverting to your previous version, a version you don't even want to discuss. I don't know if you have read anything of what has been debated here, but at least realize that using the only measurement for "standard of living" (the HDI) Mexico's standard of living would be lower than that of Argentina, and then your version is simply false. There is no need to reach a consensus: false information should be deleted immediately, unless you can provide proof or a source that corroborates your version (say a different type of measurement in which Mexico ranks higher), which we would gladly accept and discuss. I strongly recommend you to read the article on Human Development Index, if you personally reject HDI, then I recommend you to revise the Key Development Data and Statistics published by the World Bank, where you can compare all those aspects that are included in the "standard of living" concept (i.e. literacy rate, school enrollment and completion, life expectancy, etc.) of both Mexico and Argentina. Like I said in my discussion, maybe you are confusing "better economic opportunities" with "standard of living". Sure, Mexico's economic opportunities are better, otherwise Argentines (or Cubans) would not emigrate to Mexico. Please at least discuss the issue with us and participate in the debate before accusing Diegou of not waiting for a consensus in which you have shown no interest in participating. I would gladly accept your information and discuss it, if you at least provide something other than your personal opinion.
--Alonso 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I don't want to revert to Diegou's version, which you will probably re-revert, and start an edit war. But I will add a "citation needed" template to your statement. --Alonso 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Alex, you are not playing fair. Please kindly accept deleting the sentence you added while we are discussing here. As you may have noticed, the other two persons involved in this discussion think the sentence is wrong, and are providing serious reasons to think so. We still have not seen yours.--Diegou 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Diegou, I think you were mistaken in some concepts you exposed on the "United Mexican States" section of this talk page when speaking of standard of living. You can read my comments above. --Alonso 23:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I was generalizing and should have been more specific. Regards. --Diegou 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The language as it stands suggests that the reason for Mexico's large Argentine community is because of better living conditions. I don't think it's necessary to establish quantitatively whether Mexico or Argentina is a more pleasant place to live, but this sentence blatantly suggests that Mexico has a higher standard of living, which is dubious any way you look at it. Mexico is also home to the largest American (US) community outside of the United States, but one cannot automatically infer that this is because of superior living conditions in Mexico.Triphook 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The aforementioned comment overlooks the fact that the better living conditions in Mexico for Argentinians might be due to them being slightly better educated due to Argentina's population being smaller and thus capitalising on the comparative advantages. Besides, the 2000 Argentine economic crisis and the corralito debunks the purported Argentine (economic?) superiority over the rest of Latin America, even though most argentinos and outsiders with a bias because Argentina has a majority of white people immigration often believe Argentina is better, and provide no reasons for such an irrational belief. Rodrigo Cornejo 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all Rodrigo, I don't really appreciate the notion that I am biased because Argentina has more white people than Mexico, this is both ad hominem and incorrect. Second, I never claimed that Argentina was "superior" to Mexico, simply that its standard of living was comparable to that of Mexico, if not higher. The bottom line is that one cannot make the case that living conditions in Mexico are the driving force behind Argentine immigration. The fact that Argentina has a quantifiably higher standard of living, is completely irrelavent.Triphook 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we even need to make that comparison? If you just said that conditions in Mexico are {excellent | good | bad | horrible}, and then give some numbers, the reader can make his or her own conclusions. Titoxd(?!?) 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree, and this is what I (and other peopler here) was trying to say. We are not trying to state in the article which of Argentina or Mexico is better than the other in terms of living standards or whatever. In fact, we have already shown here, and nobody was able to demonstrate the opposite, that it is not possible to sustain (as the article purports) that Mexico's living standard is higher than Argentina, considering the Human Development Index, GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy, etc., which figures are current and not pre 2001 crisis.
Considering that the relevant numbers are already in the Mexico and Argentina articles, and taking into account that the comparison is controversial (as shown by this discussion), I agree with Tito, Triphook and Alonso that the sentence we are discussing about should be deleted.--Diegou 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't be too hasty in trying to justify immigration, but I wouldn't be too hasty either in doing comparisons. Triphook made a good point on American and Argentine immigration, yet, like I said before, immigration is a complicated issue, and the nature of immigration is relevant as well. We can't compare American and Argentine immigration to Mexico: the great majority of the 1 million-plus American residents in Mexico are retirees, whereas the great majority of the Argentine residents in Mexico are within working age, and that does speak about the reasons or motives behind immigration.
I guess the controversial issue here is whether we want to say that a higher standard of living (whichever way you want to define it) is the driving force behind Argentine immigration (specifically, given that, so far,, nobody seems to contest the statement about Brazilian, Cuban or Central American immigration). As such maybe we should eliminate the connection between immigration and standard of living (I agree it is a plausible assumption, but nonetheless and assumption). Then I would suggest we provide specific reliable numerical data on several concepts related and/or included within the "standard of living" concept, to improve the quality of this section (instead of merely talking of subjective qualitative assumptions). In any case at least quantitatively we could make comparisons, if we need to compare at all. After reading the 2006 UN Development Programme Report (available here) I have to admit that I found a few surprises myself: life expectancy in Mexico is now actually higher than that of Argentina, adult literacy rate is roughly equivalent, percentage of population living in indigence (under $2 a day) is lower in Mexico and income per capita is higher if it is not adjusted to PPP, though, given that the Argentine peso is undervalued, when adjusted to PPP, income per capita in Argentina is higher. In many other aspects their achievements in development are roughly equal, though, in some (notably secondary and tertiary school enrollment and completion, access to sanitary services, and infant mortality rate) Argentina fares better. --Alonso 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have strong evidence showing J.Alonso and Diegou are the same person (WP:Sockpuppet) so I'm reporting this. Secondly, "3" persons are not a consensus and you should read the article about "What Wikipedia is not". It clearly states that it is not a democracy so, "votes" are not valid to fix a situation. You must not delete the sentence (now it has citation needed label). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, as far as I know, I have only one personality, and certainly am not Alonso ;-). I have just checked and you have not fulfilled your threat of reporting the purported suckpuppet. Be my guest and do it, please, so an administrator can take a look at you behavior on this debate.
Second, how can you write a sentence with a "citation needed"? If you write something, it is assumed that you know that it is true and then it is not necessary to include the "citation needed". Now, if you write it and you put the "citation needed", that means that you are aware that you are INVENTING something, because you have doubts yourself. Can you please explain this to all this people who have been making efforts showing their ideas?
Third, in spite of all the arguments from different persons in this chapter, you have not provided any valid idea to sustain the sentence but words like "bias", "nationalistic", "sockpuppet" and the like.
Do you dare facing all the arguments shown here? --Diegou 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not include the "citation needed" template. It was added by another person but I respect it because it is true: even if we all know the largest Argentinan community outside-country is in Mexico, we need to present a source. So I will, but until I do it, it was reasonable to leave that tag added by some other user.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex:

  • Your suspicions about me and Diegou being the same user are unfounded and, unless you are a bureaucrat you cannot see the IP addresses of registered users, you can only see addresses of anonymous users, in which case your strong evidence is mere speculation. But hey, report us, you will only make a fool of yourself.
  • Secondly, you are acting arbitrarily by inserting your own version without even participating in the discussion (I don't even know if you at least have taken the time to read our comments). You are not even putting at least some effort into reaching a consensus. By the way, nobody ever talked about voting. But like I said before we need no consensus (and ergo, no voting) when it comes to deleting statements that are proven false. Since you have not shown any verifiable proof of your statement, and if you continue to reinsert it without making an effort to participate on this debate, your actions are bordering on vandalism. But if you participate constructively (instead of inserting only personal opinions and ad hominem comments) we will definitely be able not only to reach a consensus but to have a better article.
  • Thirdly consensus is reached with participating users. If only three users participate (and so far there have been 6 not 3), and all six agree, we've reached a consensus. Consensus is not reached by the hundreds of thousands of registered users, but only by those that are active in the discussion. Otherwise, nothing in this encyclopedia will ever reach a consensus. We invite you, kindly, to participate on the debate.

--Alonso 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly refuse to talk to both of you as separate persons, because again, I have strong evidence that you are the same person. I will file a sockpuppetry complaint soon, when this matter is really relevant because the "rules" to file a complaint are very clear: cases with less than one week are useless. So, I'm waiting. And thanks God for the IP log and contributions log. It will prove me right.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't care if you refuse to talk to us as separate persons, as long as you participate on this debate. Secondly, as an administrator of one wikipedia, let me give you a piece of advise, since I guess you haven't even read the "clear" rules about sockpuppetry. If you had actually read the rules for reporting suspected sock puppeters you would have noticed that cases that are older than one week are useless. It says "older". So you don't have to wait. Go ahead and report us, you will be proven wrong. But like I said, as a common user, you cannot see the IP addresses of registered users. Not even us administrators can, so your threats are unfounded. Now given your attitude, and your insistence on reverting edits without participating on the debate, I am thinking of reporting you of vandalism. Please, again and for the last time, I ask you to participate constructively on this debate. --Alonso 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Both of you, knock it off. There's no need to throw sockpuppetry and vandalism accusations around. And for the record, I do have the sysop bit on, so stop edit warring and start discussing unless you want to run into the electric fence. Now, if we do want to get really grounded on policy, the sentence has to go, as it violates WP:V, until someone finds a source. Titoxd(?!?) 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Titoxd, like I said I am an admin at another wikipedia [1], not at this wikipedia, just in case you didn't read my comment correctly and were accusing me of not having the "sysop". And at least on our wiki, admins cannot see the IPs of registered users but upon request. If that is not the case in this wiki, I would very much appreciate if you could direct me to the appropriate meta page to request that feature for our wiki. Now, if you had followed the debate you would have realized that we have been telling Alex, ever since the beginning, that there is no proof of his statement; and that the only quantitative measurement for standard of living is the HDI (which in itself is debatable) and it would prove him wrong, since Argentina's HDI is higher than that of Mexico. Therefore, the sentence had to go, and I don't think a consensus has to be reached for that, but I asked Diegou to wait for Alex to respond before making any changes so that he could provide a verifiable source for his claim. His repeated reversions to his previous statements while ignoring the debate (except for accusing me of sockpuppetry) do constitute if not vandalism (I might have exaggerated) at least a violation of basic etiquette. --Alonso 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, as far as I am making the numbers OK, (a) Alonso, Triphook, Tito and I are in favor of removing the sentence since it cannot be verified (unless Alex thinks we are all the same person, in which case we (or I should say "I") would be only one ;-)), and (b) Alex thinks that the sentence should keep though he admits himself that he cannot verify it (he is including a "citation needed"). I am not sure what is the position of Rodrigo Cornejo regarding the sentence, but please Rodrigo let us know yours if you want. Consequently, since nobody (not even Alex) has provided any verifiable data to keep the sentence, if nobody opposes with arguments that are not ad hominem I would delete the sentence as adviced by Tito (who I am sure is a person different from me, but I am not sure regarding Alonso and Triphook ;-)) as it violates WP:V, until someone finds a source. --Diegou 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Alex insists on keeping the sentence even when he does not bother in explainig why. We tried to encourage Alex Covarrubias to debate here or at least let us know what he thinks, but its only arguments were ad hominem attacks (using words like "nationalistic", "bias", "sockpuppetry" and the like).
I am not an experienced Wikipedian. What should it do in a case like this? Report it as vandalism? --Diegou 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to break it off, but the highest living standards countries in Latin America are 1. Uruguay, 2. Puerto Rico, 3. Chile, 4. Costa Rica, and 5. Venezuela. I know Brazil and Mexico belong to the top 10, so does the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, the Netherlands Antilles belonging to Holland, and French West Indies/French Guiana, legally parts of France. Many British west Indies colonies and nations tied to Great Britain are up there, but not sure the rank but the British emphasized democracy, progress and security. Now to explain Mexico isn't in the top 10, but has advanced beyond most of Latin America to some exceptions is easily analyzed and studied, because Mexico is supposedly have a large middle-class, and at the same time nearly half the people are seriously or nearly poor. If the country tries to keep track of population growth (once a 3% annual growth rate in the 1970s and 1980s), promoted better educational standards for lower-classes and rural interior areas, and even provide actual social welfare like the U.S. and Canada has to their lowest income strata, things won't be drastic and chaotic like it has been for 30 or 40 years. The "economic miracle" focused on industrialization, deregulated banking practices and public educational methods closely based on American capitalism and European socialism, but corruption and mishandling of these programs had negative consequences being felt by Mexican society today. Mexico's current economic condition and now the political instability after a closely tied election by two corrupt political parties replaced the previous one-party system, might not been as worse and troubling than Mexicans have to live with. The Mexican people throughout it's history had lived with various degrees of difficulty and as a byproduct of colonial Spain destroyed five highly-advanced Amerindian empires in the present-day country, a proud people aware of their Amerindian heritage and represent the world's largest Spanish-speaking country. To compare living standards for Mexico with Argentina isn't meant to defame Mexican culture or race (i.e. the history of race relations with Mexican Americans in the Southwest US, and that Argentina has a "white" European majority), but a look in the failures after successful advancements in Mexico is a sure warning for other third world leaders (i.e. China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia and Russia-former Soviet countries) to keep themselves in order and to improve the way their country works by fighting mass poverty, corrective measures to end corruption and continue to promote development in education, industry and social progress. 63.3.14.1 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get your point. You are providing another "ranking" for standard of living without citing your source. And your ranking is surprising given that after reading the 2006 UN Develop't Programme Report, only HDI is used for ranking and it doesn't follow that order (see: List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index). In any case if you provide a source for your ranking we would consider it before making any changes. --Alonso 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not a contest to see who has a better standard of living than who. It has been demonstrated here that it is not possible to argue that Mexico has a living standard higher than Argentina (and I am not saying that the opposite is true). Thus, since the sentence we are discussing about implies something that cannot be verified, it should be deleted it.--Diegou 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here I go again. Since Alex Covarrubias is the only person here who opposed deleting the sentence (I am not sure what Rodrigo Cornejo and 63.3.14.1 think on this specific issue, but they are invited to do so), and we do not know his reasons, I kindly invite Alex again to let us know his arguments. In case he does not try to reach a consensus by explaining why he thinks the sentence should be included within, let's say, one week from now, and nobody opposes it, I will delete it. --Diegou 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) HUGHES! This could help you O.o

I support the deletion of this sentence as unnecessary and contentious, SqueakBox 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First I'll address this: "The bottom line is that one cannot make the case that living conditions in Mexico are the driving force behind Argentine immigration. The fact that Argentina has a quantifiably higher standard of living, is completely irrelavent.Triphook 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)" If it isn't the comparative advantage argentines have when coming to Mexico, or if Mexico has such apalling living conditions as every outsider seems to depict the country's situation... then why do Argentines come to Mexico? Because they are so good looking and they want to get the mexican women? I don't think so. The side that supports Argentina's overwhelming superiority over the "backwater" country Mexico is should ask themselves why Mexico has the greatest argentine diaspora in the world. Secondly, I strongly support keeping the sentence. If we're going to start asking for sources and putting "citation needed templates" in things that require common sense then I think I don't like Wikipedia anymore. I hope that this doesn't escalate and that next time I write "2+2= 4" somebody says it's an unsourced statement and that I need provide evidence of that. Rodrigo Cornejo 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Political oppression? Heck, better weather? The fact that there are a ton of persons with an Argentinan background in Mexico doesn't necessarily mean that Mexico has better conditions than Argentina; it doesn't mean than Mexico has inferior conditions either, as correlation is not the same thing as causality. It seems like drawing our own conclusions, which is, as you well know, prohibited by Wikipedia policy. I don't see why the sentence should be there. You can say that Mexico has a trillion-dollar economy, and other facts, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to try to analyze and declare that X country is better than another. (P.S: I, for one, find your characterization of us thinking of Mexico as an "inferior backwater" as quite off-the-mark, since I am a Mexican citizen, for what it is worth...) Titoxd(?!?) 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

True Rodrigo, it is Mexico's comparative advantage that draws Argentines to Mexico (and comparative advantage could well be better weather, less political oppression or economics!) That is, indeed, common sense. However, comparative advantage and standard of living are two different things. I could even say (to me it sounds very logical) that "better economic opportunities" are the reason that is driving Argentines to Mexico, but again, "better economic opportunities" and standard of living are two different things. And even if we could rephrase the sentence to say that "it is comparative advantage" or "better economic opportunities are driving Argentine emigrants to Mexico", we still have to reference our claim. In case you haven't read all the discussion above, immigration is a very complex issue, and common sense not always applies. For example, Mexico has the greatest US-citizens community [diaspora] abroad, estimated at an amazing 1 million (more than 6 times greater than the Argentine diaspora). Yet common sense tells me it is not "higher standards of living" the driving force behind this migratory phenomenon. Comparative advantage makes sense to me, yet comparative advantage is the force that has driven 6 million Mexicans to the US, and Mexico's net migration rate is negative (the largest in absolute terms in LA). You see, immigration is far more complex than what common sense or a single statistic can convey.

Even if you strongly support [unproven] causation (standard of living drives immigration), the problem here is how are we suppose to define (or measure) standard of living. Standard of living is usually measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power parity ([2], p. 276). If this is the case, then we incur in a contradiction since Argentina's GDP PPP per capita is 13,000+ USD, while Mexico's GDP PPP per capita is 10,000+ USD. Another measurement is HDI (even though the definition of HDI includes standard of living, making it circular). HDI includes education (school enrollment and completion) life expectancy, literacy rate, mortality rates, and many other aspects. But then again we incur in a contradiction since Argentina's HDI is also higher than Mexico's. Yet Cuba's HDI is also higher than Mexico's, in spite of Cuba being much, much poorer than both.

My point is, immigration is much more complex than x causes y. Moreover, the concept of standard of living is also much more complex than merely economic opportunities or GDP and includes many other concepts in which Mexico fares better than Argentina, and others in which it doesn't, which makes the causation, at best, imprecise, and we do better by leaving it out. And like Titoxd pointed out, we are not supposed to do any original research here. --Alonso 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jha! Talk about political opression in a country with Mexico's history. Titoxd, are you sure political oppresion would be a reason for argentines to move to Mexico more than they being able to capitalise opportunities their country doesn't provide? And we're not trying to illustrate the compexity of the migratory phenomenon here, just briefly explaining why there is an argentine diaspora in Mexico. The sentence is too controversial it seems. Oh well, we'll never reach a compromise here so I give up. Argentina is better than Mexico, and so is Cuba (by HDI). You can hang on to that belief, I won't try to explain why I disagree. If you want to base everything in statistics without giving not even a brief interpretation, fine. Rodrigo Cornejo 05:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC) and I am a mexican citizen too Titoxd, but well that doesn't mean I have to be uncritical of the foreigners perception of Mexico as a desert full of people with sombreros that drink Tequila 24/7

I find the stereotypical argument in relations to "how foreigners think" made by Rodrigo inappropriate (as it does not assume good faith) and inaccurate, as many of us discussing the issue are, in fact, Mexican. I believe the discussion over a single sentence is getting way out of proportion. For the most part, regardless of our nationalities and "personal beliefs" we should focus on research and reliable statistics, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum.
I have asked all participants to read the UN Development Report so that our discussion would be more precise and academic and not based on our biases, perceptions, opinions and beliefs which are, by nature, subjective. If we can summarize most of the academic (non-personal) statements of the discussion above, which deserve our consideration, they can be presented as follows:
  • It is precisely because of the complex nature of the migration phenomena of Mexico (both immigration and emigration), that we cannot accurately pinpoint any reason (other than our personal opinion) as to why Argentines immigrate to Mexico anymore that we can do it for other immigration groups, (like American citizens, which, obviously, do not come into Mexico because of a "higher" standard of living, and their "diaspora" is six times larger than that of Argentina). A significant percentage of the Argentine community in Mexico did immigrate escaping from political persecution during the military dictatorship. Nonetheless the recent new wave of immigration has been mostly "illegal" and there are no reliable documents (at the SRE in Mexico) neither to provide an exact number of immigrants nor their motives. Common sense, however, seems to indicate that "better economic opportunities" would be the reasons behind Argentine immigration. But we should be aware that we can't compare 2+2=4 to a complex phenomenon and infer a simple logical causation.
  • "Better economic opportunities" is not the same thing as "standard of living", and "standard of living" is included, but does not entirely constitute the Human development index, as I had previously said before. For the UN "standard of living" (and used in part to construct their HDI) is measured by GDP PPP per capita, or income per capita in purchasing power parity. Income in PPP is not "real" (the actual amount of dollars) but "artificial" in that an exchange rate (or parity) is artificially constructed by comparing the different price indices between countries. In countries with a lower cost of living a specific fixed "real" income buys more of the same stuff than in countries with a higher cost of living, hence their "purchasing power" is greater. This is the case with Argentina, that in spite of having an income per capita below 4,000 USD (whereas Mexico has an income above 7,000 USD), it has a higher "standard of living" because the purchasing power of those 4,000 (following the economic debacle and the devaluation of the Argentine peso of 2002) is equivalent to 13,000 USD (i.e. the cost of living is low), whereas the Mexican income of 7,000+ USD has the purchasing power of 10,000 USD (i.e. cost of living is higher). If we were to say that "standard of living" alone is the cause of immigration (as measured by GDP PPP) we incur in a contradiction. If it were just by this fact, the sentence has to be either eliminated or edited. Of course, we can argue as to whether GDP PPP per capita is a good indicator of standard of living or not (I personally don't think it is a good measurement), but this is not a forum, and for the most part, most international organizations use it.
  • Even if we edit and just say "better economic opportunities are causing immigration from other countries like Argentina...", instead of saying "standard of living", I personally believe, that we should still provide a reliable source for the claim.
So far the options have been "eliminate it" or "keep it as it is". Has anybody ever thought of a third option?
--Alonso 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading all what has been said here, I also believe that the sentence is fine as it is. In the Demographics chapter the issue of immigration (and emigration) is already considered extensively, and the Standard of Living chapter focuses specifcally on that. Any link between both issues should be carefully demonstrated. As Alonso says, the emigration matter is quite complex, and the reasons for emigration are not only economic but also political and social. If someone finds any studies regarding this matter, it should be cited in the Demographics chapter and not in Standard of Living.--Diegou 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this debate since it begins (Could you be more specific ? where…) on November 22.
And I must say, I can’t believe it. I can’t believe how many Mexicans try so hard (despite all arguments against) to keep a sentence that doesn’t provide anything to the ultimate objective of wikipedia, knowledge.
And I wonder, why is that?
Sadly, I think we all know why is that. Is because the sentence, that sentence, haves a negative connotation to Argentina. Simply as that. I do not assume good faith ? Guilty as charge.
But what else can I think ? Since no other argument has been exposed?
Once and again and again Alonso invited the other users to share their arguments, and also Diegou did.
Most than personal believes, nothing.
Why the Mexicans do that ?? why??? They don’t want just say “we are fine, we have a good quality of life, we are happy”. No. They need to mark a difference. They must state a difference. They need to say “we live better than argentines, that’s why there is a lot of them living in Mexico”. Even if that is not true.
I mean… look at the title of this section!!! “Mexico’s standard of living as compared whit Argentina’s” !!!!!!!!!!!
Why there should be a comparison?? why they must compare one to another ???
Mexico’s page is the only page I have found (so far) whit a chapter entitled “Standard of living”.
No other page has it!! Nor Norway has it (the country whit the highest HDI in the entire world!), nor Argentina has it (the highest in LA), nor Japan (the highest in Asia) has it !! no one !!!
And the Argentina page said “we have a better standard of living than México”?? NO. “We are better than brazil”??? NO. We could say that, because is true, but no thanx.
Also, Argentina is the country whit the highest immigrant population within ALL Latin America, almost two and a half times more than Mexico (1.500.000 / 644.000). Immigrants represent to Argentina a 3.9%, while in Mexico is only a 0.6%. Argentina is the 28º country in the entire world elected by people from other countries to live in and the 1º in LA. So ? That give us the right to say “they came because we are better”?? they came because we have higher standards of living ? they came because in their countries are worst economic opportunities ?
No sir, we do not speculate about that. We don’t argue why they are here. They came. Period. And they are welcome.
What about USA, home of the largest Mexican “Diaspora”??? 7.000.000 of immigrants, totaling a whopping 26.000.000??? they said “a quarter of their population came to our country looking better opportunities??” NO.
I mean, we are talking of the biggest “Diaspora” of ANY country in the world, more than 170 times the SUPPOSED argentine colony in México!! Let see what the USA page said about that: “Immigrants from Mexico make up about 66% of the Hispanic community,[70] and are second only to the German-descent population in the single-ethnicity category.”. :That’s it. That’s all. No suppositions, no conjectures.
Again, sadly, it seems to be if there is a minor opportunity, for insignificant it is, to say something bad about Argentina, to say something pejorative about Argentina, to say something degrading to Argentina, that opportunity will be taken by some Mexicans.
And I must clearly say “SOME” Mexicans. Thanks God, not all of them think that way, not all of them are based on prejudices, and to me, it was a relief to read Alonso’s NPOV arguments. ALONSO, TE GANASTE MI RESPETO.
That sentence must go. Why? Because is speculative, subjective and unverifiable. Not only about argentines, also about Cubans and Brazilians. But most than anything, because that sentence has no porpoise more than try to state a xenophobic comparison. And all we debating here, known that is so true. Disgusting, but true.
But wasn’t enough whit that sentence, they need more.
And since we are debating about the argentines in Mexico and what is true and what no, this sentence also must go:
“… many other Latin American emigrants, many from Argentina (making Mexico home to the largest Argentine population outside of Argentina, an estimated 150,000[3] in 2005. [5])”
Why? Again, word by word, the same reasons given above. Speculative, subjective and unverifiable, plus xenophobic.
The cited source isn’t more than a newspaper article, not a single one official source certifies that. Even the same sentence said “an estimated”!!!
That, by itself, goes AGAINST any wikipedia POLICY.
But here comes the best: the same article states “Según los últimos datos provistos por la Secretaría de Gobernación mexicana, los argentinos residentes en México serían alrededor de 10.600. Sin embargo, se estima que están viviendo allí alrededor de 150.000 conciudadanos.”
"La comunidad argentina en México es un verdadero misterio. Según los datos oficiales somos sólo 10 mil registrados, pero si le preguntás al hombre de la calle te dirá: `seguramente hay un millón de ches"
“The argentine community in México is truly a mystery. According to the official records we are only 10.000, but if you ask to the man on the streets he will say: surely there is a million of ches”
“If you ask the people on the streets…!!!” That’s a verifiable source!!
Does anyone EVER read that source???? I mean, anyone whit a NPOV.
We all know that illegal immigration exists. In Argentina, Mexico, USA and everywhere.
OK. But never, repeat, NEVER I saw any country where the illegal immigration was fifteen times!!!! the legal one.
Two? sure. five? mmmmm…. maybe. ten? don’t think so. fifteen? IMPOSSIBLE.
Traditionally, the main destinations for the argentines were Spain and Italy, due an historical background. The first time I read “Mexico home to the largest Argentine population” I thought, “that’s new!!”. But almost everything is possible. So, I did my research.
As far there is a Mexican community in Argentina (http://www.angeldemexico.com.ar/) why not vice versa? but… the “largest”? mmmm….
Lets see what I found:
1º As already I said, and the article say (what is more than enough) that statement is based on an estimation, a presumption, of “el hombre de la calle”. Quite a source.
2º The same article talks about the official data, 10.600 argentines. Not 10.599, not 16.601. 10.600
3º Is the only “source” that certifies that. Of course, cited in every wikipedia article about demographics of México.
4º When you go to check the “reference” ([3]) at the bottom of the page, besides that is not a reference at all, this is what you found “Excluding those born in Mexico,”… O_o !!! Sorry, but… I mean…. this is soooooo… sorry again…. lol. I must try to keep my etiquette. Including them how many they are?? four, five millions??? In case you didn’t read the “reference” (the other one, the newspaper article, not that comment) not even the same article says nothing about that!!! NOTHING. That’s pure fantasy, an invention!!! ANOTHER ONE.
5º Remember what I said about Spain and Italy? This will be very interesting. Spain: “According to the Spanish government there were 3.7 million foreign residents in Spain in 2005; independent estimates put the figure at 4.8 million or 11.1% of total population (Red Cross, World Disasters Report 2006). According to residence permit data for 2005, around 500,000 were Moroccan, another half a million were Ecuadorian, more than 200,000 were Romanians and 270,000 were Colombian. Other important foreign communities are British (6.09% of all the foreign residents), Argentine (6.10%), German (3.58%) and Bolivian (2.63%). In 2005, a regularization programme increased the legal immigrant population by 700,000 people.”
Lets do the mats: 3.7 m / 100 * 6.10= 225.700. say what???? 225.700 argentines living in Spain. But… the biggest argentine “Diaspora” is in México!!! the journalist who wrote an article for a newspaper asked somebody on the streets and he supposes that!!! who say that this supposition of the people of the streets is not true??
The INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística de España, an OFFICIAL agency.
Not a newspaper, not a conjecturer, not even... “the people from the streets”
And that, IS A FACT.
To be more accurate, the OFFICIAL records said exactly 152.975 argentines. The wikipedia´s Spain page talks about 225.700, that means 1.5 times the official count, which is pretty logical. Not 5, 10 or 15 times the official data.
So, a quick resume:
Mexican official records: 10.600 argentines living in Mexico.
“mexican people from the streets conjecture”: 150.000 argentines living in México.
Spanish official records: 152.975 argentines living in Spain.
“spanish people from the streets conjecture”: they don’t do that.
Spanish residences permit data 2005: 225.700 argentines living in Spain.
Difference between official records and conjectures / residence permits:
Mexico: 15 times.
Spain: 1.5 times.
Conclusion:
In México DO NOT LIVE THE LARGEST ARGENTINE COMMUNITY.
Wikipedia, should be, MUST BE, based on reliable, verifiable and probed information. NOT on conjectures. NOT on prejudices. NOT on beliefs. NOT ON PEOPLE FROM THE STREETS.
Ergo, that sentence must go. And not only from this page, from every wikipedia page that states that, because THAT IS FALSE. :Otherwise, we could start asking to our neighbors questions like “how many Bengalis do you think lives in our country?” and based on what they say or they think, then we came and write an article.--Wikidrian 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I want to say to that is that not all Mexicans want the sentence to stay... it's a bit unfair to put us all in the same "bloc", if you want to call it that. Titoxd(?!?) 19:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Argentina is better than Mexico... it is sooo better than still, Argentines continue to come to Mexico. How many Mexicans in Argentina? =) And yeah, you might want to say "Mexicans go to the US because it is closer". Well, then why Argentines aren't going to the US also? =) Yeah, you keep thinking your country is better... if that satisfies you. But also, try to convince your fellows Argentines in our country. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Alex, calm down. Are you even looking at the arguments? Any ways, who cares if Argentina or Mexico is better off? (By the way, GDP per capita IS a good indication)... Really, why should a page about a country be used to compare it to another country? And if Mexico is so great, why does it care to be compared to Argentina? In any case, both are shadows of economies when compared to Brazil, or even better, the United States. Does it matter? Does that make Mexico less great, or less beautiful, or less competitive?
On the other hand, reliable sources and good faith discussions help make wikipedia a more accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia. This article needs to grow, and if we continue debating weather Mexico or Argentina should be the 55th or 60th economy per capita in the world, well, it will get us nowhere. Hari Seldon 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"They are both shadows of economies compared to Brazil??", excuse me?, Mexican economy is so close to the Brazilian one, even thought argentine economy goes third after Mexico, there is nothing to compare between the first two and the third one, Mexican and Brazilian Economy are like 4/5 times bigger that the argentine economy and they are both two of the biggest on earth, so I don’t mean to be rude but please do your research before posting. --Supaman89
Of course, supaman, you missed the point entirely. My point is that comparisons are not what is most important for this article.
However, I will answer your criticism of Brazil. According to the List of countries by GDP (PPP) article, Brazil is the 9th economy in the World, Mexico is the 13th, and Argentina is the 22nd. The following figures are in millions of "international" dollars: (i.e. 1 = 1 000 000)
Brazil has a GDP (PPP) of $1,576,728, Mexico has a GDP (PPP) of $1,072,563, and Argentina has a GDP (PPP) of $533,722. This was for the year 2005.
The difference between the three is not comparable. The difference between Brazil and Mexico is $504,165 million of International dollars, and the difference between Mexico and Argentina is $538,841 million of International dollars. As you can see, at a difference of more than 500,000 millions of currency, Mexico is shadowed by Brazil, in the same way that Argentina is shadowed by Mexico.
Now, that is for the overall value of the economy, but when it comes to GDP per capita (PPP), Argentina is 50th in the list, and Mexico is 65th. The difference may be explained by the fact that Argentina has a smaller population. However, when it comes to GDP per capita per hour (meaning, how much is produced per hour per capita), Mexico is 43rd and Argentina is 40th. Indeed, it can be argued that Mexico's and Argentina's economy per capita, and per capita per hour is similar enough for it to make no significant difference whatsoever.
Comparing the Mexican economy to the Argentine economy is a futile attempt, and an unnecessary one for this article. If any comparison would be valuable to a reader, it would be the one to the US economy. Any other comparison is just empty nationalism that does not help the reader of the article, and that is not valuable for wikipedia.
In short, it doesn't matter which economy is better. The article should not include this comparison, or any comparison at all except against the world's largest economies, so that the comparison can be helpful to the reader.
Additionally, it may be added that Mexico is a G-20 nation, a category of middle-developed countries that include Brazil and Argentina (and South Korea, and South Africa, and a dozen other nations). It is unimportant what economic position Mexico has with respect to the other G-20 countries. Whats important is that Mexico is properly categorized and gives a useful reference to the reader. Hari Seldon 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: Alex Covarrubias made on this talk page an unfair accusation of sockpuppetry against me, and never apologized for such false attack. Finally, he filed a case, which is ongoing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/J.Alonso

I am making this matter public to defend my reputation, and so everybody can have their own conclusions by reading the content and the depth of the arguments of the different persons involved in that discussion. I think that "the light of the sun is the best disinfectant", and that exposing publicly the behavior of the accuser of the purported sockpuppetry will make Wikipedia better.--Diegou 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're right the economy issue goes out of context but as you said just for the record let me put you the "total GDP 2005"[[3]] (Millions of US dollars):
10. Brazil - 794,098
13. Mexico - 768,438
32. Argentina - 183,309
Anyways, I don't even remember what we were debating about, did anyone ask to remove something related to Mexico's and Argentina's standarts of living? did they already do it? if so, I think we're done here --Supaman89
Yes, you're right, this matter ended some time ago, and everybody agrees on the current wording of the article. I am not sure why there are still debates here. Anyway, an interesting offspring of this debate is the false sockpuppetry accusation by Alex Covarrubias; you can amuse yourself in the link I provided in my prior post.--Diegou 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Supaman89, Diegou, what we are debating here (by now) is ANOTHER speculative, subjective and unverifiable sentence, as I already said on my prior post. Please review all the arguments exposed to support that.
So far, the best argument against that was “Yeah, you keep thinking your country is better... if that satisfies you” (!!!) by Alex. Please let us know what you both think about this debate.
Tito, I didn’t put all of you on the same “bloc”. That’s why I said “ ...“SOME” Mexicans. Thanks God, not all of them think that way, not all of them are based on prejudices... ”
I think is pretty obvious here who is based on prejudices and who’s not.
Alex, maybe you didn’t understand what we are debating here. If that is the case, please, read carefully all the previous posts. This is not a forum, where people came to say what they think about if a country is better to another. That’s not the subject. If argentines continues going to Mexico, please, show us some statistics. Otherwise, that’s (ANOTHER) conjecture. How many Mexicans in Argentina?? I don’t know, do your research. But what I know is how many argentines in Mexico: 10.600, no more, no less. And that is OFFICIAL. And what I also know is that in Mexico DO NOT LIVE THE LARGEST ARGENTINE COMMUNITY. Why do Mexicans go to Argentina / USA? Or Argentines go to Mexico / USA? I don’t know, I don’t care. Again, That’s not the subject. I don’t think our country is better. Better in what? There are thousands of measurable matters. And this is not about what we think. That’s the point. That’s all about. This is about Facts against believes. Here we were discussing about standard´s of living and immigration.
Fact: 10.600 argentines living in Mexico
Belief: 150.000
Fact: Argentina ranked seventeen places above Mexico in the HDI.
Belief: Mexico is better than Argentina.
“Yeah, you keep thinking your country is better... if that satisfies you” No. Is not what I think, nor what I believe. Is what the UN says, at least about quality of life. Nothing more, nothing less. :Here are no place for thoughts or beliefs.
“But also, try to convince your fellows Argentines in our country.” Ok. But you do the same whit your fellows Mexicans in our country, if that satisfies you. :D But do not use the HDI as an argument, it will be a little contradictory and problematic for you. ;)
Alex, your sayings are my best argument, my best proof, about all I said before is right. To certify all I said on my prior post, about xenophobia, believes, lack of proofs and subjective and speculative sentences, we only need to read all your comments on this debate. They speak for them self. Thank you for corroborate all I have been saying. Really, Thank you.--Wikidrian 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikidrian: Lets just drop this argument. Again, the purpose of this article is not a comparison, much less against Argentina. Hari Seldon 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikidrian. This is not a forum. The controversial sentence has already been modified. This discussion is over. Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss whether one country is better. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the controversial issue has already been settled and the sentence removed. There is absolutely no need to continue this argument. --Alonso 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hari Seldon, Alonso. Did you read my first post? I am not who is doing the comparisons. I am against that since the beginning. I am who said (copy/paste) “Why there should be a comparison?? why they must compare one to another ???” ok?
I know that the original controversial sentence about why a person emigrates has gone. What I am saying, is about other sentence. “Mexico is also home for many other Latin American emigrants, many from Argentina (making Mexico home to the largest Argentine population outside of Argentina, an estimated 150,000[3] in 2005. [5]).”
This sentence is under the “Demographics” chapter, and has not been modified. Not under “Standards of living”. It’s a different sentence. I already expose all the arguments about why that is false, including official stats. If nobody will say anything about why this sentence should stay, I will proceed to erase it. That’s what I am debating. Not about what originates the migrations. Please, read my first post. We are talking about different subjects. The first one, settled. The second one, no. If you say this controversial issue, about the supposed largest argentine population outside Argentina, not about what causes the immigration, has already been settled, please link me to page with the conclusions, because here nothing has been told against my arguments. Maybe we should open a new discussion subject to avoid this misunderstands. If you agree, go ahead.--Wikidrian 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikidrian, with all due respect your first contribution contained dozens of ad hominem attacks towards personal users. Please review wikipedia's policies for etiquette, since you are new here. Do not confuse criticism towards other users with arguments. We haven't criticized you the way you did at your first contribution, nor the way you criticized "Mexicans" in general.

Secondly, either you failed to see the point in the La Nación article, you fail to understand the migration phenomena around the world or you fail to understand statistics. You claim that there are only 10.600 Argentines in Mexico no more, no less. That is not true. There are 10,600 legal Argentines in Mexico, no more, no less. There are also probably 1 million legal Mexicans in the US, no more no less. Yet, estimations of illegal immigration are a different matter. There are around 4-6 million illegal Mexicans in the US. The Argentine community in Mexico is estimated at 150,000 (and if you read the entire article, some even claim a number close to a million, adding the immigration from the 1970s during the military dictatorship), yet, for all purposes, the consensus is 150,000 amongst estimations of legal+illegal Argentines. That is why the sentence says "estimated at 150,000" which is, true. For example, in 2003 Reforma, showed a similar figure for Argentines with FM-2 (legal 5-year resident status in Mexico) or FM-3 (legal 1-year resident status), yet they also reported that the SRE registered close to half a million Argentines coming into Mexico in 2003. Obviously, statistically you need to remove those that come for business or pleasure and those who while staying illegally, emigrate to the US. Statistically, the estimation was at 1/4 of the figure. Since you cannot have a clear estimate of illegal immigration (even though all foreigners leaving Mexico must also file a visa form before boarding a plane), they use statistic resources. Unless you want to call the statisticians that reported 150,000 for la Nación as "incompetent", the figure is, for the most part, valid. I hope I have been clear.

--Alonso 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

J Alonso, if the claim that Mexico has such a large Argentinean colony is true (which, in my experience, it might be), then I suggest that the sentence remains, since it does provide important information on the demographical composition of Mexico (i.e., it is not just a nation of Mexicans, but a nation of immigrants, a fact that is sometimes forgotten). Indeed, many of the people I know here in Mexico are immigrants, and I think that what is called for is a re-write so that the sentence's connotation can be interpreted less as an attack on Argentina, and more as a statement of Mexico's status as a home for immigrants. (I.e., it would be a good idea to get some more information on the immigrant colonies from other nations or cultural groups)... Hari Seldon 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I oppose its elimination. But after reviewing Wikidrian's long argument, I see some valid points. For one thing, all estimations, be it Reforma, la Nación, or American Citizens Abroad, of illegal immigrants are not precise. His calculation of Argentines in Spain makes sense. What I propose is this: rewrite the sentence so as to mention the fact that there is a significant proportion of Argentines in Mexico and that some estimate it at 150,000 (La Nación and Reforma). Since Wikidrian's calculations of Argentines in Spain make sense, until a valid source that compares all illegal immigrants across countries, we should eliminate the claim that says that Mexico is home to the largest Argentine diaspora. It is hard to make this claim given the discrepancies between statistics. --Alonso 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Now we are talking !! Alonso, whit all due respect, please tell me exactly where or when I criticized “Mexicans” in general. Once and again I said that “some” Mexicans must state a pejorative comparison whit Argentina, and that seems to be the only reason to some sentences to be here. SOME Mexicans don’t means “mexicans in general”. Even I took my time to write a single paragraph to leave that perfectly clear. You invited Alex, in several occasions, to share their arguments, and all that you get was a sock puppetry accusation. Am I wrong?
If a valid and reasonable argument to keep that sentence is exposed, then I could see it in a different way, but there wasn’t an argument at all. That’s why I think this is all about a xenophobic matter against Argentines. Some Mexicans, I repeat, SOME Mexicans, are confusing patriotism whit xenophobia.
I am not the first person who used words like “bias, nationalistic, sock puppetry, practical joke” etc etc etc on this debate. Anyway, I said it, you said it: “This is not a forum. The controversial sentence has already been modified. This discussion is over. Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss whether one country is better. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the controversial issue has already been settled and the sentence removed. There is absolutely no need to continue this argument.”
Done.
Now, you are partially right when you say I am new here. I am new whit an account. But I have been participating as an anonymous user for a long time. I am new as a registered user, but I am not new to wikipedia. As far as I know, an anonymous / new user opinion is so valid as the one for a registered user.
Secondly, you say I haven’t been criticized. Until now. One way or another, it seems I failed. I am not claiming that there are only 10.600 Argentines in Mexico no more, no less. An official Mexican agency claims that. Not me. Besides what you said about the supposed 150.000 argentines is in the second paragraph, I already read the entire article more than once, till the end, were another interviewed argentine talks about a lot of friends who returned to Argentina.
And I say “another interviewed argentine” because that is what is the original one who talks about an estimated population of 150.000, and who makes the joke about one million “ches”. I think it’s very clear he is making a joke, not a statistic. And like I previously said, and he said, the presumption of the 150.000 or the 1.000.000 "ches" is made by “the people from the streets”.
Now, I must repeat my self: “ We all know that illegal immigration exists. In Argentina, Mexico, USA and everywhere. OK. But never, repeat, NEVER I saw any country where the illegal immigration was fifteen times!!!! the legal one. Two? sure. five? mmmmm…. maybe. ten? Don’t think so. fifteen? IMPOSSIBLE.”
You talk about the 4-6 million illegal Mexicans in the US, as an example, compared whit the 1 million legal. So, the estimation is 4 to 6 times the legal immigration. Nor 15 times, nor 100 times, if we consider the 1 million “ches” joke a statistic.
But, in the US, that estimation, of 4-6 million Mexicans, is made by official agencies, not by the people from the streets. In the article, the 150.000 argentines estimation is made by John Doe. The consensus you talk about of 150,000 amongst estimations of legal+illegal is a one single person consensus. A person who doesn’t belongs to any state agency, university, research center or international organization.
You talk about what Reforma said in 2003, the FM-2, FM-3 forms and the SRE records, but you don’t link the source. Maybe if we could have a well-documented official information, so we can check it, this debate will be over. But until now all we have is a presumption made by an immigrant.
You said, “…close to half a million Argentines coming into Mexico in 2003…”, “…Statistically, the estimation was at 1/4 of the figure.” (500.000 / 4= 125.000), but, no link to check it. But we could check this one where according to a study made by “Direccion Nacional de Migraciones” (National Migration Agency) from Argentina, the total emigration for 2004 was 29.821, a 45% more than 2003, 20.586. So, a total emigration of 20.586 argentines to the entire world on 2003. Now, how is that 6 times the total argentine emigration for that year, to the entire world, gone to Mexico? You talk about 125000 argentine immigrants only in Mexico, but less than 21.000 argentines in total leave the country that year. ¿¿?? But well, as you say: “either... you fail to understand the migration phenomena around the world or you fail to understand statistics” (I presume this is not an ad hominem attack, and it goes whit the policies for etiquette, right? because if it is not, we have a contradiction here) More. Principal destinations: Los Angeles and Miami in the US, and Madrid, Barcelona and Vigo in Spain. More ahead, a mention to Italy, and Spain again. Not a single word about Mexico. Not a single word. Repeat: this is an official study from an official agency.
I can’t call the statisticians who reported 150.000 for La Nacion “incompetent” because there are no statisticians at all. Who is the statistician? Hector Arber? Precisely the guy who talk about asking the people on the streets? Who? Not a single one academic source is cited on the entire article, less a statistician. Unless you want to call the previously named John Doe a statistician.
Now, lets pretend for a second, just pretend, that this presumption/estimation is true, it’s properly documented. Forget about that Mexico inst even mentioned in official emigrations reports, or the only source is a one single article without any qualified source... What about all the official data from Spain? What about all the cited and verifiable information of argentine immigration in Spain? Instituto Nacional de Estadística de España (National Institute of Statistic): 152.975 argentines living in Spain. Residence permits data 2005: 225.700 argentines living in Spain. Not even taking the 150.000 supposition for granted you could say in Mexico lives the biggest argentine overseas community. Not even in that case. Or I also failed in this statistic? Who failed? Unless you want to call the people working for the INE, real statisticians, “incompetents”.
But, let’s go further. Let suppose also, that there is no official Spanish data at all. There are no 2 official records that dismiss the biggest argentine colony conjecture. We have 2 official records against 1 conjecture, but let’s pretend those 2 doesn’t exist. Nothing.
What about wikipedia policies? What we do whit that? I already say it, more than once. So, here is again:
"Wikipedia, should be, MUST BE, based on reliable, verifiable and probed information. NOT on conjectures. NOT on prejudices. NOT on beliefs. NOT ON PEOPLE FROM THE STREETS.
Ergo, that sentence must go. And not only from this page, from every wikipedia page that states that, because THAT IS FALSE.
Otherwise, we could start asking to our neighbors questions like “how many Bengalis do you think lives in our country?” and based on what they say or they think, then we came and write an article."
And this is not new to wikipedia.--Wikidrian 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Lets be real with todays economical crisis, Mexico´s quality of living it's been decreased, the financial sistem in Mexico is based on Banks of China, USA, Spain. So Mexico is broke with no banks or very few savings of it´s own. When you get a bank loan you get a 35% or 40% interest rate, but if you put your money in a savings account you will get 2% the inflation is 4% conlcution your bank savings will give you 2% less of the real value of the money according to the Mexican financial institutions. And the quality of living in Mexico is low, More rich people moves to Miami from the rest of Latin America that from Mexico. So Mexico is not what it used to be, we dont have anymore the best technology in South America, we dont have the best security, Colombia and mexico have the same statictics in climinality and black market. And of course we dont have the best quality of living on the 70s we might had it but Today we are far away of what is called quality of living.

-- Frankly, the gung-ho nationalism here displayed by some Mexicans is quite apalling and contribute nothing to the matters at hand. Using distorted economic data or uttering facts taken completely out of context to aggrandize Mexico's economy standing is pathetic. The country doesn't need to be a economical powerhouse to be a wonderful place. There are even people complaining about Babel. You guys think the movie shoud have been distributed with a small warning telling the viewers that Mexico's a cosmopolitan and modern society? Please... Widefield 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Argentine Immigration to Mexico

For purposes of easing the reading, I have created this new talk subsection to further the debate about Argentine immigration to Mexico, statistics, and the way it is presented in the article page.

1.- The article subsection is about "demographics" not about "comparisons with Argentina". I think that weather or not Mexico has the largest Argentine colony in the world is besides the point and totally irrelevant... 2.- Since it is a demographics section, we should make an effort to include not only the significance of Argentines, but also the significance of immigrants from other nations and/or cultural groups. Where is the sentence that talk about Senior Americans/Canadians/Europeans that come to certain Mexican towns to retire? Where is the statement about the central americans who stay in Mexico after they fail to cross ilegally to the US? Where is the statement about the significant immigration of arabs and jews that the country had during the 19th and early 20th century? What about all the european immigrants from World War II (my high school teacher in Mexico was such an immigrant, and many modern day Mexican entrepreneurs are descendants from such immigrants)? What about the new trend of asian immigrants that come to work for newly established asian firms in Mexico (a growing number, particularly in the north of the country). All of these must be included. (Of course, I don't have any data, only observations from Mexico, but we should make an effort to find this data and make the article as comprehensive as possible). 3.- I think we all agree that we want whats best from the article. We don't have discussion on weather or not the sentence must go. It is clear it should. But, what would substitute it? We should strive to constantly expand the quality of this article. Hari Seldon 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Widirian: Yes, I was referring you your comments against some Mexicans as lack of Etiquette and ad hominem attacks, or ad nationem attacks, if you will. Also note that capitalizing on the internet is understood as shouting. You do not need to repeat your arguments I had read them. Like I said, all references that say they are the biggest diaspora should be eliminated. I am terribly sorry about the lack of "competence" and rigorous research from La Nacion. I can assure you that is not necessarily the case from Reforma, which has been awarded for its precision and objectivity. Unfortunately the article was published in March 2003, and you need to pay to access the online database. I will ask all users that I know if anyone has payed a subscription so that he could bring the article up so that you can see it. In the meantime you might like to provide sources for you INE claims in Spain. Not that I don't fully trust you, but you don't trust me either. My conclusion was the same: eliminate the claim that they are the largest diaspora, keep the estimation. Like I said, estimations of illegal immigrants are far from precise, and that includes the Spanish INE. Do you know how "INE" made its estimations of illegal foreingners possible? They asked all illegal foreigners to come to the INE's offices so that they could be counted in the census. Obviously, very few did, they had to use other statistical resources.
Do you happen to know what is the "official" figure of Americans in Mexico? Less than 100,000. Do you want to know what is the number reported by "American Citizens Abroad"? A little more than one million. Ten times greater. The total number of foreigners in Mexico, as reported by Mexican INEGI is 400,000+, and that includes all Central Americans, South Americans, Chinese, Korean, Europeans and Americans. The discrepancy is huge when you consider that The Economist estimated at least 200,000 Americans in San Miguel de Allende and its environs alone. The fact that the discrepancy is greater than that produced by Spain's INE might only speak of how many more illegals live in Mexico (its easier to get in there given the relaxed immigration policies for tourist and/or loose border controls) than in Spain or the US for that matter, or if you want to be absolutely critical, you can even doubt the accuracy of INEGI and SRE and blame them for their "incompetent" census. But Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in original research so as to say which discrepancy makes sense and which doesn't. While it is good that you point it out, unless you are a Statistician yourself, and you want to engage in original research, the discrepancy itself really doesn't speak of the fact the figure is wrong explicitly; like I said many other "valid" reasons for a discrepancy could be pointed out. And I am not talking by the "unrigorous" estimate made by La Nación, but by Reforma and SRE.

--Alonso 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there are no official figures to support that the Argentine community in Mexico is the largest in the world, and that statistics are controversial, I propose this wording which I think would be acceptable to everybody: "Mexico is also home for many other Latin American emigrants, many from Argentina (estimated 150,000 in 2005 according to some sources[5])."
Would all of you agree?
P.S.: Wikidrian, I am Argentine but I have to confess that if I were a Mexican I would find your sayings a little offensive (even with your carve out of "SOME" Mexicans). In my short experience in Wikipedia, I have to tell you that I found most of Mexican users well informed, well intentioned and open to discuss different points of view. Of course there are exceptions (for instance, the accuser of certain fake sockpuppetry case ...), but I guess you find such exceptions in all countries.
P.S. 2: Alonso, good to meet you out of that darned fake sockpuppetry case.
--Diegou 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your proposal, Diegou, is a step in the right direction. But I would like to see menctions of immigrants other than Latin American. After all, Mexico does recieve large numbers of immigrants from everywhere, not just Argentina. Hari Seldon 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Would like to propose a wording?--Diegou 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Alonso: so, my so-called ad hominem attacks, or ad nationem attacks is to say “some” Mexicans are xenophobic? Xenophobia is part of the reality, in Mexico, in Argentina and everywhere, and I think that to name the things for what they are is not an ad hominem attack, or ad nationem attack at all. When I said that, and I gave the reasons for my sayings, there wasn’t any rebuttal. Besides, you didn’t tell me where are the “dozens” of ad hominem attacks towards “Mexicans” in general. I know capitalizing is like shouting, just I didn’t have that in mind when I wrote my fist post. If that bothered you, I apologize for writing a couple of words on capitals on my long argument. Yet also what I don’t know is how is understood on the Internet to boldface an entire paragraph.
Yes, generally saying that some Mexican users on Wikipedia are xenophobic is an ad hominem attack. Sure, racism, xenophobia, violence exists in the world. The word "idiot" also exists. By itself it the word is neutral, when you attribute it to some users by nationality it is an attack, and an ad hominem attack. It is by virtue of a personal attack that an argument is deemed false (that is the definition of an "ad hominem" attack, and it is a logical fallacy). --Alonso 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I found my self on the necessity to repeat some of my arguments because on your reply you by-passed many of them, like the INE reference, which later, after reviewing my long argument, you found it like a valid point. You just concentrated on marking what you think was my 3 possible failures, focusing only on what the article says, and your supposition of me calling “incompetent” the inexistent statistician who reported for La Nacion. For what now you apologize. By the way, your “you failed or failed” argument inst an ad hominem attack?
No, it is not. I am sorry you fail to see the difference between calling someone xenophobic and saying "you failed to realize", if you need a translation it is equivalent to no te diste cuenta. Maybe you are mistranslating "failing" as a false cognate for "fallar". In phrases like "you failed to go", the translation is not "fallaste en ir", but "no fuiste". I would understand "fallar en hacer" as somewhat strong, but not "fail to see". But it is not a personal attack to disqualify your arguments. I am just trying to point out that you missed one of my points. --Alonso 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
First (17:53, 19 December 2006), you wanted to dismiss this debate, on your boldface paragraph. I asked you please to read my first post. Then, you replied me whit the “you failed or failed” theory and the inexistent statistician consensus. Then you reviewed my arguments and find a valid point. Then you apologized for your “lack of "competence" and rigorous research from La Nacion” (not for your “theory”). Then, you said there is no need to repeat my arguments. Thanks God I repeated my self, otherwise this debate would never happened. And after all those replies, my argument, word by word, is still the same.
Again, I know what you said, I know what I did. Since you were "shouting", attacking, and your first post contained plenty of sarcasm, I based my response on what other users had responded. If I had already apologized for that, why are you bringing stuff over, and over again? No need to review everything on every intervention of yours. Moreover, I never ascribed any "theory" to myself. I didn't make it, but if you insist on calling it my "theory", then my theory is reporting what others have estimated, and like I said, I am talking about Reforma and SRE. And, please recall that these are estimations, since no official figure ever exists for illegal immigration.--Alonso 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
About what Reforma says. I trust you. Is just that if we don’t provide a verifiable source as wikipedia requires, nothing will change. Precisely we are debating here because La Nacion doesn’t provide a verifiable (nor academic/official) source. In the other hand, even we have a link to the article (Reforma), is against the other one I linked on my previous post of “Los Andes”, which is based on an official study, and even better, provides all the sources. Moreover, this was also published by Diario de Cuyo, La Nacion (de Chile) and Univision among others. And looking for this other sources, I found that also in US there is a bigger argentine community than the one in Mexico. Both La Nacion de Chile and Univision has a more extensive version of the article. Only in Miami: 130,239 argentines. And only in Los Angeles: 143,570 argentines. 273.809 argentines just in 2 American cities. I think that claim that in Mexico lives the argentine biggest community is more far away from reality every time we do a deeper research.
Your first two links are news articles that say that Argentina's government only registered 30,000 exiles in 2004, 45% greater than in 2003 (total, less than 50,000). Yet, just by adding exiles in LA, Miami and Spain (estimations), and Spain (census report), we come with more than half a million exiles, unless in between 2001 and 2002 half a million Argentines emigrated (no sources for that), I see a huge discrepancy. This only confirms my point: all estimations of illegal immigrants are not precise, they are... estimations. --Alonso 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, about what the INE says. First at all, here you have the link you requested. Is obvious that the estimations are always very imprecise, that’s why I don’t use estimations. The official estimation of the Spanish government about the size of the argentine colony in Spain is more than 700.000 including those who nationalized, the biggest part, because, as I mentioned, due to an historical background many argentines descendants from them (like from the Italians) haves the double nationality, both argentine and Spanish. In the articles referred above, 400.000 argentines requested for the Italian nationality. But I never did mention this, because precisely the estimations are very imprecise.
The INE number isn’t an estimation. Is based on the municipal census 2005, as you can see on the title of the page.
So, “estimations of illegal immigrants are far from precise, (true) and that includes the Spanish INE (false)”. About what you said of the procedure to go ahead whit the census (“Do you know how "INE" made its estimations of illegal foreigners possible? They asked all illegal foreigners to come to the INE's offices so that they could be counted in the census. Obviously, very few did, they had to use other statistical resources.”) I think this is not the case, since it is not an estimation at all. It is a census.
I might be critical about a newspaper article that doesn’t name any legitimate source, which talks about statistic without asking a statistician, and is used as a verifiable source. And I will be absolutely critical about that as long as I live. But never I was critical about the INE, INEGI and the SRE. I even said that the 150.000 claim, goes against what the SRE says, Goes against what the INE says, and goes against what the DNM says. Because those are my sources!!! How I would criticize my own sources?? I am not the one who criticized what the SRE and INE say. I am not the one who puts John Doe estimation above the several official records.
That is what I said: estimations of illegal immigrants far from precise. Those foreigners who decided to participate in the census were registered indeed. That figure would make for the 152975. I never contested it. (Though several newspapers in Catalunya criticized INE's method). Now, I guess there is a confusion between the two claims: one claim is the figure (150,000) the second is the qualification (the largest Argentine diaspora). Let me talk about the first claim first. When I provided Reforma and SRE (my sources) I was trying to say that the estimation of 150,000 was not that "crazy", since SRE was similar; it did not contradict la Nación per se, but confirmed it within the margin of error for "illegal" immigration. INE never made an estimation about Argentines in Mexico. Now, the second claim ("the largest diaspora") was never made by Reforma nor SRE nor INE. After your own research you came to the conclusion that it could not be so. We agreed. I proposed that the first claim (estimation) should stay, the second claim (the qualification) should be eliminated. Why do you bring this over again? We have agreed: eliminate the "largest Argentine diaspora" phrase. Not the estimate.
Secondly, I never mixed estimations with census reports. When I said INE's estimations are far from precise, I am talking, obviously, about estimations (total number of illegal aliens), not the 152,975. All estimations of illegal aliens are far from precise, be it INE, INEGI or the US Immigration Department, the latter reports estimation with a 25 to 50% margin of error! Like I said, you found out the "registered" number of Argentines in Spain. This suggests that Mexico is not the home of the largest diaspora, not even with estimations.
Moreover, and I will repeat myself, since you didn't make any comment about it, the discrepancy by itself doesn't mean anything. The number of American's living in Mexico is 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 times larger than the "official estimation" of INEGI, as reported by two reliable sources: The Economist and American Citizens Abroad. You qualify these discrepancy as "impossible" (as a statistician) and attribute it to the incompetence of La Nación's research. I pointed out that the discrepancy is not necessarily "impossible" (given that it is similar for ALL foreigners in Mexico of which we have reliable sources for estimations). It could be attributed to many things. Estimations are based on number of entries vs. number of departures. Mexico happens to receive 20 million tourists every year (just to put it in perspective, Argentina has received a record high of only 2.5 million tourists, fueled by the cheap peso). The great number of visitors, the relaxed immigration policies and loose border controls, or even a purported "incompetence" by INEGI could be blamed for this 1 to 15 discrepancy as well.
INE, for one thing, confirmed that which we see everyday in Barcelona, that Equadorians are the largest community of foreigners in Spain (closely followed by Romanians). INEGI, on the other hand (and given this 1 to 10 scale) seems to contradict that which Mexicans see everyday in the streets about Argentines (and the last time I visited Mexico city I was surprised to see that many Argentines everywhere... and Chinese!). Of course, my perceptions, are equivalent to what "el hombre de la calle" would say. I am not making any argument about its "relevancy". Yet estimations should confirm experience. Just to put a hypothetical example, think of an estimation that says that very few Paraguayans, Bolivians and Koreans live in Buenos Aires (in spite of what you see everyday). I would like to repeat, I am not speaking of the relevancy of my perception (or that of wiki users who live in Mexico). My point is, you can attribute the discrepancy to many other things. --Alonso 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I could keep on this, marking where you did fail on this debate, as you did, or where you ad hominem attacked me. And you could do so. But now, Alonso, “con la mejor onda”, I ask you, please, can we move on? si? Lets concentrate on the debate and don’t on the “you did, I did. You said, I said” Here is the deal: No more accusations. Something I said bothered you? I apologize for that. Are you ok whit that? Would you do the same? I think you are a rational person and will agree. Dale, seguimos adelante? :)
Sure, let's move on. It isn't me that keeps repeating the same arguments over and over. And no, I never ad hominem attacked (sic) you. I hope I had explained what an ad hominem attack is properly. We had already agreed: eliminate the phrase "largest diaspora". I had proposed that we keep the estimation (SRE), but if that is a problem too, then let's just say "a significant number of Argentines". No need to repeat the argument again. Let's just say if we agree or not, and move forward --Alonso 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Due to the insignificant proportion that represents the argentine community in Mexico, even if we take on account and for granted the “people from the streets” conjecture (0.15 %) I don’t consider relevant to mention it. This was relevant in the past because supposedly was the biggest argentine colony overseas. Now that we were able to certify that is not true, and isn’t even the second largest argentine community, I don’t see the point. Moreover, don’t forget that this is in the case we accept a presumption without any fundament. Maybe the best would be to refrain it like other wikipedia pages does, and like Hari say. i.e: Spain. I put Spain as an example for 2 reasons: 1) is among the first countries in immigration. 2) The argentine colony there is at least 4 times bigger than the (supposed) one in Mexico, in terms of percentages (0.15 vs. 0.6 of total population). Here it is: “Other important foreign communities are British (8.09%), French (8.03%), Argentine (6.10%), German (5.58%) and Bolivian (2.63%)” (These percentages are about the total immigrant population, not the total state population).
So, according whit Hari, could be something like this: “Other important foreign communities in Mexico are Argentine, Brazilian, Cuban, … etc”
What do you think?
P.S.: Diegou, the same you say happened to me. In my experience not only in Wikipedia, but also in many other places, both virtual and real, I found Mexicans very kindly persons, and also well informed and well intentioned. And Alonso is one of them, no doubt about. That’s why in my first post a told him what I told. But, you said it!! There are exceptions, and those exceptions are everywhere. You know who I mean. What I recognize, is maybe I should ignore that kind of comments. I will try that in the future. After all, we must not feed the trolls!! ;) But sometimes is really hard to ignore them.--Wikidrian 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I find the proposal reasonable so we can move on to other matters. So, would all agree on writing "Other important foreign communities in Mexico are Argentine, Brazilian and Cuban, among others"? It is written in a manner that anyone can add another community by providing the adequate source.--Diegou 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That is acceptable. Perhaps later we can add an "immigration" sub section describing breifly the types of immigrants that Mexico recieve, and from where in the world. Hari Seldon 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I noticed this article was missing a geography section despite already having a subpage for it. I grabbed the intro from the subpage - but someone that knows Mexico should expand and rewrite. Kmusser 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Try checking the history, it was probablly deleted by a vandal, SqueakBox 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

sports

link should be added to Primera División de México in sports section. It says football is the most popular, but doesn't link the top flight!

Languages

I think the section "Languages of Mexico" is irrelevant, this article is already way too long, plus that section already has it's own article, even the United States that has like every possible language you could imagine doesn’t have such thing as a "Languages Section", so what do you think, should we eliminate it? --Supaman89

I think that the case of Mexico is different than that of the US... In the US, though there are a lot of languages, the main language is English. Though Mexico also recognizes spanish as its main language, the influence of the native languages is strong. Perhaps the recommendation should be to summarize it into one paragraph, and move relevant information to the "Languages of Mexico" article, if that relevant information is not already there. Add a link... Hari Seldon 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The main language in Mexico is Spanish, and I don't know where you get that the influence of native languages is "strong", as I said before that information is irrelevant, it's like spending a whole section talking about the native languages of Canada, and again it already has an article on its own. We have to start getting rid of unnecessary stuff because the article is way too big. --Supaman89

I think the evidence shows that indigenous languages are important in Mexico and the section should stay. if you want to reduce the article size get rid of some of those 15 weight-heavy pics rather than weight-light text about a relevant issue, SqueakBox 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ever get to meet a "Mexican" that speaks a indigenous language please call me, all those languages were pretty much extinct after the arrival of the Europeans, they are not part of the culture, they have nothing to do with Mexican society. the government only recognizes their existence that's it, they are not official languages along with Spanish, and the VERY FEW people that may know them, live in the mountains, so all that "information", doesn't belong to the main article of MEXICO. If people wanna go deeper into those languages they can go to their own article. --Supaman89

I only spent 5 weeks in Mexico, about 7 years ago, and met a number of indigenous people who didnt speak Spanish but only an indigenous language, mainly in Chiapas. To claim these people are not a part of the culture smacks of rascism; please source your claims using mainstream sources. Do you honestly believe that people living in the Mexican mountiansd (most of the country) arent Mexicans? Do you believe those who dont speak Spanish arent Mexicans? You are not helping your case with your extremist language, please think about what you are saying before editing here as such inflammatory language often results in the editor being blocked as such extremist ideas have no place in wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that every time a tourist comes to Mexico they always have to go to the most Impoverished parts of the country, Chiapas along with Oaxaca are unfortunately the poorest part of Mexico, of course it was likely that you'd meet indigenous people, and what I said before is they are "technically" not part of the Mexican culture, just as indigenous people in the states are not part of the "American culture", it sounds ugly but it's true. --Supaman89

Err, I didnt say I only went to the impoverished parts of Mexico. I also spent time in Toluca, DF, etc. To claim indigenious people are not a part of Mexican culture is offensive rascist twaddle. If you are born in Mexico you are Mexican and for you to claim otherwise is just ideological rubbish. And of course American Indians are an integral part of US culture, that much at least is obvious to a Brit like myself, American people show all sorts of influences from Indian culture non existent in the UK, SqueakBox 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the indigenous languages section should stay because:

  • the Mexican Constitution clearly defines the "pluricultural" composition of the Nation as having its foundation in the indigenous peoples (second article). In other words, the indigenous peoples are not only part of the Mexican culture but its very foundation; the richness of the Mexican culture is found in its indigenous multicultural structure;
  • there is no de-jure official language in Mexico; no language has ever been labeled "official", however, Spanish and the 62 indigenous language in the country have the same status and validity as "national languages" under the Law of Linguistic Rights approved in 2001; indigenous languages have the same de-jure validity in all territories in which they are spoken, and anyone has the right to request public services and documentation in their languages; whether this law is being actually enforced in all communities or not, that is another issue;
  • it would be naïve to think that in practice (i.e. "technically") indigenous peoples are not part of the Mexican culture; ever since the Mexican Revolution the "Indigenous Sentiment" (loose translation of Sentimiento Indigenista) has impregnated all artistic expressions in Mexico: arts, literature, music and public TV, and public education, the manifestations of culture itself, in spite of the trend of private TV and media to ignore them;
  • indigenous peoples are not only found in Chiapas and Oaxaca, but according to the CDI (former Instituto Nacional Indigenista) they constitute absolute majority in Yucatán, and a very significant proportion in Guerrero, Hidalgo, Cuernavaca, Puebla, San Luis Potosí and Veracruz. Veracruz happens to be the second most populated state in the country, while Puebla is the fourth. While the indigenous culture is very much alive in these states, it is not in the northern and northwestern states, where indigenous peoples are a very small minority; yet these states happen to be amongst the least-populated of the country;
  • even in the great conurbations of the center and center-south, it is not uncommon to find someone speaking an indigenous language (notably in Puebla, Guadalajara and Mexico City); while many of the "national languages" are indeed in peril of extinction, 16 of them have more than 100,000 speakers. Nahuatl itself is spoken by 1.5 million while Yucatec maya is spoken by 800.000. These two figures, even though they represent a small percentage of the total population (1.5% and 0.8%) are in fact sizable populations if compared to some European languages.
  • not only have I met, in person, dozens of Native Mexicans (or Indigenous peoples) that speak their Native languages both Mexico and in the US, I have found several extremely active users in the Spanish Wikipedia whose first language is an indigenous language. Even though their languages do not receive the appropriate resources from the government and they suffer discrimination from Spanish speakers, they are very much alive and not only "confined to the mountains".
--Alonso 05:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the state is impoverished doesn't mean it isn't part of Mexico. Indeed, indigenous languages are so important to national culture, that in some villages, and even cities, they only speak those indigenous languages. Because of this, the Mexican government issues regularly free school books in native languages. Many official public functions take place in the indigenous language. Indeed, the native languages of Mexico are of official use, and of extreme influence in the daily lives of an important segment of the nation's population. This is what makes it different from, lets say, the USA's languages, and that is the reason why it should be menctioned in this article. Hari Seldon 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mexico as well as the United States do not have an "Official Language" nevertheless in both countries there is a main language spoken by the majority of the people, in the case of Mexico it'd be Spanish which is spoken by almost 95% of the population [[4]], the only reason the government translated some books to those native languages was so they won't say they're been discriminated, there's no reason to include a whole section just to talk about languages that are spoken pretty much just in villages when those people are not even consider to be part of Mexican society by the rest of Mexicans, but that's irrelevant, the point is that that section doesn't belong to the "GENERAL" information about this country, if people want to do a special research about all those wonderful cultures, they can go and check the specialized articles. --Supaman89

I disagree, both with your statement that the majority of Mexicans only considers those born in Mexico and who (not being babies) speak Spanish to be Mexican, and I bet you cant source your outlandish claim otherwise. We get the odd malcontent here in Honduras saying blacks arent Honduran and its the same kind of rascist rubbish you are spouting. Do you think Mexican villages arent Mexican? I dont think your government would agree with that nor the majority of Mexicans or they would give Marcos what he wants. I support the inclusion of these languages as an important part of Mexican culture, same way that Welsh gets mentioned in the UK article, SqueakBox 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget what I said about they not being part of the Mexican society and focus on the facts that I wrote, this article should only show really GENERAL information about the country, if they wanna go deeper into all those languages they can go to their own articles, it's like creating a whole section about the Mexicans that smoke and only 6% of the population are smokers, it's the same case, it is secondary information. --Supaman89

And I disagree, i think the languages should remain. What do others think? SqueakBox 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See now you're not even saying a good reason for them to stay, it's just because you want them to be there, again I'm open to any argument as long as it is based on facts, so if you want to keep talking about why you think the section should stay, and it makes more sense than the reason that I'm telling you it should, well then we can keep debating, thank you for your interest on this matter. --Supaman89
Dont know what you make of this but do feel free to revert me [5]. Still mentioning the indigenous tribes but not the influence of English or other European languages that I would indeed argue can stay withj Langauages of Mexico. Because we have that article we should have the section here, SqueakBox 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me? What do you mean?. --Supaman89

What do I mean about what? lol. I think the section on languages should stay, I have greatly shortened it and welcome feedback on my edit, SqueakBox 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clear to me that you want the section to stay, but just because you want it to be there, is not reason enough for it to stay, I'm not going to repeat the reasons why I think the section should go, cuz I already said them, and at the end you couldn't say anything else but "I disagree", so common let's stop playing "I like it or not", and accept that I've got better arguments to eliminate the section. --Supaman89

It now doesnt hog spacve, unlike before, it introduces the longer article Languages of Mexico which needs linking in this article and it is of interest to people who may not even know Spanish is the dominant language in Mexico. I dont think oyu have put across any arguments as to why to eliminate this NPOV, sourced paragraph other than that you dont consider indigenous people to be Mexican so I would strongly oppose the elimination of this paragraph. The fact that the UK article mentions Welsh 13 times also indicates that as a whole country articles include minority languages in those countries. Finally the consensus of the editors here is to keep the section, you havent persuaded a single editor so far nor got a single one to support your viewpoint, SqueakBox 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I never said I don't consider indigenous people to be Mexican, I said that to the rest of Mexicans they are not part of the Mexican Society, so don't try to put me like the bad guy here. Now the only reason why I made up all this argument, was because the size of the article was way too long and we had to start eliminating unnecessary or in this case secondary stuff, so by you reediting the section does not solve the problem, the section has to be eliminated, and if you see any other thing that is just occupying space and is not really that important to the general information about the country, please tell us.
And the case of the U.K. is different because it is a Union of 4 different countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, therefore it is necessary to show information about each one of those countries, plus 30% of the United Kingdom's population are not native English speakers, so how do you compare 30% vs. only 6.7%, not to mention that each year that number is getting smaller, probably in a couple of years they'll be almost inexistent. --Supaman89
There are ways to streamline, summarize and reduce number of lines in an article without compromising its quality. I am all in favor of a reorganization, but not about deleting facts, such as the importance of native languages. Hari Seldon 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not like we're deleting them from wikipedia, we're just removing them from this specific article, because as I said before, they are secondary information, I don't know if you red each and every single one of my comments above, but I tell you the same thing I told SqueakBox, I know you want the section to stay, but that's not reason enough, you need to show me why is it so important to keep them, rather than why think they shouldn’t, I already say why they should go, and no one has been able to give a better argument. --Supaman89

No, they are not secondary information. We have already told you that they have the same status as Spanish "national languages". I don't know if you actually read my comments above, but I answered each and every one of your arguments. You have provided a solid reason for why you think they should go except by your personal taste and opinion. --Alonso 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________
Are you freaking joking me, you're the one who didn't read all my comments, and im not going to repeat them again, your only logical argument is that the Government recognizes their existence, and since Mexico doesn't have a "Official Language" that's your excuse for them to stay, I'm just gonna re-paste all the things I've said so you can read them, and You'll se there's nothing to argue about, cuz my comments make more sense. --Supaman89 [Please note that the original argument said "Mexico doesn't have a "National Language". Supraman conviniently changed his own words after my rebuttal. That is unethical]. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, you are the one not reading. Mexico has 63 national languages. That is my excuse for having them stay. All 63 have the same "legal" status and recognition, and the constitution commands states to promote their development. --Alonso 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly of course the government recognizes their existence, I never said the opposite, cuz, they do exist, but almost 95% of the population speaks spanish, and the number of native speaker is decreasing every year[[6]]. --Supaman89

You are still not reading. The government does not only recognize their existence. Read the points below. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading what?, that there's people who speak them, as well as there's people who speak Spanish, and since Mexico doesn't have an "Offcial Language" they all have the same "status", obviously, so? --Supaman89

1. Mexico as well as the United States do not have an "Official Language" nevertheless in both countries there is a main language spoken by the majority of the people, in the case of Mexico it'd be Spanish which is spoken by almost 95% of the population [[7]], the only reason the government translated some books to those native languages was so they won't say they're been discriminated, there's no reason to include a whole section just to talk about languages that are spoken pretty much just in villages when those people are not even consider to be part of Mexican society by the rest of Mexicans, but that's irrelevant, the point is that that section doesn't belong to the "GENERAL" information about this country, if people want to do a special research about all those wonderful cultures, they can go and check the specialized articles. --Supaman89
Wrong, you are confusing main language with "national language". But I guess you didn't read my comments thoroughly. In the US no language has any recognition at all. That is not the case in Mexico. National languages are the "official recognition" of all 63 languages (Spanish included). Read the 2001 Law of Linguistic Rights (link provided in the Languages of Mexico article). All of them have the same validity not only in their recognition but people have the right to education and to request all public and official documentation in their languages [in other countries that is called "official"]. All 63 languages have the same "status". The "title" official is not used but that doesn't mean the "national" title is less official. It is a legal declaration. Moreover it is a constitutional mandate (second article) for the State (Nation) and the states (constituencies) to promote the development of these languages. --Alonso 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, the government recognizes their existence, I never said the opposite, cuz, they do exist, but almost 95% of the population speaks spanish, and the number of native speaker is decreasing every year[[8]]. --Supaman89
Not reading again. The government does more than to recognize their existence. Read above. It is a constitutional mandate to promote their use. Official documents are issued in those languages. Your arguments are redudant. Percentage descreases but nominal number increases. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be real, in a couple of years almost no one will speak any of those languages, not because I say so, but because the statistics show it, plus everyday more and more people learn Spanish so they can go to the nearest city and find a job. --Supaman89

That is your opinion. Not a fact. You have shown no facts.
2. Forget what I said about they not being part of the Mexican society and focus on the facts that I wrote, this article should only show really GENERAL information about the country, if they wanna go deeper into all those languages they can go to their own articles, it's like creating a whole section about the Mexicans that smoke and only 6% of the population are smokers, it's the same case, it is secondary information. --Supaman89
Irish, for example is spoken by less than 5% of the population in Ireland. But it has been recognized as the the national or proper language in Ireland. The importance of Irish (or the Mexican languages) it not related to the number of Speakers but to their status (whether it is given through cultural or historical reasons). There are many such examples. --Alonso 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you help me, cuz I think I'm blind but I don't see a "Language Section" in the Irish article,. --Supaman89
Yes let me help you. You probably visited Ireland (the island) and not Republic of Ireland. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In Ireland they teach Irish at schools, therefore probably a large percentage of the population is able to speak it or atleast undestand some of it, in Mexico, they you don't go to school and ask, did you pass your exam of nahuatl?, and again the languages are disappearing as days go by. --Supaman89

3. It is pretty clear to me that you want the section to stay, but just because you want it to be there, is not reason enough for it to stay, I'm not going to repeat the reasons why I think the section should go, cuz I already said them, and at the end you couldn't say anything else but "I disagree", so common let's stop playing "I like it or not", and accept that I've got better arguments to eliminate the section. --Supaman89
No. I have already exposed my solid reasons above. You are minimizing the importance of the second article of the constitution, the Law of Linguistic rights and the effect indigenous languages and culture have had on Mexican culture (which I exposed above too). Other than your personal biased opinion (which now you ask us to ignore) you have not provided a solid reason or "fact" to delete the information as "secondary". Saying that "only" 6% speak it is not a "fact" (in terms of linguistics is 6 million an insignificant figure according to which authority? Or is it just your personal appreciation?). Their legal status is a "fact". --Alonso 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
WE ALL KNOW that is a FACT that 6% of the population speaks an amerindian language, and once again, that information is not important enough to appear in the main article of Mexico, if we had all the space we wanted to, I wouldn't mind, but we don't, and we have to start erasing secundary stuff. --Supaman89
Don't confuse facts with opinions. 6% is a fact. Saying that 6% is insignificant in spite of their legal and constitutional recognition is an opinion. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?, if only 6% speaks one of those languages, we can not afford to have the section in this article, because it's simply logical, the case of Ireland is different as I explained above.

4. Ok I never said I don't consider indigenous people to be Mexican, I said that to the rest of Mexicans they are not part of the Mexican Society, so don't try to put me like the bad guy here. Now the only reason why I made up all this argument, was because the size of the article was way too long and we had to start eliminating unnecessary or in this case secondary stuff, so by you reediting the section does not solve the problem, the section has to be eliminated, and if you see any other thing that is just occupying space and is not really that important to the general information about the country, please tell us. --Supaman89
In saying that indigenous peoples are not part of the Mexican Society you are showing to be "the bad guy" (sic) using your words. We don't need to add anything to your comments, they speak for themselves. Moreover they show the little regard you have for indigenous peoples and their place in Mexican society and culture. They are not confined to the "mountains" as you have preposterously claimed, unless you live in a Northern state. I agree, the size of the article is too long. I disagree, eliminating the indigenous languages section is not the answer. I rather eliminate the European languages section (not that I want to, I would like both to stay), but the status of the indigenous languages speaks of their merit. --Alonso 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking about "Indigenous peoples" we are talking about "Languages", again we're not gonna spend a whole section just to mention some languages that are only spoken by such a small percentage of the population. --Supaman89
I am only answering your argument. You said indigenous peoples are not part of the Mexican Society and confined to the mountains. I proved you wrong. Want to talk about languages then limit yourself to the legal documents available. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And the case of the U.K. is different because it is a Union of 4 different countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, therefore it is necessary to show information about each one of those countries, plus 30% of the United Kingdom's population are not native English speakers, so how do you compare 30% vs. only 6.7%, not to mention that each year that number is getting smaller, probably in a couple of years they'll be almost inexistent. --Supaman89
Mexico is a federation of states. In many of the states (I will not repeat myself) indigenous peoples are plurality, relative majority or significant minority (read the fourth point of my previous contribution). --Alonso 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That's gotta be the most ridiculous answer I've ever seen, it'd be better if you had said, "well... I don't know, you got that one right" --Supaman89
I'm sorry this didn't satisfy you. It seems you do not know that the UK, in spite of being a Union is a unitary nation in process of devolution. Mexico is a federated nation. They cannot be compared. Secondly,the "original" English people were the Welsh, so were the indigenous peoples in Mexicio. The UK has devolved power to the Welsh [by the way, power has not been devolved to the English, there is no English parliament]. In Mexico, since the second article of the constitution clearly states that the pluricultural composition of the Mexican nation has its foundation in the indigenous peoples and mandates constituent states to promote their languages, I guess it is crystal clear that they are extremely important. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You just said it, they can not be compared, the UK were 4 countries that came together into become a nation, in the case of Mexico it is always been a unified nation, since it was "La nueva Espana" untill now that is known as Mexico, and ONCE AGAIN there's way too much difference between 30% and only 6%, 30% is too much people, not to be mention. --Supaman89

P.S. Please tone down your language. Treat other users with respect. We are discussing, not fighting. And do not change your own words after the debate. That is unethical. --Alonso 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S.S I'm speaking of Irish speakers as their mother tongue, not of Irish who can understand Irish. --Alonso 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but, when did I change my words?? and I haven't seen any bad word comming from me yet. --Supaman89

If we are worried about space we should delete some of the pics before deleting text. 30% of the UK population not native English speakers? LOL. What it said in the other article is 70% of the UK population only speak English, SqueakBox 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah if you want we can eliminate some pictures, but we also have to eliminate this unnecesary section, and about the UK thing, it uses the word "monolingually" that as you probably know means "Only one language" but the way that sentance is written it refers to the people who didn't have to learn english as a second language. --Supaman89

Supraman your one and only purported "fact" is that only 6% of the population speaks an Amerindian language. You have shown no other fact but mere opinions. You extrapolate a figure (6%) to a personal opinion ("they are not important") and claim it as a fact. My fact is that the constitution mandates the development of the languages and the Law of Linguistic Rights gives them the same validity as Spanish for all official purposes even if it only labels them as "national languages". I think that a constitutional mandate and a National law far surpasses your personal opinion about whether 6% is a significant figure or not. You say they are not important, yet the constitution says otherwise. You say "let's be real in 10 years nobody will speak them". That is an opinion, not a fact, especially when nominally the number of speakers continues to increase, even if the percentage is reducing. I hope you understand the difference between nominal increase and percentage increase.

Secondly, even if example about Ireland didn't satisfy you, maybe we can use Spain as an example, where only 2% speak basque, and basque is official in the territories in which it is spoken (same as Mexican national languages), yet it deserves a space in their article. But who cares what I, you or anyone says. Even if you don't think they are important, the constitution, the supreme law of the nation says they are, even if they are a "mere" 6% or 6 million speakers of which 3 millions do not speak Spanish. I believe the Congress of the Union's opinion far surpasses your personal opinion and dislike of the indigenous languages and culture.

Then you said that Mexico has been a unified nation. You still do not understand the concept of unitary state and federated state. Mexico has never been a unitary state, except when it was an Empire. Not even during the colonial times it was a unitary state. Do not confuse "united" with "unitary" state. Please review your concepts.

Finally, I guess you are not reading all my arguments. I already told you what you changed, unethically at the beginning of this section. The fact that you missed it shows that you are not reading all the arguments exposed (or you are choosing not to accept the fact that you changed your own words). If you choose not to read any of the above, then at least read this: They are important because the constitution says so, whether you happen to like the law or not. They have the same validity in Spanish for all official matters. States must promote their development by law. They are the "national languages".

--Alonso 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you know what this is way too much, I feel like I'm dealing with someone with handicap, now you're even accusing me of not liking the law and misunderstanding the difference between "united" and "unitary", I'm just going to resume all the thing we've said into this simple points:

I resent your comment about me being handicapped. Please avoid ad hominem attacks. I am not "accusing", you simply couldn't tell the difference. --Alonso 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have a limited space for each article, that's why I proposed to erase the "Language" section, to save some space.
I disagree with your proposal. --Alonso 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you said, like me or not, Spanish and any of those languages have the same status because Mexico doesn't have an "Official Language" that's why the section should stay.
  • Then I said, yeah of course they have the same status, but since they're spoken by such a small percentage of the population and since most of the Mexican society doesn't really identify themselves with indigenous languages, which is true, I told you that it'd be logical to classify them as "secondary information" which is still very important if we had all the space we wanted to, I wouldn't mind to keep them, but since we don't we would have to erase the section and that its information would still be saved because they already have their own article.
Then I said, their importance is not due to the fact that only 6 million people speak them but to their constitutional and legal status. Then I asked you see the difference between a fact (6% speak an Amerindian language) and an opinion (this figure is insignificant), you couldn't. --Alonso 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then someone said, if we need more space why don't we delete some pictures.
  • And I agreed, cuz I thought it'd help to solve the problem, but we also still need to erase the section, which by the way has a picture.
  • Then you try to put cases like Ireland, and I told you that the difference was that they teach Irish at schools, and Irish was really part of their culture along with English, which is not the case of Mexico and those indigenous languages, then you put Spain and all the difference languages that are spoken in the different regions, now I tell you, 35% of Spaniards speak Spanish along with the official language of the region, and I even remember a case when one of those regions wanted to separate from Spain, so is obvious they have to be mentioned in the Spanish article, and something similar happened with Britain’s article again was a big percentage 30% if I remember. That's why the case of Mexico is different.
My point was it doesn't matter the percentage of speakers (be it 2% for Basque or 1.5% for Nahuatl or 0.05% for Aranese), the point is they have full recognition under the law. Recognition includes the fact that all legal documents and public services can be requested in these languages. Moreover, 6 million people is not an insignificant number. AND, the number of speakers is not decreasing but increasing even if the percentage is decreasing (I assume you understand the difference). --Alonso 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you said that Mexico is never been unified(Unificado) and I told you, after the Spaniards arrive and defeated the Aztecs and some other tribes, they explore the territory from Nicaragua to big part of the US, and called it "La Nueva España", then each region wanted independence and that's when the a country called Mexico was born and with him the Mexicans, with the time we've lost some territories but there never was a certain number of countries or states that merge into creating this wonderful country called Mexico. So that's just another reason why the case of Mexico and the UK are so different.
No, I never said that Mexico has never been unified. You must be reading wrong, or just skimming. I said it has never been a unitary state (except when it was an Empire). Please review what I said before bringing spurious accusations. I am getting tired of them. --Alonso 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you accused me of not reading/understanding your messages and changing my own words, to be honest I don't know what you mean by that, the only word that I remember changing, I'd say fixing is that I changed "National" by "Official", which was what I had in mind but after I saw the mistake I in fact fixed it.
It wasn't a mistake. My response had to do with the fact that you mentioned "national". It was a convenient response to change it after a rebuttal than to accept a counter-argument. That is unethical. --Alonso 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's pretty much it, my arguments make more sense, and as you said "whether you happen to like it or not"

To you, they make more sense.--Alonso 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
--Supaman89

Let me try to summarize the discussion we have had:

  • Your arguments are: 6% of Amerindian population is insignificant. Amerindians are not part of Mexican Society. The government only "recognizes" the existence of the languages. They should be eliminated from the article.
  • My argument is: percentage is irrelevant when determining their importance; it is their constitutional protection, and their legal validity for all official purposes, I will repeat that, for all official purposes, I will repeat that, for all official purposes, which grants them their due importance. The second article of the constitutions defines the nation as a pluricultural country in which Amerindians are the foundation, ergo, they are an integral part of Mexican Society. Therefore, they should not be eliminated from the article.

If, you still fail to understand the logic of my argument, then let's make a voting proposal, so that other users can decide whether to eliminate them or not. Voting is a valid procedure if consensus fails. Ohh, and please, before making another spurious accusation, read my comments thoroughly. I don't appreciate when people put words in my mouth. And please avoid ad hominem attacks. --Alonso 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that one more factor should be added to J Alonso's argument. It is not only the fact that these languages are used for all official purposes, it is also because some of these languages were lingua franca in some of the most powerful empires of pre-hispanic times and have shaped the spanish language today (The "Italy" article specifies that italian is a direct descendant from Latin, why not add that some amerindian languages, like nahuatl or mayan have added words to the spanish language?).
Some of these languages, apart from being recognized and used for all official purposes by the Mexican government, have had a great impact in Mexico's society and beyond. I think that this is worth noting.
However, I am in favor of using up as less space as possible, but never of sacrificing quality.
Hari Seldon 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Moreover, if Supaman's only reason for eliminating them is that they are insignificant and we need to save space, then I propose that all 4 paragraphs related to European languages (except for English) be eliminated instead of the indigenous languages. Following Supaman's argument neither Venet nor Plautdietsch amount to more than 10,000 speakers (0.01% of the population) they are confined to the mountains and the will soon disappear. If indigenous peoples are not part of the Mexican society (as Surpaman argues, even though I disagree) then neither Venets nor Menonite descendants are. Moreover, their languages have no constitutional protection and no legal validity whatsoever. French, as a mother tongue is used by mere thousands, and so is German. And, if we eliminate those paragraphs we eliminate 3,607 characters, whereas if we eliminate the indigenous languages paragraph we are only saving 927 characters. That is, we are saving 300% more by eliminating the European languages (except English) than by eliminating the national languages of Mexico. That, of course, if his only concern is saving space. --Alonso 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is possible to move all of this into a separate article, and leave here only two paragraphst that recognize spanish, english, and the amerindian languages and, as you say, eliminate the european languages other than english. Hari Seldon 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly it already has a separate article; we could just make a little paragraph in the "Pre-Columbian Civilizations" area, saying that some of their decedents keep speaking their native language.
  • Now Alonso, you're the one who's giving me the same answer, I told you the difference between Ireland, the UK and Spain, and why those articles should include a Language section, and how the case of Mexico is different, not because I want it to be like that, but I already explain the reasons.
  • I also said "Mexican society doesn't really identify themselves with indigenous languages", if you ask most Mexicans, Do you wanna learn nahuatl?, they would probably laugh at you, and that's just the way it is.
  • Then why does it even matter if Mexico has been a "Unitary"(Unitario) State or not? we're talking about the roll that those languages play in today's society, which as I already say it's almost none, the percentage is decreasing even if the number of speakers increases, which is obvious because that people have kids, but then those kids will probably learn Spanish so they can move to the nearest city, in a couple of years the percentage will be like 0.001%, but you will keep arguing that you want them to stay.
  • And now you ask to make a poll, no sir, matters like this have to be solved with facts not by what the people want or think. --Supaman89
Supaman, please try your best to reach a consensus. We have tried our best. I will try, for the last time to explain the difference between fact and opinion: FACT: 6% (6 million!) speak an Amerindian language OPINION: This figure is insignificant, no Mexican cares about it, in a couple of years this figure will be 0.001% (no valid linguistic source cited), people will laugh at you if you want to learn Nahuatl (in spite of the fact that UNAM, BUAP, and even a private university UDLAP offer Nahuatl courses as an option for a second language).
I have already shown you facts, but you refuse to accept them: FACT: Amerindian languages are constitutionally protected and legally valid for all official purposes. The number of speakers is increasing even if the percentage is decreasing. OPINION: They are constitutionally and legally relevant for all purposes, they should be mentioned in the article.
Thirdly and lastly, if you have "nothing against Amerindians and their languages" and your only concern is "space". Then why don't you accept our proposal of eliminating 4 irrelevant paragraphs about European languages that are not "part of Mexican society" and are not "national languages"?
Finally, voting (not a mere poll of opinions) is valid here in Wikipedia if consensus is not reached. Please show Hari, SqueakBox and me your good will and disposition to dialogue and not to impose.
--Alonso 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I remember the "Languages Section" being way smaller and someone added more and more information, so now if we make the section smaller you can say, "Ok, we're done, we saved space".
  • You keep saying the same arguments "6% is a fact, your opinion isn't" apparently you don't even read my points, I never said 6% wasn't a fact, I said why they don't belong to he main article of Mexico; the reason for this article to exist, is so the people can read it and learn a bit about how Mexico is like, and "indigenous languages" does not describe it, believe me I live here.
  • Then I said, we could make a paragraph in the "Pre-Columbian Civilizations" area and say that a really small percentage of the population speaks an Amerindian language, but it doesn't satisfies you, does it?, what difference does it make to add paragraph in that section remarking that those ancestral languages are still being spoken by some of their decedents, but no you want it to be in an area called languages which by the way has an image (space).
  • According to you, I'm not dialoguing, I'm imposing you what to do, lol, if I was doing that, I wouldn't have spent all this time discussing this with you. --Supaman89
Supraman, I have also lived in Mexico, and believe me, indigenous language play a very important role to the lives of millions of people. What is insulting is that your main arguments seems to rest on the attitude that the lives of millions of people are irrelevant, and that the action of communicating with them in their own language is "laughable", simply because they are fewer million than the dozens of millions that don't speak amerindian.
To put your argument into perspective, imagine that we were writing the article on Planet Earth. You're attitude would be comparable to trying to erase the importance of Eastern European languages because they are not as widely spoken or learned as English or Chinese. Those that mean that eastern european languages like Czech, German, or Russian are any less important to the world? That they have no influence on the world's politics, research, law, or trade? At the very least, they should be briefly menctioned, though perhaps not in great detail, but menctioned nevertheless.
Amerindian languages are at the heart of Mexico. They have influenced its history, they have influenced modern day Mexican Spanish, and are widely used today in many states for all official purposes, including trials, contracts, and education.
Indeed, if Mexico can hold legal trials and challenges in nahuatl or maya, and the outcome be recognized by law, isn't that an important fact to remember about Mexico? That you have rights even if you don't speak spanish?
However, I agree that space can be saved. I think we can greatly summarize most of the information. I am against merely eliminating because that subtracts quality to the article. We should expand the quality by reducing space and delivering crucial information, in this case, the legal status, and importance to millions of mexicans of the amerindian languages.
Finally, I agree with J Alonso that the summary (at most two paragraphs, no pictures) should include a menction of spanish as the main language, a menction of the importance of amerindian languages, its legal status as a recognized and widely used language for official purposes, and a menction of the 4 most spoken amerindian languages, and finally, the importance of english. The rest, all the details, and all about the euro languages can be moved to the article Languages of Mexico.
Hari Seldon 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm up for that, I'm gonna do it right now, after that you can check it, to see what you think ok, I'm just gonna add one or two paragraphs in the "Pre-Columbian Civilization" Section.

Now please don't say anything untill i'm done with that ok. --Supaman89

Ok, I'm done, I already did the corrections, all the information is in the "Pre-Columbian Civilization". --Supaman89

I agree with the summary you made, I disagree with the location. It is completely out of place. The information about languages does not belong to the history section but to the demographic section. All articles should have a language subsection in the demographics section. It so happens that Amerindian languages and Spanish are all "national languages" today. Why hide the information in the history section, as if it was something about the past? Also, please write your proposals here', on the Talk page before inserting them, otherwise we are going to have an editions war'. I propose that you revert your changes until we can reach a satisfactory proposal here. --Alonso 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, common nothing pleases you, you're the only one who keeps arguing, right guys?, we're already done here; and yeah it is something of the past, because it's the legacy that those civilization left to their decedents. --Supaman89

Supaman, do you know what consensus is? I am tired of your ad hominem attacks and lack of etiquette. Your opinion is that they are something of the past, that is not is not a fact. Why do you want to hide the information? We have only reached a consensus when it comes to reducing information. We have not reached a consensus as to the location. Please revert your changes. --Alonso 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I agree with Alsonso on this one; we dont want to give the impression that the indigenous languages are historical and of course they should be in the demographics section. If no one moves it back I will soon enough, SqueakBox 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes. Suparman, there is something that would please me: that yo do not weasel your will into the article ignoring consensus and other wikipedia policy. I agree with Alonso and Squeakbox. This should be a sub-section in the Demographics section. Additionally, I proposed that the european languages menctions be moved to the Languages of Mexico article. What happened to them? You completely ignored my proposal and didn't even discuss it! Please be more collaborative. Perhaps it may be useful to create a proposal in your sandbox, and we can continue discussing it. Hari Seldon 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

it's done, now is in the demographics section --Supaman89

Why do you keep reverting the changes, I just chaged it as you guys said --Supaman89

Please dont assume we all think the same. I couldnt find any language section in your edit and dont believe it is for the best for the article, SqueakBox 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We agreed to move it to the Demographics section, so I did it, then Hari Seldon reverted it, so now I don't know what do you want!!???

Proposals

To make it easier to continue ths discussion, I have added this new subsection.

Here we can add our proposals for consensus in the language sub section of the demographics section.

Here is supaman's proposal:

Main article: Languages of Mexico

The Mexican Constitution does not mention the existence of a de-jure official language, however Spanish is spoken by 97% of the population and used for all official purposes, making it a de-facto official language. Nonetheless, the Law of Linguistic Rights, approved in 2001, grants all 62 indigenous languages spoken in Mexico the same validity as Spanish in all territories in which they are spoken, and all indigenous peoples are entitled to request documents and some public services in their languages.

Aproximately 6% of the population speaks an indigenous language, and 3% are not bilingual with Spanish. Of these, Nahuatl and Maya are each spoken by 1.5 million; while others, such as Lacandon, are spoken by fewer than one hundred people. The Mexican government has promoted and established bilingual education programs in indigenous rural communities. A few tribes, such as the Kickapoo and the Cherokee, came to the state of Coahuila in the nineteenth century to escape U.S. army raids and are said to maintain their language and culture to a certain extent.

I think it would be great if we continue our discussions here, and if we can add to the proposals and advance towards a consensus. Hari Seldon 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We all agreed that the summary that I did was alright, the only problem was that I placed it in the "Pre-Columbian Civilizations" Section, and they didn't like it, they told me to put it un the "Demographics" Section, so I did, and then you reverted it. why?? --Supaman89

I think we should have a separate section in demograohics called Langauges, SqueakBox 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything seemed to be alright, until today that was checking the article and someone added that paragraph about English being spoken in the country, I thought we had made clear that in order to save space we were only going to leave the paragraph about the indigenous languages, plus English is used for business in almost every country in the world, not just in Mexico.
Other thing that I saw is that the information shown in "Demographics", in paragraphs 4 and 5 is just a copy of what is shown in the Languages sub-section, it talks about the same and it's just occupying more space unnecessarily. --Supaman89
The informaiton presented in said paragraphs, supaman, contains different information. These paragraphs say where and in what proportion are the languages spoken, whereas the "Languages" subsection contains information about their importance. Indeed, I believe that the information can be integrated and summarized, but all of it is important and it should appear.
Finally, now that I am reading it, I believe that the demographics section needs some work, including the integration of a subsection about immigrants (see in this Talk Page, our discussion on Argentine immigration). Hari Seldon 19:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do the summary, and just to mention the information in paragraphs 4 and 5 is wrong and needs to be updated, again you can take care of that, but what about the English paragraph thing, you didn't answer that. --Supaman89

I am Mexican, english is a native tongue to me. I don't know what to tell you about it. Undoubtedly, the influence of English in all cultures is important. But universal relevance does not signify specific irrelevance. Indeed, the presence of English has changed Mexican society and it deserves a menction in an encyclopedia. Hari Seldon 20:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

So, could you please tell me how English has changed mexican society more than it has changed, let's say... Vietnamese society??, I speak a perfect english too, even though is not my "native tongue", but according to what you're saying, we should include a paragragh about how english is used in business, in the articles of every single country. --Supaman89

Well, the impact, the domination, the scars of war, the profound re-discovery of a worldview were the byproducts of Vietnamese contact with English. Instead, the contact with English has changed Mexico's attitudes, and for those who know the language and have access to American TV, it has changed their ideals for the country, and their actions towards the achievement of such ideals. Though profound in both cases, the impact is different.
As I said, universal relevance does not signify specific irrelevance (i.e., the fact that it has been important everywhere, does not make it unimportant for specific cases, such as Mexico or Vietnam). Indeed, I don't see any reason why it should be removed, and I see plenty of reasons why it should remain. Language shapes worldviews, attitudes, and ideas, and the presence of English and contact with the USA have definetly shaped Mexico in very specific areas, such as its propensity for Free Trade. Hari Seldon 15:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam was just an example, what I tried to say is that the case of Mexico is not different than any other country, according to what you're saying, every nation should include a English paragraph, because English has changed the way they make business. --Supaman89

Supaman is certainly right that English has profoundly affected almost all non-Engliish speaking countries. Can we source that Mexico is a special case? ie that it is different from Vietnam, Honduras, France, etc etc, as if we cant I would support Supaman on this one, SqueakBox 18:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can source that Mexico is a special case, except for the fact that it is home to 1 million Americans (who arguably speak English as their first language) making it the third most spoken language in Mexico (after Spanish, obviously, and náhuatl, spoken by 1.5 million). I think my original proposal somehow got distorted; for the sake of space I had proposed eliminating the paragraphs about European languages except English. So I have nothing against this paragraph being re-added. The rest of the European languages could be mentioned in a simple list (i.e. "Venet, German, Plautdietsch, French and Romaní are also spoken by sizable communities"), if you wish to mention them at all. This simple sentence does not take up a lot of space. Besides I do not know who added the sentence about the "German" language and culture alive in northern Mexico in a paragraph that is speaking about indigenous languages. I believe should be deleted.
I also believe that the second and third paragraphs in the Language section are not necessary. This information is already contained in the Languages of Mexico article. They should be eliminated too, if you guys agree.

--Alonso 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Alonso says, paragraphs 2 and 3 are unnecessary, they're just repeating in a different way what's in the first paragraph, with some extra things like where they are distributed, plus the information is incorrect. --Supaman89

General Comments

In the economy section, what if instead of having two pictures of Mexico City, we have one of Mexico City and one of another important economic city, like Monterrey, which is ranked by Fortune Magazzine as the top business hub in Latin America? I could provide the picture...

Another comment... In the Education section, there is one huge paragrapgh dedicated to UNAM, and a small paragrapgh with few sentences dedicated to other institutions... The ITESM is about as important as the UNAM, and it is better ranked in areas like business and Engineering, and it is one of the most important (if not the most important) private institution in Mexico. Additionally, other important schools, like ITAM, IPN, UANL, ITESO, UAG among others are barely menctioned. Some of the schools where current Secretaries of State went are not even in the article!

Additionally, the fact that UNAM gets most of the ENTIRE federal budget for education (including monies for elementary education) is not menctioned, and I think it is unfair that it isn't if there is going to be a neutral point of view. Sure, UNAM is great, but at what cost to the rest of Mexican society who cannot go to UNAM and have to go to some underfunded state university? Why is there no menction of it in the article?

I think that the best course of action is to streamline the section, reduce it to about a few sentences, menctioning the generalities of how the education system, private and public works, and how it is outlined by the SEP, and menction very discreetly UNAM and ITESM, as they are the most recognizable institutions outside of Mexico. The rest should go to a separate article. Hari Seldon 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not mention IPADE first as it is better ranked than ITESM? What about Colmex, Cinvestav? Where is the ranking for engineering that says that ITESM is better than UNAM? UNAM, the IPN and perhaps Colmex, are the main mexican institutions with citations by the essential science indicators by Thompson Scientific. 6 of the 8 Howard Hughes International Scholars from Mexico work in the UNAM, the other two work for the IPN. Where does it compare to ITESM?
The UNAM has a budget of its own and does not depend on the federal budget for education. I am sure that is some kind of rumor that goes around in Monterrey, but it's not the truth.(http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/Federal/PL/CU/Leyes/20122004(1).pdf. Please source your claims before proposing edits to an article. Andy Rosenthal 05:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Andy, your link is broken. We cannot confirm the source of your claim. Nonetheless, it seems an oxymoron to say that a public university has a private fund. Public funding is the very definition of a public university, otherwise where do they get the money from? Moreover, during the last two weeks there has been an intense debate at the Congress of the Union concerning Calderon's 2007 budget proposal; Calderón [the Mexican incumbent president] proposed to reduce UNAM's [public, federal] budget by some 900 million pesos (90 million dollars) [9]. This decision caused an uproar at the UNAM (and in many newspaper editorials), and UNAM's president himself appealed the decision at the Congress. I wonder, why would he had to go to ask the Congress not to approve Calderon's reduction proposal if UNAM does not depend on it. Whether UNAM's huge budget causes other public universities to be underfunded, I do not know. I wouldn't doubt it, though it would be useful to provide some specific figures from the recently approved 2007 budget (if they are available). --Alonso 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I finally accessed Andy's link (the parenthesis had been put inside the link). The link is a pdf paper showing former president Fox's federal budget proposal for 2005, which assigns funds to all "public universities" (p. 17). I guess it is quite obvious to say that UNAM was included. --Alonso 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording was inadequate; What I meant to say is that the budget that is destined for basic education is set apart than that destined for funding public universities, and that is why I provided the link. According to the budget plan for the federation; basic education, higher education and public autonomous universities are completely separate entities (although all of them are listed under the ministry of education), therefore it is not only false and inaccurate to say that the UNAM uses almost all of the budget that the federal government allocates for education but it is also, -I am afraid to say- a blatant lie. In the link provided for FY 2005, the budget for the ministry of education is noted to be $12,127,978,805.7, of which UNAM gets $826,182,022.2 close to 6%. The total federal subsidy to UNAM on FY 2005 was 16,000 million pesos (http://www.planeacion.unam.mx/agenda/2005/pdf/presupuesto.pdf), while the budget for the ministry of education was 320,854 million pesos (http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb2/sep/sep_Bol3780904). This produces the same figure , about 6%. Saying that the UNAM sucks all of the resources that the federal government allocates for public education reminds me of the stale feud between the states and the Federal District, for an inadequate distribution of the budget. This is the reason why I gentlemanly asked Hari to source his claims. He and I go a long way back, and it is not the first time I see him stating rumors as facts.
It is worth saying, though, that “Fundacion UNAM” and other charitable organizations, the patents generated by the university, the enrollment fees charged to the students and several others are sources of funding for UNAM provide close to 10% of its entire budget.
Beyond an egotistic one I fail to see any other reason to include the phrase that the ITESM is the 7th best business school in the ranking provided, even more so when IPADE (located in Mexico City) is ranked 2nd. I have not looked for sources but also, stating that ITESM surpasses UNAM in engineering I find hard to believe, simply because the amount of research done by ITESM is negligible. Of course no one can aruge the truth, and these are only assumptions.
The UNAM is the best ranked spanish speaking university in the world, regardless of what anyone says, the importance it has for Mexico and the mexicans is not even comparable to any other academic institution in the country. Therefore saying that ITESM is as important is not true.
I am sure Alonso, that you can provide more information on this, but I believe that it is tragic, that a public education system like the one that Mexico had 50 years ago, was silently privatized. Sadly most of the private education institutions in Mexico are the product of the negligence of the federal government to the public education system, where the faculty earns meager salaries. A similar situation to what occured to social security.
I am unaware of the figures for FY 2006, but if the budget reduction planned for UNAM was in the order of 900 million pesos, that would mean a ~6% reduction which is awfully high. The fact that the cancellation of the reduction was lobbied by de la Fuente and others, makes a statement of the political leverage and the importance that the University has; Furthermore the fact that no one from Calderon's political cabinet is a UNAM graduate actually was news (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/390618.html).
I hope the preceeding paragraphs explain my opinion and the facts presented in a more accurate manner. I have also edited the link that I provided before and hopefully would work smoothly now. Andy Rosenthal 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can argue about the UNAM's budget reduction some place else. As a liberal, I happen to agree with Calderon, but that's beside the point.
I don't think this article should menction ALL universities. In essence, it should include:
  • A description of how basic education works. Indeed, basic education is the cornerstone of any education. Why dedicate most space to Universities, that are not as crucial?
  • A menction of Article third of the constitution.
  • A basic summary of the status of Mexican students compared to students from other nations (i.e., rankings in basic knowledge of math, science, and grammar)...
  • Finally, a small, at most three line paragraph, describing the fact that Mexico has both public and private universitites, and perhaps menction the two most important of each. The most important public university is, unquestionably, UNAM (however they got that way), and the most important private university is, also unquestionably, ITESM. IPADE is not a University, it is a business school, meaning they only teach masters in business, and do not have programs for bachelor degrees, in engineering, in medicine, or in any other discipline that is not business... ITAM, UAG, UDEM, and many other schools are indeed very important private universities, however none has the overall quality (measured by reach of so many campuses, rigidity in grading, overall demand of graduates, and accreditations) that ITESM has. That is why I believe it should be the one menctioned.
I also said that this should be an article all by iteslf. Therefore the subsection here should be extremely small. Perhaps in the "full" article we can menction other schools, including COLMEX and IPADE, and all the others. Perhaps we can even menction the "patito" universities, that are a growing problem. Hari Seldon 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the budget for public education should not be discussed here. I am not surprised, though, you agree with Calderon: It is even easier to agree with him when you come from the aristocracy that can afford to speak two languages and pay for private education (Reminds me of this white south african lady that said apartheid was made for the good of the people and then added the phrase 'those savages'). It is always easier when you are oblivious to the hardships of those less fortunate than you.
IPADE is part of the Universidad Panamericana, you can include the UP, but it does not make sense to include a full sentence of the school that is ranked 7th as an asset to the country, when it homes the 3rd.
Your entire last proposal was built upon assumptions, that with the facts provided have been shown to be false. Because UNAM is the most important spanish speaking university in the world, it should be a matter of pride for Mexicans and I believe the way the article is worded is appropriate. In the grand scheme of things, private universities don't really contribute socially, as they are businesses first and schools second. This situation might change though, since its a determination of the new government to abolish public education through its privatization through the back door (at the same time eliminating most of the people that dissent and have a critical opinion against them). Andy Rosenthal 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to say , that the measure of the quality of a University has a wider span than your parameters "measured by reach of so many campuses, rigidity in grading, overall demand of graduates, and accreditations". It has to do with the prestige of the faculty and the impact it has in the scientific community (We could discuss for example what is the role of ITESM in the formation of people in the humanities field, or perhaps the scientific contributions it can claim). I encourage you to review the criteria used by "The Times" to select the universities included in their ranking. The role of a university is not only to graduate students that perform well on standardized tests, it so much more than that. At least for a true university. Andy Rosenthal 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Andy, always so professional: insulting those who disagree with you and making assumptions without verifiable information...
My argument proves to be false at the lack of evidence? Well, lets investigate! Lets make this about the article and not about you and me. Since when is this a personal matter?
Anyways, back to our discussion: We can add Universidad Panamericana if you'd like. Just for the record, IPADE should be compared to EGADE, and not to the overall ITESM. EGADE is ITESM's business school, just as IPADE is UP's business school. We have to compare apples to apples, and a university is far more than just its business school. So, is UP better, more recognized, more "prestigious", and has better standing than ITESM as a private institution?
"Private universities don't really contribute socially"... "Social contributions" are a matter of opinion, and thus judging weather or not they make any sort of social contribution is an opinion. Are we going to base our decision of wikipedia content based on opinions, now?
"It is a determination of the new government"... I thought we were not discussing this. If you want to discuss it, I'll create a message board and we will discuss it there.
How do you measure prestige of the faculty? All the factors I stated are numerical, and therefore, objective, and that is the reason I chose them. Prestige of the faculty, who is to say that a professor from UNAM is more "prestigious" than a professor from Universidad de Yucatan?
Finally, this section is about education, not research. "Science and research" is a different issue than education, and therefore research should not be considered when talking about education.
Hari Seldon 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said before you can review the parameters employed by The Times, Thompson Scientific, US news or any other institution that ranks academic institutions worldwide, and see what their methodology is. Usually, the prestige of the faculty is determined by polls applied to peers of the people being ranked. I understand that this is your ranking and you chose what you think are best parameters, but there are institutions that do this professionally and I think that their measure is based on a wealth of information that you do not have. The fact that you chose this parameters, makes this statement, your opinion, and not a fact (As objective as numbers may seem). I could not agree more with you, no contribution here should be based on opinions. For example, you said that UNAM holds a higher ranking because it uses most of the government resources devoted for education? I provided evidence that this is not the case. That was an opinion you used to construct a case for your claim. I do not think that is appropriate. (I did use personal opinions on my contributions, and I would probably find people that would agree with them, but I did not use them to sustain a claim that would change the article)
I am unaware though if a ranking as such has been made in Mexico, Reforma publishes a rating of the Universities based in Mexico city, that I was unaware to find straight from the source, however here is a webpage that talks about it http://www.latrinchera.org/foros/archive/index.php/t-8511.html, also I am pretty sure that the ANUIES has a ranking that is based on different parameters. It seems that the ITESM is highly ranked, but it is probably a leap of faith to say that it is the best. I mentioned the UP because It seemed to that you were unaware that IPADE is part of a University, and it seems you know little about it, for example, UP is prestigious in the fields of theology, business and also, medicine (According to the performance of its graduates on the ENARM). It is important to note, however, that these rankings only consider certain aspects of the institutions (intergration to workforce, salary after graduation, etc) and do not account for the research done in the institutions.
Finally if you review the entry on this same encyclopedia about universities, you will see that research is part of the goals of a university. It might be hard to see the connection, but one is linked to the other. (That is why ITESM sends it's students on internships to Universities in the US to perform research). I also want you to note that the rankings that are quoted in the paragraph above, weight highly research or publications (or what is called the impact factor of them) in their methodologies, the amount of grants from the federal government dedicated to research, etc. This is not my opinion, it is how they do it. (It might seem short sighted to use a ranking like this, but unfortunately, the rankings are made by people that have a different concept of higher education and of higher education institutions, that in fact, includes research)
The flagship of professional education in mexico is UNAM, and this is why I think the article should remain as it is, perhaps with a modification to the second paragraph that adds the most important private and public institutions that have importance like the UANL, Universida de Colima, Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi, COLMEX, IPN, UAM, Universidad Veracruzana, Universidad de Guadalajara, etc. With the contribution of people with more expertise and knowledge of the field, perhaps a new entry called education in Mexico should be added, as you suggested, in which these issues are discussed thoroughly. I apologize if I insulted you (though it was not my intention). Andy Rosenthal 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the article higher education , where it states "Higher education includes teaching, research and social services activities of universities" perhaps you should go into the discussion page pertaining to that article and tell them "Science and research" is a different issue than education, and therefore research should not be considered when talking about education This is what makes the argument so upsetting, because you come out of nowhere with ideas of what you think things are that do not correlate to reality. Andy Rosenthal 04:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Andy: I never said that I was perfect, and of course I make mistakes. The purpose of Talk pages is to expose our ideas and have our mistakes corrected. Lets just assume good faith on both of our sides and collaborate in creating better articles. First, I would like to advance a proposal:

  • This sub-section is called "Education" and as such it is about education and not about which university is better. I also propose that this sub-section be as shorter as possible (two paragraphs at most), and that we later create a larger, more comprehensive article called "Education in Mexico", and IN THERE, we can create a more detailed summary of how education works in Mexico, including more details on the univeristy.
  • My proposal is that we reduce the sub-section in this article (for the benefit of the reader who wants to know general ideas about Mexico, and doesn't want to spend time finding more detailed information on Education), Here, we should add more information on basic education, article 3rd of the constitution, and we merely menction that there are private and public universities, and we menction one of each (Which can be UNAM and ITESM, or whichever we can agree on, read the rest of my arguments)... If the reader wishes to find out more about how the Univeristy system works in Mexico, he can go to the new article we will create, called "Education in Mexico", and then to the sub-section called "Universities", in which we will add a lot more detail, perhaps most of the contents of this discussion. What do you think of this?

Now, back to our discussion:

  • Rankings are fine, but the more rankings the better. By the way, some rankings done in Mexico use the criteria that I menctioned to rank universities. That is the reason why I menctioned that criteria, but of course, rankings are more useful in an encyclopedia, so lets use them. Preferrably, lets use those in which there are the most Mexican universities ranked (i.e. Lets use Mexican rankings). I would discourage the use of the Reforma one because it only measures universities in Mexico City, and last I heard, there where plenty of high quality universities outside the capital as well.
  • So, I made a mistake with the UNAM. I am sorry, that is why I did not pursue the discussion further. I read what I said about UNAM a long time ago and assumed that it still was the case. In any case, I never disputed that UNAM was the best public University in Mexico, so I don't understand what the ill sentiment is all about.
  • About IPADE, again, you tried to compare IPADE to ITESM. My point is that the correct comparison should be IPADE to EGADE. Sure, IPADE is part of a University, and so is EGADE, but for the purposes of ranking Universities, you don't just rank one part of it (i.e., its business school), you need to rank it overall. You need to compare apples to apples, i.e., UP vs. ITESM and IPADE vs. EGADE. Sure, IPADE is better than EGADE, but is UP overall better than ITESM? I just want to say that if we find evidence and verifiable facts that there is a better private university than ITESM in Mexico, then that is the one that should go in the article. Right now, my assumption is that ITESM is the best because that is the limited information that I have. But my assumptions can change in the presence of newer and better information.
  • The article "Higher education" says that "Higher education is education provided by Universities, vocational universities, and other collegial institutions that award academic degrees.. It includes teaching, research and social services." Ok, I've read it, I am sorry I was wrong. Now, which private university does more research? How do we decide which private university to include?
  • Perhaps, if chosing just one is uncomfortable, we can have a list of up to 5 (i.e. "There are many public universities in Mexico including, UNAM, UANL, IPN, Universidad Metropolitana, UABC, and there are also many private universities in Mexico, like ITESM, ITAM, ITESO, Universidad Panamericana, and UDEM.")

Finally, and just for the record, I have nothing against public universities, including UNAM or UANL, or any others... A lot of my friends and family are graduates from such universities and I recognize their quality. I have nothing against them. However, the Mexican education system is not perfect (neither public nor private), and some of that should be recognized in wikipedia, however, it may be best if it was recognized in the new article "Education in Mexico"... Hari Seldon 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have delayed my participation in this discussion. It seems that a consensus will soon be reached. I just want to make a few points. Research is not only part of higher education, it is its very core. Unfortunately in Mexico universities are thought of as teaching centers and not as research institutions. It is out of research that university teaching comes forth, and not a mere regurgitation of the findings of other universities. That is why UNAM ranks so high even amongst Latin American universities. The majority of ranking systems include an extensive way to measure research: number of papers published, quality and quantity (even number of pages), patents awarded, percentage of faculty involved in active research and the like. Like one of my PhD professor once told me, it is our job to prove that the textbooks are wrong [or right].
Now, selecting 5 universities is going to be quite a challenge. Amongst the 5 most important public universities, nobody doubts that UNAM is included, but why UANL and not UABJO or BUAP? [I had read in an article that BUAP is the second public university in science research in Mexico]. Well, I propose that if a list of 5 universities has to be included then this list should include the 5 top-ranked public universities from a ranking source that should be properly referenced. The same thing for private universities, why UDEM and not UAG which is by far one of the most prestigious universities [at least it is well known here in the US when it comes to Medicine, and advertised as a top-choice MedSchool candidate for American citizens], or UDLAP? Again, we should include the top 5 universities according to a properly sourced ranking site. This way we will avoid constant vandalism or unnecessary changes. I once added a list of top 5 universities in the Catalan article (my choice, and this was my mistake) and, of course, a few days later an anonymous user added his university, and then came another that deleted one and added his, and so on.
--Alonso 18:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just giving examples, but perhaps we can use a standarized ranking system for universities and say "according to this ranking, the top 5 public universities in mexico are 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', and 'e', and the top 5 private universities are 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', and 'j'. That way we protect the article from vandalism and make it more netural. Additionally, it could be helpful if we identify the factors used in that ranking system (some use number of graduates that can find jobs, others use research output as a measure of ranking), this will give the reader even more idea of how precise and useful is the ranking.
There already is a pretty good ranking in the Spanish language wikipedia Ranking of Mexican Universities. This might be of use.
In any case, what is important for this sub section is to show that both types of systems of higher education (public and private) exist. We shall later create an article on the Education in Mexico to provide more detail. Hari Seldon 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps medicine is a complex case, the UAG is appealing for US citizens because it has what is called a fifth pathway program, meaning that their graduates can take clinical electives in the US, the classes are in english and the training is focused on passing the US boards (even the tuition is based in USD). I've been thinking also, that UIA has sevEral campuses in Mexico (Puebla, Morelos?), so do other universities (I am even sure that the enrollment of UNITEC or Justo Sierra is probably pretty high). So the enrollment is not an important factor. I am sure I have read rankings from the ANUIES, which is the source that I would trust for a reliable unbiased ranking (I will look for it and see if I have any luck).
The irony of Mexico is that it has two of the world's top ten business schools, when it was ranked 30 of 31 in education by the OCDE (http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm). This is perhaps something that should be mentioned (although is no source of pride). Andy Rosenthal 07:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Andy, we should include all relevant verifiable facts, even those that are not a source of pride. Based on the information we have, I will work between today and friday to create a draft that we can edit, so that we can substitute what is there.
By the way, there already is an article Education in Mexico. It seems like it has very limited information. Perhaps we can expand it.
Hari Seldon 15:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to point out that UNAM does not depend exclusively on public money to fund its activities. A private endowment called Fundación UNAM was started a few years ago as an attempt to address the problem of insufficient public funds. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Rune, many public universities in Mexico do this. That is not a point of contention or argument. Hari Seldon 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

todo

I've added a to-do up top to get a general idea of what needs to be improved. What needs to be expanded, what needs to be tweaked, sourced, etc. Try to be specific, if possible. W3stfa11 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this horribly offensive and profoundly incorrect.

In the second paragraph:

"Mexico is very gay and all of the god damn wetbacks that live there take it deep."

I find this horribly offensive and profoundly incorrect.

That is vandalism and should be removed.Hari Seldon 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Si and a no brainer. I actually thought the one about the Xbox Live was funny and maybe in some sort of derranged humorous sense, decent. This one is the one that really gets me and makes me wonder why people do this stuff. I'll probably never find out.

Reference: Culture Roman Catholic

Reference: Culture Roman Catholic There is a reference to the percentage of romain catholics here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html

--JMWTech 03:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The 89% Roman Catholic number is from the CIA fact book, which clearly says *nominal* Roman Catholic. This is an important distinction. May I suggest a much less stereotypical sentence? "estimates are that 89% of Mexico's population is nominally Roman Catholic"

The word "católico" isn't a word of religion. It means 'universal' (a sense long lost in English). So a detective like the chap in "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" who is unorthodox is said to be "no muy católico" To be under the weather is to be "no muy católico."

In fact, according to the Mexican Jesuits, of the few actually Catholic ceremonies of worship that are celerbrated, 1/2 of the ritual is pre-Columbian, 1/4 is XVIth C ce *Spanish* Catholic and the remaining 1/4 is pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. Only 1/3 of the population reported attending "3 or fewer" ceremonies in the year precediing the poll (the rest none at all.) SeattleSue 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling errors

I'm a little OCD when it comes to spelling mistakes. So I'm working on a report for a high school modern world history project and have noticed that Wikipedia does an excellent job for providing reputable sources and abundant information in a professional manner. However, I saw that in the last paragraph under the heading Economy had a few grammatical errors. For example, I do not believe that agiculure is a word and nor is comercial. Sorry, I just had to get that out. Thanks! 209.193.2.99 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, us editors are not perfect and often overlook these things when trying to contribute sources and other information of quality. You are, however, always welcome to edit the article to better its quality by, for example, fixing grammar mistakes. Greetings!
Hari Seldon 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Crime Section?????

What is up with that??, is it just me or Mexico seems to be the only article that has such section, I don't see one in the articles of Brazil, USA, India, Ukraine, South Africa, etc. and those countries have like the same or a bigger crime rate than Mexico, so you decide, whether we start including a "Crime Section" in all those countries, or we take it off from this one. --Supaman89

I agree with Supaman. I don't think crime in Mexico is any more relevant than crime in Colombia, Russia or the US; I don't think the section is encyclopedic. --Alonso 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with removing the "Crime" section. Hari Seldon 15:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would delete it myself, but they may think I'm doing some kind of vandalism, is there any wikipedian here that could delete the section? --Supaman89

Religion in Mexico

I'm astonished that this article, while covering Mexican history, geography, government, culture, etc., and even the origins of the word "Mexico," says nothing about religion, barring one phrase that states the country is "predominantly Roman Catholic." This is all the more amazing given the tumultuous relationship of the Catholic Church and the Mexican government in this century. Savage persecutions of the Church in the 20th century have produced many Catholic martyrs - Saint Miguel Pro, recently canonized, to name just one. This is a serious absence (in what purports to be a scholarly presentation) of a fundamental feature of any country's national character. Tcgillespie 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the church's savage amalgamation of property against natives also produced a war for Reform in the 19th century, and the Church's savage blackmail against the government produced the Cristero war... Finally, the church's involvement in present day guerilla movements, like the Zapatista movement, cannot be ignored.
If you can find sourced material, and can produce a neutral point of view, you are invited to write the "Religion" section. I believe it should be a sub-section of the demographics section. I think this subsection should deal with what constitutes religious worship in Mexico (i.e., statistics of how many people follow which religion, and where, remember that Mexico has freedom of religion, and many religions are worshipped in Mexico).
Separately, statements about the relationship between the catholic church and the state, either when collaborating with conservative governments (like those of Agustín de Iturbide or Maximilian of Hapsburg) , or antagonizing with liberal governments (like those of Benito Juarez or Plutarco E. Calles) can be added in the history section.
Hari Seldon 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I was reading the article and all of a sudden I see this paragraph that says "Mexico is 99 percent Christian", and indeed I was astonished, whoever wrote it, could you please check your sources, we all know that there are a lot of Muslim and Jewish communities, and a lot of Atheists as well, and believe me they're more than 1% the population. --supaman89

I agree with you Supaman. We should verify this data with INEGI's 2005 or 2000 reports. But I am almost a 100% positive that Mexico is not 99% Christian, like you pointed out. --Alonso 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PRIDE

i am of mexican decent and i'm proud, please, if you are too, talk with me about how we love our race.

Pardon?, what do you mean with "how we love our race", Mexico is a multiracial country, that has White people, Meztisos, Amerindians, Blacks, even Asians and others, so I don't really know what you meant by "how we love our race" or what was the reason for your posting, anyhow "Saludos". --Supaman89
What do you mean with how we love our race? This is not about race at all, this is about culture, education, social evolution, status etc, that's what make you proud to belong to sucha nice country like Mexico, if you are of Mexican decence, it's ok, but the mexicans live in Mexico. We're a multiracial and multietnic country and multicultural as well, Mexico do not mean a nationality, nor a race either at all, i'm mexican and i'm blond do you know what i mean? And this is not a forum thoug.Raveonpraghga

Map

I would rather switch back to Madman2001 green map of the Mexican states and not the current one, simply because the regional divisions shown in this map are not official but simply arbitrary (like Puebla now being labeled as an "eastern" state, while it was labeled as a "central-south" state in the previous version of another arbitrary map). Mexico is not divided into regions, but into states. Since the regions portrayed in the map have no official or administrative recognition at all, but are simply the opinion of the map's author, I propose that we only use the map that only shows the 31 states and no regions. If it is just a matter of taste, then we can use different colors for the states and create a new map.--Alonso 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, J. Alonso, I've seen this map, or similar maps often. It is used by business for convenience to divide economic terroritories. However, as you say, it has no official recognition, and the regions can change from business to business. I agree that we should switch to the plain 31-state + 1-DF map... Hari Seldon 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alonso you're right those regions have no official recognition, yet most people would be able to identify them or at least the two main ones: North and South. Now, the way those regions are organized might not be the most accurate but that's easy to change.

I've no problem with dividing the map into states, but I also don't see any problem with marking the regions that are often used, plus you can still see the division between states. --Supaman89

I guess if we specify that the regions are just conventional and not administrative, we can stick to this map. However I could see how some users might complain: Puebla and Hidalgo are usually considered to be "Central" states (or in any case "Central South"); Reforma, for example, includes Puebla as a "Central" state, not as an "Eastern" state. However Puebla was considered, for transportation purposes East (Oriente) a few decades ago, even though Tlaxcala was not, in spite of being almost fully encompassed by Puebla. Even the North-South division might get blurry as you move to the North: I've heard many a sonorense say that any state from Durango southwards is "South". By the way, Supaman, your map was reverted by Alex to a different version, same stuff, different colors. --Alonso 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The colours are the less important thing right now, to organize the regions we've to focus on the cultural, historical, economical and social aspects, so we can classify them properly.
Puebla is a tough case, as you said people may argue that it belongs to the central south region, some others may argue that it actually belongs to the eastern region, I don't know we would have to check all those things. --Supaman89

Bingo, that is precisely my point: we shouldn't be the ones determining whether to classify one state into one region or another, after all wikipedia is not supposed to engage in original research or original proposals. Divisions of regions in Mexico are not universally defined and are not as specific as regions in the US. But, like I said, if the majority of users prefers to have a map divided into regions, then we should specify that (1) they have no administrative or political validity and that (2) they are arbitrary, in the sense that some scholars (and wikipedia users) could argue whether a state belongs to one or to another region, yet we decided to choose one point of view over the other. --Alonso 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, J.Alonso, I would rather not have the states divided into regions. There is no universally used convention on the regions, and it is not useful. Why would it be useful to someone who is trying to learn about Mexico to know that one of a hundred conventions use certain regionalistic division that make no practical or official difference? Hari Seldon 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I honestly don't see any problem with marking the map into regions, cuz their often used for many purposes, but of course we have to make clear that those regions vary from person to person and that that map only shows an standard of the most frequent version. In the other hand NOT marking the regions would mean that they are never used, which is obviously not true. --Supaman89

The problem is that if it is not a standard or official use, then it cannot be a valid frame of reference. You say, supaman, that it is frequently used for many purposes, but it is neither official nor standard. Many companies use different regions, sociologists may use other regions, and so on... The region "separation" is not a valid or useful frame of reference because it isn't standard or commonly used. To express it better: it is common to separate Mexico into "regions", but the separations vary, and there is no common "region separation standard". And since there is none, then we either remove the one, or add all that may be relevant. I think it would be a lot more useful for the reader if it was not included. Hari Seldon 21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think the reader will say: "Oh my god what's this?? I'm confused!!" it would simply emphasize the idea that Mexico is divided into regions for many different purposes and that they might vary according to each person, but that the image is just an example of how they're most commonly divided. --Supaman89

What I don't understand is why do we need to emphasize the idea that Mexico is divided into regions, if it is not? It could be divided, arbitrarily, for a thousand and one purposes. By showing a map divided into regions the reader sees these regions as conventional (like, say, US regions which are clearly defined and conventional). Yet, regional divisions in Mexico are not conventional and far from clearly defined. Moreover, if you can create a map divided into regions for sociology, another one for transportation, another one for economic purposes, another for languages, ad infinitum, then why don't we put these maps in the appropriate articles (i.e. Languages of Mexico, Economy of Mexico, etc.) instead of selecting one and putting it here? This particular section is about Political Divisions, and regions are neither political divisions, nor administrative divisions, and not even conventional divisions. That's what I believe Hari meant about "confusing" a reader; it's not the fact that they will say "Oh, my God, I'm confused", but the fact that the reader might deduce, given the insertion of the map in this particular section, that the regions are political, administrative or conventional when they are not (that is, they get confused). --Alonso 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't really wanna have another discussion like last time (I've more important things to do), so yes go ahead and change the map with the pretty colours that you want ok?, and next time you have another complain about something in the article (that I'm sure will be pretty soon) please let me know.

I’m just curious dude... were you born in the US??, do you have a latino background?? are you like this with all the other latinamerican countries??, cuz I guess you must really love this one don't you??, --Supaman89

I am terribly sorry if you cannot handle constructive criticism. Neither my background, nor my ethnicity should be in question (and would only lead to ad hominem arguments, that is, disqualifying or accepting an opinion based on the person, not on the opinion itself, which you have ignored). Like I said, I don't care about the pretty colours (sic); I care about academic rigor, and as long as I can see something that can be improved, I will always voice my opinion (what you have called complain). Moreover, it is not just me, but another user too, voicing our opinions, simply saying that regions are not political divisions and including them leads to confusion. Why pick me as the object of you ad hominem attakcs, and why do you resort to personal attacks instead of simply agreeing or rebutting arguments? Please review Wikipedia:Etiquette. --Alonso 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, since the beginning there was nothing to argue about, obviously the point of view I was defending didn't have enough "changes" of succeeding, I was just giving an opinion.

Now, I'm not "ad hominem" attacking you, I was just asking you why is there so much interest about Mexico, bet you don't do the same about Brazil or Argentina, I think you are a smart guy, why don't you go and do the same constructive criticism to all the other countries in Latin America. --Supaman89

Will you discuss the arguments or will you keep on using sarcasm to avoid the topic? Does it really matter to the issue being argued what I do or don't do in other articles about Latin America? Does it really matter why I have so much interest in Mexico in order to discuss an argument with logic and respect towards other users? If you think your point of view didn't have "changes of succeeding" (by what I think you meant chances of success) then why don't you prefer cooperating amicably?--Alonso 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You may start doing the new map, and once you're done, could you please check the brazilian article, I'm sure there are lots of mistakes as well that you would like to fix. :) --Supaman89

I would propose to revert it to the original green map, not to create a new one. If Hari also agrees, and Alex, the creator of the map, then I will proceed. As for the Brazil article, I am sure they can use such a collaborative user like yourself. But, per your request, I will also review it. --Dúnadan (formerly Alonso) 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the original green map here. Hari Seldon 15:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I created that colored map based in a previous existent map. I only improved the looking. It was strange to me the construction of the regions (for example, I have never heard about a "center-south"). I always wanted to create a new map based in what is the common use in Mexico. We know that for example some states historically have closer ties than other, for example Nuevo León, Coahuila and Tamaulipas. These states make up a region called "northeast". Other states like Oaxaca, Chiapas, Tabasco, etc. make up a region called "southeast". What I'm trying to say is that it would be useful to highlight the traditional non-official regional subdivisions. I'm willing to create a new map if you guy help me to name these regions cause I'm not well aware of what states are included in each of them. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh by the way, this topic was already discussed in a previous debate. I'm the one who propoused and inserted the line "The following map presents the 31 Mexican states and highlights the typical non-official geographical organization of them", in order to clarify the regional scheme presented. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Alex: I was unaware of the previous debate you refer to, but I still believe that if the sub-division is "unofficial" and not commonly used, even if it backed by historical, or economic arguments, it should not be here. I feel that this map is original research. Hari Seldon 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't really a debate, but just a comment. It was me that commented that regions were not official divisions, and Alex proposed to specify that they were not official in the text, to which I agreed (See: Talk:Mexico/Archive_1#Regions_of_Mexico). However, even if they are not official, I don't think they are even traditional and universally defined. If they are not, then I really doubt they would be useful. I tried to look in a couple of books and encyclopedias, and I googled "regiones de México", but I didn't find anything useful or specific. I see Alex's point about NL, Coah and Tamps, but I don't think that is necessarily the case with other states. But like I said, if you want to define regions, I will collaborate. --Dúnadan (formerly Alonso) 15:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

spelling

Since the page is "semi-protected", someone else will need to correct the spelling error: "agiculure" which most likely should be: "agriculture". 68.60.59.250 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) This has been corrected. Thank you. 68.60.59.250 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC) you are welcome friend--kiddo 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Southern" North America

User:Corticopia changed the introductory paragraph to denote that Mexico is part of "southern North America" and cited as a source a dictionary. I deleted the sentence because the term is very obscure due to the fact that:

  1. North America is not only a continent but also a region of the Americas.
  2. Common use of the phrase is very doubious.
  3. There is no need to say "southern" North America. Should we do the same in the articles USA and Canada to point they are part of "northern" North America?.

I think we are experiencing another "Mexico is not NA" edit-war. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I have cited a geographical dictionary in my edits, so the rationale above doesn't make much sense. However, in response:
  1. No source has been provided to indicate that 'North America' is a region, though many exist indicating it is a continent (which that article does in abundance).
  2. There is no qualification for your 'dubious' assessment about usage, since I can produce other sources that support or oppose this position.
  3. There is a clear need to indicate 'where' in North America (given its size) Mexico is -- any number of books will reveal something similar. And if there is no need to say "southern" North America, there is no need for any directional reference at all including noting Central America. Similarly, Canada (in that article) is described as being in "northern North America."

Lastly, the instigating editor removed the citation I added based on his/her viewpoint -- clearly unacceptable. Until it can be demonstrated that this information is incorrect or if a consensus doesn't support its inclusion, I will continue to restore cited information anyone can verify. Corticopia 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You know for a fact that North America IS also a region, just look at the article North America, so don't try to say you didn't know that. This "effort" to "separate" Mexico from the USA and Canada in any possible way is no new from you and you know that. It is not "my point of view" in saying North America is a region, there is far a lot more sources indicating North America is a region than a continent. The teaching of the 7 continents is not the more extended. However, the term is obscure and there is no need to say "southern". NA is a continent and a region. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are not only imprecise but clearly biased. The introduction of North America is quite clear that is a continent: not one is provided about it being a region. If so, list here. Other viewpoints assert (depending on perspective) a single American continent (with various regions) and I've no quarrel with that. And I'm unsure what you're referring to regarding the 'separation' of this and that, but the position regarding Mexico's location at the southern end of North America (or however you want to call it) is quite clear -- look on an effin map. Your argument is (for example) just as futile as saying that Italy is just in Europe, no: it's in Southern Europe. Also consult Canada where parallel wording regarding its location is in the introduction.
Separately, I am flexible regarding Méjico, if it was decided to exclude it ... but I'm unsure why. Corticopia 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As a conciliation, I have removed 'southern North America', but have also removed 'Central America' -- you cannot have it both ways. Corticopia 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but your removal of "southern" and "Central America" just proves me right: you don't want Mexico being related with "North America" but with CA. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No -- this does not prove you 'right': of course Mexico is in North America (the continent) and might be in one or more regions, but edit warring is rather senseless. Corticopia 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Covarrubias: You should not take arguments personal.
In any case, I agree with you. North America is not a continent, it is a "sub-continent" or region. The continent is "The Americas".
Given that "North America" is a common denomination for this region, and that "Central America" is also a common denomination for another region or "sub-continent", the article has it sufficient to make a reference that Mexico is in North America and that to the South there is Central America. Central America and North America are commonly identified as regions, however, "southern" North America is not a commonly identified sub-region, and considering that there are only three countries in this particular region, it is entirely unnecessary. The article states quite clearly that Mexico is south of the US, and that to the south of Mexico, there is Central America. In my opinion, there is no further need for "precision" as the information presented makes it obvious to the reader that Mexico is in the southern part of the region.
Of course, references are always welcome, but in this particular case where plenty of references exist to either point, and where the suceptibility to changes is rather large, I suggest we take the MOST useful definition. In this case, the MOST useful definition, in my opinion, would be the one that Covarrubias presents. The region (Mexico-USA-Canada) is most integrated politically and economically because of NAFTA and other agreements, whereas the same integration does not exist with Mexico and Central America. No further precision should be required. Hari Seldon 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh: 'southern North America' is not a region, but a cited directional reference, just as much as Canada is in 'northern North America', the US is in the central portion, or Alaska is in the northwest. A number of guides indicate that Mexico is at the southern end. Hell: the CIA World Factbook indicates the country's location as being in:
  • Middle America, bordering the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, between Belize and the US and bordering the North Pacific Ocean, between Guatemala and the US.
which largely harks of my edit. Sound familir? Given the use of North and South America to commonly refer to those two continents, perhaps this is merely a linguistic challenge. Anyhow, as for other arguments above regarding what North America is, that article is quite clear: it is a continent ... and nothing substantive have been produced to indicate otherwise. Corticopia 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And remember: it is not merely a matter of what is useful, but what we can cite and verify neutrally: the above regarding Central America and North America (region) does not fulfill that. North America -- in its basic form -- does. Corticopia 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hari. I took it "personal" for historical reasons with this user. However that issue is now obsolete due to the fact that he agreed to remove the word "southern" from his particular edit. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 10:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent history, that is ... since there is no other. Corticopia 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As for Méjico, I suggest it be removed because, though it might have been common usage in certain spanish speaking languages, I have not seen it used in a long time. Perhaps references could be presented to its current usage, but if there aren't any, I don't see any reason why it should remain. Hari Seldon 06:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a well discussed debate about the spelling variant "Méjico". If you guys want to check it just go go the Archive of this Talk Page. It was demonstrated that the use of the variant is not only enormoursly surpased by the original spelling "México", but that even the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language and other authorities of spanish language suggest using the latter and all its derivatives. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 10:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey can someone ban Corticopia or block him from editing this page, I'm tired of his modifications to the article, just because he doesn't like the fact that Mexico is part of North America (the region), he keeps trying to put it in a way that won't mention such region. Supaman89 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Mind your manners. I will continue to restore the edition -- WITH citation and discussion -- agreed upon above. ... which is more than you have apparently done. In addition, my cited edits go far beyond your simplistic framing of them ... so if you can't edit or comment constructively, don't bother. Corticopia 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Supaman, indeed you should mind your manners.
Corticopia, please provide a recent source that states that Mexico can be written as "Méjico". I haven't seen it so in over a decade, and I don't think it is current usage anymore. If it isn't current usage, then it is irrelevant to the article.
As I've stated/cited, Méjico is in the Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, 3rd ed. printed 2001. I actually find it rather worrisome that the editors who are commenting are making value judgements on verifiable information (which is all the Wikipedia requires) from common English publications, which I believe might require third-party review of. Corticopia 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
About the location, perhaps it would be useful to write an article, or a sub-section, about the nuances of the location of Mexico, southern north america, north of Central America, in Middle America, as defined by a great number of sources and highly debated in and out of wikipedia. For the purposes of the introduction of this article, at least, lets keep it short and use the most helpful definition. The most helpful, in my opinion, is that Mexico is in North America, south of the United States. For the purposes of the introduction lets keep it as short as that, and perhaps an addition to one of the sub-sections (like geography) can explain the nuances of the location of Mexico as described by the various sources you have presented. Hari Seldon 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I cringe at not being precise when there's little reason not to, I agree. BTW: that's 'southern North America': capital letters make every difference. Anyhow, an article on the general topic exists for all of the Americas already: Americas (terminology), with various sources and reviewed before before being created. It looks like it's had its share of edit warring/'nuancing' but looks good. I'd be happy to expand on the sources provided, but I'll also point out that all of the discussion above about regionalism etc. (save mine) has been made without reputable sourcing, and I suspect a dedicated article as you propose might suffer a similar fate. Corticopia 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'm gonna have to keep reverting your changes till you get banned, Mexico is in North America as simple as that deal with it. The terms Northern and Middle America were created by people who didn't want Mexico to be part of the North American Region, so common keep on going you're going on the right track to get banned. Supaman89 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No comment ... except to say that if you keep it up, I'll have you banned for being a disruptive nuisance. Corticopia 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

lol, so now I'm the one who's doing vandalism right?, you don't have a comment because you don't like the fact of Mexico being part of North America. Supaman89 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion has anything to do about whether one user or the other "doesn't like the fact that Mexico is part of NA" or like if being a "Central American" nation would be offensive, which is not. As far as I understand Corticopia's arguments, he believes Mexico is part of North America. After all, southern North America, is a geology term used to refer to the southern subregion of North America, that includes some southern states of the US, most notably Texas. (Try googling the term in quotation marks). Canada, and some northern US states are considered northern North America (see the Canadian article for reference). To me, it would be like saying, Nuevo León is located in northern Mexico and Chiapas in southern Mexico. They are all Mexico. Mexico is in North America, in the southern region of it.
Yet, I agree with Hari's neutral proposal, if this is causing an unnecessary edit war, let's leave the introduction it as it is: Mexico is in North America; and just specify the subregion in the Geography section, or even in the Geography of Mexico article. After all, whether we say Mexico is North America or southern North America, both terms are right, so why keep on fighting? Be careful, you all have engaged in Wikipedia:3RR in less than 24 hours. --Dúnadan 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said, just leave as it is:

"Mexico is a country located in North America, bounded on the north by the United States; on the southeast by Central America with Guatemala and Belize; on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean"

Why would you have to mention that Mexico is in "Southern North America" it'd be like saying "Canada is in Northern North America and the U.S. is in Middle North America" is irrelevant, and yes user Corticopia doesn't like the fact of Mexico being part of such region so he tries to put it in a way that won't mention the words "Central America" so people will think that the description refers to the continent not to the region, or also tries to bring the terms "Northern and Middle America" which were created just to not include Mexico in the North American region. Supaman89 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Supaman, you can't assume what Corticopia likes or doesn't like, he hasn't said anything like that. And yes, if you read the article of Canada it clearly states that Canada is in northern North America, and the phrase wasn't added by Corticopia. These terms: northern North America, and southern North America exist and are used widely, mostly in geology (try googling them). Middle America wasn't created to exclude Mexico, it has been used in the English speaking world for several decades to join culturally, linguistically and historical related countries; these terms are not derogatory at all. I know Mexico is North America, but being Central American is not derogatory either. --Dúnadan 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Dunadan, that was exactly what I was trying to post to this talk page, when your edit conflicted with mine. Seems like you said it first...
Supaman, by not assuming good faith you are not contributing to the article. Sure, we want this article to be as NPOV as possible, but also informative, useful to the reader, concise, and above all, precise. I believe that Corticopia's edits are for precision, and therefore I believe that there is a way to achieve consensus on this issue. I don't dispute that Mexico is in "southern North America". Mexico is in North America, but in the south of it. What I dispute is the usefulness of making the precision in the introduction, since it is made quite obvious by looking at the map. Perhaps the precision can be elsewhere to make the introduction as concise as possible. Hari Seldon 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia, about the term "Méjico", here is my reasoning:
  • If the term is not in current usage, then it isn't useful in the introduction. The introduction should be as concise as possible. Therefore, the term should go someplace else like the sub-section "origin of the name". I don't dispute that the term has been used to refer to this country, but I don't think it is current usage anymore. In this case, an english-language source from six years ago does not qualify as current usage, and here is why:
  • Mexico is a spanish-speaking country, and a spanish-language word. "Méjico" is also a spanish-language term. Therefore, what we should be concerned is weather or not the term is current in Spanish. In Mexico it hasn't been current for a century at least. In other spanish-speaking countries like Spain I haven't seen it in over a decade. Though I may be wrong, I don't think the term is current usage in spanish at all.
  • Since this is a rather touchy subject, providing a source of current usage in spanish (like the 2007 Diccionario de la Real Academia Española) would be most useful in preventing an edit war. I would suggest to not add the term to the article's introduction without such source.
  • Since I am not disputing that the term exists and was used, I don't object to the term being someplace else in the article (not in the introduction) with the necessary explanation that this was used in other spanish-speaking countries to refer to Mexico, it was not used in Mexico, and it is no longer current usage, and that the "x" was the old-spanish "j", and that while the whole spanish speaking world changed most of the words, the "x" in "Mexico" (the word) stayed as a matter of tradition and now is almost a matter of nationalistic pride.
Hari Seldon 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Leaving it as Supaman689 prefers isn't an option (and his edit warring/behaviour has been reported and who this editor will selectively consider commentary from), because that version -- that Mexico is northwest of Central America -- is biased and incorrect. Some geographers consider the southeastern states of Mexico to be part of Central America (itself a region of the North American continent) and the UN places the entire country in that region, so the entire country can't be 'northwest' of that region. As an alternate, Middle America is also a term somewhat similar to Central America to describe the country's central location in all of the Americas - compare with Middle Africa. Given the issues some editors are having with this, there is inherently nothing inaccurate by stating that Mexico is in "southern North America" for the reasons you and I have stated; leaving it at just "North America" is just passable, but I really can't see why we can't aim for precision (hence my edits). And, ideally, I don't think we can merely leave its location to a visitor looking at a map -- otherwise, why place any country? Perhaps adding more of these details in the 'Geography of Mexico' section/article is the way to go?
Regarding Méjico, I am not making an argument about how common this version may or may not be directly: I am merely citing that it is one of the Spanish variants listed in a reputable and appropriate English publication. If the information came from a volume say 20 years old or more, you might be right about the currency of this information, but not for something in 2001 -- that assumes something significant changed in usage etc. in a relatively short a time. And there exist about 2 million online instances of Méjico in Google, so it is hardly uncommon. Perhaps the variant should be listed upfront, with a usage note below it? Corticopia 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dou you honestly see anything wrong with this description:?

"Mexico is a country located in North America, bounded on the north by the United States; on the southeast by Central America with Guatemala and Belize; on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean"

Cuz I don't, and this whole issue started because user Corticopia didn't like the way it was written so he decided to change it a way that would make it unclear to know if the words "North America" were describing the region or the continent, in other words, the first paragraph is perfect just as it is.

as for the word Mejico, most Spanish-speaking countries don't use it, as for the ones that do... well, it is like and insult for Mexico and Mexicans, is like saying Arjentina or Uruway, which would have the same pronunciation as well, so why bother mentioning so, English readers don't care, Mexican readers get mad, then why do it?? Supaman89 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Supaman, the point is not weather or not it is wrong. The point is weather it could be better. If it had sources and was shorter, it would be better. If certain precisions where made elsewhere in the article (not in the introduction), it would be better...
What I do see wrong is your attitude of taking everything that doesn't agree with you like an insult. The term "Méjico" is not an insult, rather the modern gramatically correct form of spelling the name of the country (even if not the traditional, or the official way). Remember that Spanish is a language that comes from Spain, and the Real Academia Española, in Madrid, sets the rules for the language. The rules changed a few years ago (a few centuries ago) and "x" became "j". Mexico did not changed it and thus the name of our country. When "g" changes to "j" or "w", then probably Spain would spell Argentina as "Arjentina" or Uruguay as "Uruway", as it spelled Mexico as "Méjico" for a great deal of time. Spain no longer does, and the term is no longer in current use (I think). It doesn't mean it never existed, nor does it mean it is an insult. Don't make assumptions or go to far, and assume good faith. Hari Seldon 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia: "southern North America" is acceptable, but any further precision should go in the geography section because the introduction is quite lenghty as it is... However, I would really like to see this article grow. The location in Mexico, as you point out, is a complex issue because some Mexican states, according to some sources, are in Central America, so I would strongly favor adding more information in the "geography" section.
About "Méjico", since this is the English wikipedia, I am willing to yield on your argument about the reputable English language source, with the proper usage note, including the fact that it is no longer in current use in Spanish and that it is not used inside Mexico. I am worried, though, as you can see that some people take it as an "insult", and it may trigger an edit war...Hari Seldon 23:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; you will note though, that this entire discussion began because a certain editor reverted and took issue with the addition of "southern North America" in the intro for various reasons (that IMO hold little water) and who continues to advocate that 'North America' is a certain subregion different from the continent, without sourcing this at all and after being asked to. Thus, I will add geographic details to the sections below and as you've indicated. I also want to enhance this article, but said edit wars may prompt users to not get involved and focus their attention elsewhere. Corticopia 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposals about introduction

This is my proposal:
"Mexico is a country located in North America, bounded on the north by the United States; on the southeast by Central America with Guatemala and Belize; on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean"

If you think you have a better description for the first paragraph, please post it here before doing any further changes. Supaman89 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, rejected. Corticopia 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Put your proposal and stop changing the article til we all agree which one will stay. Supaman89 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My position is clearly stated above with acceptable content: your proposed version is biased and unacceptable. The only one who now seems to have an issue with the cited version I'm restoring (below) -- and will continue to -- is YOU, so you're the one who should stop being a dick. Corticopia 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Preferred additions above (per citation):
[1] 'southern (portion of) North America'
[2] 'or Méjico'
Corticopia 02:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Write down you proposal here so people can compare both versions. --Supaman89

I disagree with Corticopia's proposal. There is no need to add a footnote to indicate that Mexico is located at the southern portion of North America. It is a completely irrelevant footnote. Either we say that it is located in southern North America, or we simply say North America, but I don't see the point of adding a footnote for such a trivial matter. I prefer saying North America and in the Geography section, state that it is located in the southern portion of North America. No need to have a useless footnote at the introduction. Moreover, I see no need to add a reference (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary) for the location, after all it is a fact. Mexico is located in North America, bounded on the north by the US... why add a reference to a fact?
Now, I hadn't said anything about the "Méjico" issue. Given that RAE has, as of recently, stated that Mexico should be spelled México, and not Méjico, I don't see why we should add a footnote of an obsolete spelling in an English encyclopedia. If you wish to add it, then the note should say, [2] previously, Méjico was an accepted alternative spelling, no longer in use.
An please Corticopia, stop reverting and adding changes until a consensus is reached. I have already warned you, you are engaging in Wikipedia:3RR.
--Dúnadan 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me: if you read carefully, D., I am advocating for the simpler version without 'southern' (no footnote) or 'Méjico' (perhaps with note) -- look at the diff. I only included these above (and placed them within brackets, which I have since removed for clarity) as options if other editors agree with them, but the essential difference between what I have been restoring and Supaman89 is the inclusion of Central America in the introduction, which is inaccurate and not acceptable. As the diff will reveal, I also made minor edits elsewhere in the intro ... to the ignorance of offending editors. And as a reminder: everything in Wikipedia, fact or otherwise, needs to be sourced and verifiable. The lack of sourcing in this article is perhaps one reason why it is in need of enhancement.
As such, 3RR notwithstanding and a groundswell of opinion otherwise, I will restore the simpler version above and as agreed when able. Corticopia 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is so minor that at this point I am more upset with Supaman's attitude than with the real point of contention. I don't see anything wrong with the version that Corticopia is advocating for, and deleting sourced material is vandalism. I am sorry, but not assuming good faith puts a stop to any constructive work and I would suggest that it be Supaman who READS other people's arguments and embrace an open mind BEFORE reverting, and then we can reach consensus. Hari Seldon 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The geographical definition of Central America starts at the Isthums of Tehuantepec, while the political definition of Central America starts at Guatemala and Belize. In view of the latter, Supaman89's inclusion of CA in the introduction wouldn't be inaccurate. Yet, I don't oppose your version, if footnotes are eliminated.
Secondly, common knowledge does not need to be sourced. If that were the case we need to source any claim such as apples are red or the sky is blue. Facts that are the result of original research must be sourced. But stating common knowledge does not. I therefore find it unnecessary to add a reference to your proposal. If you insist, perhaps you should also add references to the location of all countries here in Wikipedia.
Thirdly, nothing has yet been agreed. You must wait until all users involved in the debate agree, not just one (Hari), and waiting a couple of days is the de facto norm for such matters here at Wikipedia. If your contribution was simply reverting vandalism, then you would not have engaged in 3RR. Given that this turned out to be a sensitive issue that required a debate and a consensus, and since you didn't wait for all participating users to express their opinion and/or to agree, you are indeed engaging in 3RR. Even if Supaman89 has also engaged in 3RR, by following his steps you risk of being blocked as well. After we all agree, then you can insert your version, and you can revert vandalism as many times as you want without going over the 3RR limit.
--Dúnadan 07:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Hari - the Road to Foundation we might be on. :)
However, Dúnadan, what are you talking about? Of course, also in view of 'the former' above, including Central America in the introduction in the current context -- that "[Mexico is bordered] on the southeast by Central America with Guatemala and Belize" -- is inaccurate and biased. In fact, I demand that reputable citations be provided to support this. If it's 'common knowledge', you shouldn't have difficulty backing it up. This isn't going away.
Speaking of which: where are you coming up with the erroneous notion that information in this encyclopedia -- fact or otherwise -- needn't be sourced? Please read up on Wikipedia policies: everything must be cited. The sky is blue and apples can be red or green, but this means little if you're colour-blind and next to nothing if you don't understand why. This is an encyclopedia, not a bathroom stall: references should be added to every single tidbit of information (geo-locations or otherwise) in Wikipedia -- that's what separates great articles from the not-so-great, since information can easily be checked. If it cannot be verified, it doesn't belong here. You seem content to include 'facts' (which are challenged) without a verifiable source, yet you and other editors seem to have issue with cited references from a geographical dictionary -- which indicates that Mexico is in southern North America -- that is as clear as crystal? No thanks: it doesn't work that way.
And please note that, at least recently (i.e., after agreement with the instigating editor), I've been careful to not engage in 3RR but Supaman89 has. Edit warring is ill-advised in any way, but shit happens. Until contentions can be supported with source matter as requested, I will continue to edit as needed. Corticopia 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please beware of the adjectives you use. Even if I am willing to accept your view that by saying Mexico is bounded on the southeast by Central America we are giving a geographically [but not politically] inaccurate description, I find no reason why you say it is biased. I might say that your definition is politically [but not geographically] inaccurate and biased towards your perception. Do you see my point? By fighting so desperately to the point of even trying to cite the obvious, I am starting to believe that you do have personal reasons, like Supaman89 said, on this issue. Do you want me to cite a couple of sources which state that Mexico is bounded on the south by Central America? Fine: [10].

Now, before you start fighting back, I want to make my point clear. I have nothing against your proposal. But Supaman89's definition is not biased anymore than your is. That is why we must reach a consensus. We have two options for the introduction: use the political definition of NA or the geographical one. If you arbitrarily choose one without consensus then your proposal is as biased as Supaman89's, not to mention politically inaccurate. You might argue otherwise, and you are right. Therefore: a consensus must be reached as to which definition to use.

Secondly, since you have given me the links to POV and V, I assume you have read them, being a new user in Wikipedia. Please review all issues in which sources are needed and you will see that they are not needed for every tidbit of information (geo-locations or otherwise). Be realistic, by adding references to the obvious, non-original research common knowledge we will have to source every single sentence in the article, say, like the official name in Mexico is United Mexican States... well I am sure that is not quite obvious for everybody... add a source.

Thirdly, you weren't careful enough with 3RR. Between 18 Jan and 20 Jan you reverted 10 times which included 3RR violations in intervals of less than 24 hours (most notably on 18 Jan alone, in which you reverted 6 times). I am sure you are mature enough to contribute constructively and politely to the debate without simply saying "shit happens...[and} I will continue to edit" just because Supaman89 does it too. Agreement with the instigating editor is not enough if there are 4 users debating (5 if we include the first person who reverted your edits: AlexCovarrubias). If you keep on reverting simply because "shit happens" (sic) an administrator will take note of your 3RR violations. --Dúnadan 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your essay and support, D,; however, your riposte contains a number of inaccuracies. Please read up again on when sources need to be cited -- for “material that is challenged or likely to be challenged” and “when writing about opinions held on a particular issue”. As you may know, geography is largely routed in regional custom and interpretations can vary with culture and language; just glance at the continent article. This definitely qualifies and the prior edition is definitely not incontravertible. Also, take a glance at the featured articles and you’ll note that all are well sourced -- this article is, well, what it is.
As well, your interpretation of what may and may not be biased is interesting, if not somewhat misguided, and surprising for an administrator. While you have provided just a ‘’single’’ citation in Spanish -- from a Mexican state government -- to support one viewpoint, no English citations appear or have been provided and the two reputable ones that have been presented and added have been challenged tooth-and-nail or glazed over. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is giving undue weight to an arguably limited perspective regarding the topic at hand. Please provide more sources. A wealth of other publications can be provided to further demonstrate my point or contradict this perspective altogether, which again is why citing sources is important. Here are others from the Mexican President's website that are rather simple regarding the country's location in Spanish and repeated in English: note no mention of Central America and only the adjacent states (as I've noted). In summary: the sources you provide may assert that Mexico is ‘northeast’ of Central America, but is imprecise and does not represent a broader perspective and cannot nullify other sources that indicate differently: that Mexico is in the Americas -- southern North America or in Middle America, whatever -- and is bounded on the southeast by ‘’just’’ the Caribbean Sea and (Central American) states of Belize and Guatemala.
As well, I iterate that this is not a personal quest, and do regret edit-warring, but what’s done is done and I believe the point has been made. The prior introduction, leaving us where we started from, is rather imprecise and impartial ... and is made even more complicated by the instigating editors whom ‘you seem to be tiring of’ as well. If said editors really want to enhance this article or pass yourselves off as having any ability to build a worthwhile one, then please get off of the proverbial soap box and start editing in accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures. Corticopia 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to say this even if I "agreed" with Corticopia's point of contention (not saying "southern" but also not saying "Central America"). There is no need to say "southern" North America in the introduction and the spelling variant "Méjico", now considered wrong and kind of arcaic, should not be included either. Even if some geographers (NOT all), consider that Central America starts at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, most of Mexico is in North America (see map). Or should we say in the introduction of the article USA that it is located in North America and in some parts of the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean (P. Rico and Hawaii)?

Even if we consider a portion of southeastern Mexico part of Central America (phisographically), it is a FACT that Mexico (as a country) is bounded at the southeast by Central America (both geographically and politically). And as I already say, not all the sources claim that Central America starts at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Why? Because the Caribbean Plate (in which CA rests) is not part of Mexico (see map). Some geographers consider plates to limit regions.

Southeastern represents only the 12.11% of Mexico
Southeastern represents only the 12.11% of Mexico
Mexico does not rest on the Caribbean Plate (Central America does)
Mexico does not rest on the Caribbean Plate (Central America does)

As you can see, the widely known subregions of the American continent are based on the second map. It is clear that each subregion rests on its own palte: North, Central and South America. The inclusion of a southern portion of Mexico in CA is not because of geographical reasons, but physiographical ones (as already mentioned in the article North America), meaning that the shape and characteristics of the terrain are similar.

So I say, there is no need to say southern NA, no need to include the now wrong spelling variant "Méjico" and it is not biased nor wrong to say Mexico is bounded at the south by CA. I support Supaman's introductory paragraph. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A few inaccuracies in this original assessment:
  • Continents are defined by continental shelves and shorelines, not by tectonic plates. Regions are often subjective, and no source is provided for the regions noted. If I've missed these, please list.
  • Interpretations differ regarding America: whether it is comprised of one or two continents. Not three, and (again) please provide sources/citations regarding the regions of the Americas upon which the intro you support is based ... and don't direct me to a listing elsewhere. The fact that only one is being embraced in the introduction advocated by some is proof-positive of at least some bias on this point.
  • The example of Canada is clear ("northern North America") and the article on the United States fully expands on its territories outside of North America.
  • The only impartial fact is that Mexico (the state) is bounded to the southeast by other states, Belize and Guatemala.
  • As the alternate Spanish rendition is from a volume only a few years old, Méjico is hardly wrong, it is just disused. And 2 million online instances is not insignificant.
Corticopia 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alex in that I see no bias in Supaman's introduction. However, I also see no bias in saying "southern North America", after all it is southern North America, just as Canada is northern North America, as it is reported in their article. But that could be explained in the Geography section, not necessarily at the introduction. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This point is so minor I cannot believe it has sprawled such a large discussion. I think that supaman and corticopia's version are basically the same and see no POV in any of them. It boils down to this: sourced is better than unsourced, specially in the introduction. Any further precision (southern North America, Isthmus of Tehuantepec and Central America, and whatever else) can go in the geography section, but the Corticopia proposal for the introduction did not specifically say "southern North America", it simply replaced "Central America" with the exact countries that Mexico borders at the south (which I also see nothing wrong with that) and sourced the whole thing (which enhances the article). It should be as simple as that. Hari Seldon 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The current version, as is, is fine with me. A possible alternate, including everything (read carefully):
I'd also be fully willing to expand on these details in the 'Geography' section.
Corticopia 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gosh!! I'm finally back, I was blocked for 24 hours, but anyways let's review what happened while as was absent.

This is my paragraph:

This is Corticopias paragraph:

Now, arn't they exactly the same??, only that he mentions the word "Mejico" which is irrelevant to English readers and might be offensive to Mexican readers, plus his paragraph says: "on the southeast by the Caribbean Sea and the Central American countries of Guatemala and Belize"... isn't it more accurate to say that it's bounded on the east by the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean and on the south by Central America, with Guatemala and Belize? so his version doesn't really improve anything, just gets rid of the word "Central America" so people won't be able to know exactly if the word "North America" is referring to the region or the continent, and again why do you have to mention "Southern"?? the North American region only includes 3 countries, if Canada is in "northern" North America and Mexico is in "Southern" North America, then the USA would be in the "Center" of North America??. Supaman89 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not the same: mine is more precise and an improvement. First of all, offensive or not, Méjico is (though relatively rare) an alternate Spanish version in the citation I noted, even though there are 2 million online instances of it.
As well, per the citation, the Caribbean Sea is not just to the east of Mexico, but to its southeast: the Caribbean is just east of the Yucatán Peninsula and south of the Gulf of Mexico; those two bodies of water are separated by a line from Cape Catoche Light in the Yucatán to Cape San Antonio in western Cuba. And in my alternate version, you appear to have missed the inclusion of 'Central American countries' (like, what more do you want?): we are describing countries/states in relation to one another. As well, yes: the contiguous United States do occupy much of central North America, while Alaska is in the northwest. Lastly, I am mentioning 'southern North America' (which contains some 20 countries and which that article expands on without confusing matters in this article) because its cited, more precise, accurate, and a number of the users involved in this discussion have commented here that it it not biased. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. However, in lieu, the current article intro is also acceptable. Corticopia 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When it says "North America" it refers to the region and since such region only includes 3 countries there's not need to mention "Southern North America", plus I don't see where in the US article it says that the United States is located in the center of North America, if we're gonna put that Mexico is in Southern North America then we do it with the USA as well. At this point they're both pretty similar so I don't really care which one stays, so why don't we make a vote? Supaman89 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the North America article is quite clear about what it refers to: any number of common English sources support this. If you think differently, please source and indicate here.
As well, I didn't say that the central location of the contiguous US is in that article, this is a reasonable inference; however, I can probably dredge up a citation to support that. This would also be somewhat tricky with the US since it is so diverse: Alaska is in the northwest, Hawaii is properly in Oceania, and the US has a bunch of possessions (e.g., Navassa Island in the Caribbean). Good luck getting agreement from those editors. And please: stop capitalising 'Southern North America', as I am not:
southern North America
In addition, my edition fully mentions the correct locations of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean in relation to Mexico -- AS CITED -- and everything in between ... so start making sense. And since you don't care which version 'stays' (and unless someone thinks differently), I may edit in my version or keep the current one ... which also works. Corticopia 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Cited is better than uncited. This alone should make Corticopia's version stay. Additionally, what is more useful to the reader? To have an uncited version with which supaman is comfortable, or to have a REFERENCED version where the reader can CHECK and VERIFY what the encyclopedia is saying?
Region, subcontinent, what? It doesn't matter, they are supposed to be frames of reference constructed by convention to aid in easily locating geographical features (such as countries). Are we going to debate on the proper usage of conventional constructs that can be properly referenced, consulted and sourced? Supaman, if you feel so bad about "southern North America", simply provide SOURCES that deny that Mexico is in southern North America. I doubt you will find any because Mexico IS in the southern part of the North American region, as said in the source provided by Corticopia. Is Mexico in northern North America? no... Then, what difference does it make if it is the truth, and above all, if it is properly REFERENCED?
This discussion has gone on for too long. I move to submit for a vote and get it over with. Do we like the version with sources, or the version without them? Hari Seldon 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well said -- feedback should also probably be directed to the editor who instigated this morassdiscussion in the first place. Corticopia 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Supaman's proposal. There is no need to say "southern" in the introductory paragraph. And I don't support including the wrong spelling variant "Méjico" in the intro either. It was already discussed. And it is important to provide an accurate, easy description. We should not imply in the article what continent arrangement is the best, the 7 continents or the 5. Most of he countries of the world teach the 5 continents, in which North America is a subregion or subcontinent. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I urge to reconsider. First of all, the variant "Méjico" is not wrong, simply out of use. It was gramatically correct and used widely in Spain for a long time. If there is a reference that states that Méjico is a valid variant (and there is), then it should stay. Why? BECAUSE IT IS SOURCED AND REFERENCED. About your assesment that "most of the countries of the world teach the 5 continents", it would be interesting to see you reference. Corticopia's reference says something different. In any way, the discussion is sterile and an excuse to not include a referenced phrase. So, Alex, your vote for Supaman's proposal implies that you desire to go against wikipedia guidelines. Referenced is preferable, and indeed, if you can provide MORE REFERENCES to make the article more precise, it would be welcome. But so far, the most neutral and most agreeable to wikipedia guidelines is Corticopia's proposal.
So, I ask again, do we vote in favor of the referenced version, or against references?
Hari Seldon 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh really so now Alex and I are going against wikipedia guidelines?? lol, whatever, I already said that my proposal and Corticopia's are almost the same, and I agreed to say southern North America if we say central North America in the US article, what you say? Supaman89 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hari Seldon.
An aside of sorts: for reasons already stated, just the contiguous United States (the 'lower 48') -- not all of the United States -- are in 'central North America', as Alaska (the largest state) is in the northwest of the continent, Hawaii is in the Pacific (i.e., part of Polynesia in Oceania), etc. Thus, we must use judgement in how this phrase is used or where it's added. However, use of cited information in this article does not imply that similar phrasing must be used elsewhere, even though it already is (e.g., Canada intro), nor should its inclusion be contingent on Supaman's conditions. Continued insistence on conditions for the addition of cited information to this article is, frankly, farcical.
FWIW: the Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary does not indicate the central location of the lower 48 in North America ... only that they are bound to the north by Canada, to the south by Mexico. However, my volume of Encyclopaedia Britannica Ready Reference indicates something similar, that the United States (emphasis added): "is comprised of 48 contiguous states occupying the mid continent, Alaska at the northwestern extreme of North America, and the island state of Hawaii in the mid-Pacific Ocean." Corticopia 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Supaman, if your version and corticopia's are basically the same, why not prefer the referenced one?
Finally, if you want to add something to the article United States you should discuss it with their editors. Indeed, as Corticopia states, the 48 contiguous "continental" states are in central North America, but Alaska is not, nor is Hawaii, nor are many of the territories and posessions of the US, like Puerto Rico. Please, take this into account when you take this argument to that article's editors. As for this article, I want the "Mexico" article to be of the highest quality: short, neat, useful, and referenced. If you want to make the article better, research more information to add in the geography section. If all you want is to defend your twisted nationalistic pride (because, I assure you, Mexico is no less a world power simply because it is in "southern North America"), then you will continue to obstruct the development of this article, and that is something that is shameful. I urge you to reconsider: choose references and sources. Hari Seldon 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since corticopia is such a collaborative user that just wants to improve wikipedia's quality, I bet that he would love to have the same discussion in the US article, if we're gonna say that Mexico is in "southern North America" then we have got to mention that the US mainland is in "central North America", cuz if he doesn't do so, that would make me think that he just made up all this argument for personal reasons and not because because he actually wanted to improve Wikipedia. Supaman89 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Given this verbose discussion, I really don't care what you think of my intentions, so I will comment appropriately. If you'd like to make these edits to the United States or related articles, since you're proposing them, feel free. While I'll consider it, 'I am the decider' of my own edits, thank you; various reasons are also addressed above. Importantly, though, we are discussing CITED EDITS TO THIS ARTICLE, so stop blowing smoke and let's get on with it. Corticopia 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Supaman, no one is stopping you of making the edits. Please go and do them. Remember to provide references and to refrain from Personal Attacks, like the ones you've been making against Corticopia. Another wikipedia guideline, assuming good faith, is recommended for your Etiquette.
I move for the archiving of this discussion! I cannot believe it became so long over such a minor thing!
Hari Seldon 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Corticopia changed again the intro of the article? Nothing is already agreed. I still sustain it is irrelevant and as Dúnadan said, it should be placed in the geography section. After all it is an introduction. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Hari said, referenced editions must stay, not personal reversions. --the Dúnadan 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Then you're being partial, because there is far more sources indicating that Mexico is in North America (without saying "southern") than otherwise. And the issue about the spelling variant was already discussed. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, list them here. --the Dúnadan 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, but oh well. Here I am, I will paste more and more. It is late so here is the first sources.

  • NOTE: Please observe that this last reference, in the 'Facts and Figures' box to the right (not in text to the left), describes Mexico's location as being in 'Southern North America'. Yes, this is ridiculous. Corticopia 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, so far you have provided as many sources. Yet, that doesn't make "southern" incorrect, but more precise. For example, I can find as many sources that state that "Mexico is in the Americas" (México está en América), yet "North America" is far more precise. In spite of the conspiracies that some users have found behind the word "southern", I find no racism, prejudice, evil motivation or denigration in it. Simply, more precision. And, most importantly, a precision that happens to be referenced too in Geographical books. Just like saying Monterrey is in northern Mexico is far better than saying Monterrey is in Mexico. But I guess you won't find any conspiracy behind the word "northern". --the Dúnadan 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes: note that parallel content about location (i.e., greater precision) is in the introductions for both the Canada and (now) United States articles. As well, two reputable English references have been provided regarding the alternate Spanish rendition (Merriam-Webster and Columbia), which are also the same ones that indicate that Mexico is in southern North America. And before anyone retorts that the first item was already discussed: items once dealt with can be dealt with again; after all, Wikipedia isn't static. Lastly: at this point, the only editor who is apparently against the use of 'southern' in the introduction or the alternate rendition is the instigator of this discussion -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is essentially called a consensus. Corticopia 13:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I still can provide more sources. However I want to point that still there is no consensus, so the previous version should stay (the one before Corticopia started editing). And remember that consensus is more wanted than a "votation". AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following:
  • A pillar in solving disputes is the rule of not reverting changes in a dispute to a previous personal version; that is, if he is acting in good faith, then he should not revert to his previous version, but should endeavor to improve the existing version. The guideline states the following: "The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden". In other words, even if consensus had not been reached, he cannot choose to revert to the version before Cortocipia's, but to discuss and improve.
  • He should avoid incivility, most importantly, his ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (i.e. accusations of "prejudice" behind the motivations of adding the word "southern")
  • There is absolutely no reason to oppose Corticopia's more precise rendering of the sentence, except that of his personal opinion and bias, in that he considers "southern" to be a pejorative word. The "dispute", if it can be called that, is not of two opposite POV, but merely of an opposition to the improvement of an article based on his personal opinion that adding an otherwise neutral word ("southern") is pejorative in that it suggests that Mexico is "excluded" from its North American counterparts, and "included" in Central America (which he finds offensive). This is a similar case with other disputes in which no POV was involved both here and in Latin America.
  • Arguably, we have reached a consensus, please note that consensus does not necessarily imply unanimity. Even if consensus is preferred to voting, polling is an option to view the opinions of other users. Finally, we can request for comment froman administrator. Given how trivial it is, and that no POV is involved, I surely doubt we should need to go that far.
I believe a middle ground has been offered (and at least accepted by one party) in that "southern North America" should stay as a more precise location (and as it is presented in numerous geographical references) while saying that Mexico is bounded to the south by Central America (thus implying that in spite of being in the southern region of North America, it is not in Central America, thus avoiding the association that the above user finds "racist" or "pejorative").
--the Dúnadan 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Following and inspired in the article United States I changed the intro paragraph. It clearly includes the "exact" location of Mexico in central-south North America, but in the second paragraph, in a version very similar to the one used in the article I mention. There should be no problems since it is referenced. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Good, yet, in spite of your reference, to us neutral users, tell us (as you should have by not editing but proposing first), why should we pick your single reference for the introduction and not Corticopia's many references? (south-central vs. south... or in any case, vs. North and Central?) --the Dúnadan 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry: rhis is turning out to be a rather hypocritical argument/discussion. The instigator first advocates for removing 'southern', then insists on restoring a version only to his liking and based on a single minor online resource ... despite all other users who (per various citations, and not just one minor reference) now support noting 'southern North America'. Adding 'south and central' adds NO value that 'southern' does not already imply. And, given my desire to add more information to articles and the instigating editor's removal of information on vaious occasions, here and elswhere, be very careful about labelling my edits as vandalism, which they are not. Corticopia 21:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; however, the intro of this article is NOT wholly similar to the intro that I devised for the United States article, nor is it preferred, since the original references were removed or omitted by the instigating editor to favour a particular viewpoint. Why should I prefer AlexCovarrubias' version with solitary reference when you cannot except my reputable sources from other common publications? Also note that everyone who's commented except the instigating editor has agreed to 'southern' as before. I can also provide more references. For instance: before editors argue about why 'Central American countries' is preferred (which is accurate no matter which way you look at it) to the former wording (which is inaccurate based on the argument below), just take a peek again at the reference from Fowler's Modern English Usage about 'America' which the instigating editor removed from the North America article after claiming to have checked it:

Fowler's, p. 48
Fowler's, p. 48

In addition, The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ISBN 0-19-214183-X) indicates the following for North American (page 707):

  • The adjective for North America and the name of a person born in North America, particularly the US and Canada. Canadians tend to use the term more than Americans, because it is inclusive and enables them to distinguish themselves from Americans ...

I can scan in this page, if desired. Alternatively, I would support removing any indication of Central America from the intro. Thus, I've again revised the introduction and added appropriate references; if necessary, I will also add the ones above, but i trust this is unnecessary at this point.Corticopia 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, since I have had no success in asking the other users to reach a consensus, let me ask you to change your proposal a little. I have agreed with you in the accuracy of saying "southern North America", and that this precision is better than a more general "North America". However, I think you understand by now, that the conflict arises out of the fact that the other editors (namely Alex and Supaman) do not want to say that Mexico is a Central American country, based on the recent changes in the usage of the word North America worldwide, even in the English-speaking world, most notably in the US, which now include Mexico in their definition (i.e.North America is now Mex-US and Canada, and you will find plenty of references for that as well). As such, by saying that Mexico is "bounded on the southeast by Central America" is as good as "bounded on the southeast by the Central American countries of..." thus implying that Mexico is indeed a North American country. Moreover, in this particular sentence I see no further precision in saying "Central American countries of..." (unlike the precision of "southern North America"). I ask you, please, to consider this option ("bounded on the southeast by Central America") as an adequate compromise. Even if other editors are not willing to cooperate, let's try to reach a consensus, and stop this edit war. There are far more important things to improve in this article, than in being more precise in geographical locations.--the Dúnadan 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What are the recent changes to usage? This is my point: that's why I provided a specific, reputable, recent reference to an English usage guide about relevant terms. Please look carefully at the scanned page. I've considered the above: unfortunately, the other version is imprecise -- there is a difference between the two versions. Why? My edition is not saying that Mexico is a Central American country, it merely says that Mexico (a state) is bounded by other states (which are in Central America) which is precise and (largely) accurate. Despite the majority view of what Centeal America is, there are a variety of meanings (politically or physiographically, English and not). The other version clearly places Mexico apart from the region to its southeast, even though some sources indicate differently. As I said, I have provided specific references to counter claims -- no matter how prevalent they are believed to be -- that provides a different viewpoint regarding usage of 'North America' (continent or otherwise).
To put it another way: what is biased about saying 'Central American countries'? Anyhow, given the above and if agreement cannot be reached about the usage of said terms, I should ask that any mention of Central America be removed from the intro -- this would be ambivalent about the issue and not necessarily inaccurate (particularly since it is already stated that the country is in the south of the continent/region). Otherwise, it smacks of editors trying to indicate something which even some cited materials contradict ... and there's nothing impartial about that. Corticopia 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said it was biased to say 'Central American countries'. I only said that by saying in the introduction "bounded on the southeast by Central America" suffices. In fact, even if we just say "North America" suffices, if we elaborate in the Geography section. However, to reach a consensus, we can say "southern North America" and "bounded by Central America".
As for the recent changes in usage, that has been the case in Europe (at least to my knowledge in Spain and France where Mexico was considered a Central American nation, and it is no longer the case), and in the United States. I lived in Canada for a while and I noticed that some considered Mexico to be CA and others NA. However I have several reputable references that claim that Mexico is a North American nation (I have with me the Encyclopedia of the World's Nations published in 2002 and Woldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations published in 2001 which confirm that. If you don't have access to these in your local library, I'd be happy to scan the page for you). I really don't understand your opposition to my proposal in that sense. But, if you want to engage in an edit war with the other editors, then I won't say anything else, I have tried to mediate with no avail, and this discussion is wearing me down.--the Dúnadan 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding my meaning. I am not disputing the sources or viewpoint presented, but in how this statement is phrased. They say different things. Let's put it another way:
OR
where Russia = Mexico, Asia = Central America, etc. The first is similar to the version you are promoting (and inaccurate), the second resembles mine. Some sources do not include Russia in Asia (e.g., just in Europe), but (source or not) there's no denying that Russia is north of the countries indicated. To say that Mexico is 'bounded by Central America' denies a not insubstantial viewpoint that part of Mexico is sometimes included in Central America. My edition allows for this but also the possibility that it may not be part of Central America by whatever definition. This makes the second (my) version sufficient.
Make sense? It is also wearing me down, but I'm enlightened that recent edits seem to be retaining 'countries' without issue. :)Corticopia 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Apart of a lack of accuracy I see no POV in saying that Mexico is bounded by Central America. Moreover, we would have reached a consensus. But it seems it's either your version (with sources included, and a lot of NPOV claims) or Alex's version (with sources included, and a lot of NPOV claims, because you know, he claims that too), but never a consensus. I am tired of this discussion, in which no one is willing to be collaborative and reach a consensus, so I won't participate anymore. May th version of the user with the strongest will to keep on fighting in this trivial edit war remain. I just find it hard to believe that for such a trivial and insignificant matter neither party has "personal reasons". --the Dúnadan 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You've just nailed it: if my version is more accurate and neutral while the other version is less so, there is no reason to deny its inclusion. None of the editors seem to have an issue with 'Central American countries' ... and why would they? It's true. Based on the above, though, there is bias with the other viewpoint (that Mexico is bound to the southeast by the region) -- thr other version makes no such claim at all -- that's the nature of presenting information with a neutral viewpoint. I too am tiring of this excessive discussion and will withdraw from it, but please note that I did not instigate it. Corticopia 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You've said you are withdrawing from the discussion several times, and you keep on reverting and discussing. --the Dúnadan 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As have you: we are supposed to be discussing, are we not? But it is rather futile when I am not the only one 'reverting' text to some sort of version: you really need to learn to articulate things more equitably and respectfully if you wish to be treated in turn. And, now, I am ending this thread. Corticopia 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No I am not discussing the issue anymore. Like I said, concerning southern North America, do what you want. My previous comment didn't say anything about the issue. I am discussin the Méjico issue now. I really don't understand what you mean by "articulate things more equitable and respectfully". Perhaps you can illustrate me where it is that I have disrespected you or shown you a less "equitable" treatment. After all, this comment [you really need to learn...] is quite a personal attack. But I might be wrong, and you are being respectful, whereas I am not. Perhaps, if you do not wish to continue this particular thread, you can do so at my Talk page. --the Dúnadan 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Supaman89, et al.: to further demonstrate the point I am trying to make regarding precision and a neutral perspective in the introduction regarding Central America, please consult the US Library of Congress country profile for Mexico, which states the following:

  • Location: Mexico is located in the southern portion of North America, bordering the southwestern United States from California to Texas. The southernmost Mexican states of Quintana Roo, Campeche, and Chiapas define the northern border of the isthmus of Central America.

Also note that one of the instigating editors also corrected the version which was previously in place. If there are issues with the current version, please advise. Corticopia 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Social stratification

Ok, here are the sources, although is a litle too stupid to ask for a source in a matter such as; the racism between mexicans vs mexico-americans, wich is an obvious fact. If the person who asked the sources is from Mexico or (obviously) Mexican raised in the U.S.A. should knows perfectly the discrimination that exist between those two social groups. It's like if somebody ask you an especifically source that claims the discrimination from white-american-native people to mexican-americans and the rest of latinamericans in the social life. My sources are in spanish (wich i think you hardly can understand) It is a fact that everybody knows the existence of this rivality but if you didn't know about this i recomend you to read a litle more, you can found information even in the Wikipedia i recomend you to read: Mexican American, Chacon vs. Limon, La Raza even the word Latino is truly use to separate those hispanic-ascendance people who were raised in the US. Cheers! hope you have a great read! (Raveonpraghga)

We've been at this before in article "Second City", and we are dealing with this right now with the geographical location of the country. "Obvious facts" also need to be sourced. I am a Mexican raised in Mexico but living in the US and I am not subject to any form of discrimination, in Mexico or in the United States. I can testify that "Chicano" and "Pocho" are used in the way described by the article, but it would be nice to have sources. It would be interested to check if the articles you have referred have not been recently edited, or created, by you, and weather or not they have sources. Indeed, you, Raveonpraghga, have been accused of suckpuppetry and that reduces your trustworthiness, even more if you do not add external, verifiable, trustworthy sources, and even more so when you use this edit as an excuse to weasel in your beloved Zapopan, Jalisco into the wording of an entirely different paragraph about HDI. The HDI article from Reforma where I read about it menctioned specifically "Delegación Benito Juarez" and "San Pedro Garza García". It did not menction Zapopan, Jalisco, and though it may be so that Zapopan has a similar level of development, you need to source your claims and you should not weasel it in with another edit, if you are not afraid of anything.
I am tired with reading this article and finding outrageous unsourced claims like "The regiomontanos (from Monterrey) are thought to be cocky regardless of their social status, due to Northern prosperity." I am from Monterrey and know a bunch of cocky regiomontanos, but not everyone is like that, and I have friends all over Mexico and only a minority think that "Monterrey people are cocky". Indeed, this is just an outrageous claim about regiomontanos that is not sourced and cannot be verified. It, and every other outrageous, unsourced, statement like it, must be removed until sourced. Hari Seldon 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if you could find a source to "verify" that statement about regiomontanos [which you won't], it is neither encyclopedic nor relevant to make such a statement, not to mention POV. --Dúnadan 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The sourced article to support the HDI comparisons Is the UN Report on Human Development Mexico 2004. In its 240 pages, it menctions Zapopan only once: to state that it is part of the Guadalajara metro area. Your weasel edit, Raveonpraghga, is not supported by the soured material. Hari Seldon 16:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello, the bussines was with another person but i found Hari Seledonio again, how are you?, anyway, first of all, it's a fact that you didn't read the articles i recomended you to read (i'm talking to Dúnadan, ok?) And by the way i found those articles yesterday and as you can see, there's recently big colaboration but minor edits by users, and was never a contributor of any of those articles (that is not a matter i care about). Again, the people who created this part of the article (soccial stratification) were very descriptive when they mentioned about the discrimination cause that part is making reference to the social stratification and the discrimination is an important social behaviour that couldn't be avoid to mention in the content of that headline, nor either the discrimination from upper and midle-class mestizos to indigena people.

And its kind of silly when you mentioned you are mexican living in the US, it's obvioud it results a litle uncomfortable that kind of comments for you, but i'm sorry i didn't create that part of the article, so you have to discuss that with another person. Then, since it is mentioned the HID matter in the economy content; by the way thanks for showing me the source about the 2004 HID information where specifically mentioned this in the page 20 of 240: Al hacerlo se aprecia con la informacion disponible se aprecia con claridad que las regiones noreste, noroeste y centro de mexico tienen niveles de salud, educacion e ingresos superiores a los del resto del pais,QUE EL DISTRITO FEDERAL Y NUEVO LEON, AVENTAJAN NOTORIAMENTE A ESTADOS COMO CHIAPAS Y OAXACA. La desigualdad de niveles de desarrollo resulta palpable al considerar que el Distrito Federal registra niveles de IDH no muy distantes a los de paises Europeos , mientras que Chiapas y Oaxaca no superan el indice de terriotorios ocupados de Palestina. Wich means if you can read a correct spanish the only region mentioned is DF, and again in the page 22: Si los municipios fueran clasificados como paises resultaria que la Delegacion Benito Juarez en distrito fedral seria comparativo al desarrollo de paises como Italia, mientras que municipios como Tlaloenoc en Guerrero seria similar al IDH de Malawi. Again Nuevo Leon, Ans San Pedro is never mentioned, if you have forgotten the Spanish, as of the page 27 you can found this information in English, the issue is clear to find is that those 2 municipalitys are the highest DHI in Mexico 3 years after that source was created Zapopan is now the third one. And there's something that need to be earased inmediatly, cause is a vandalism act: Ongoing economic concerns include the comercial dependance on the US, the weakness of agriculture and industry, low real wages, underemployment for a large segment of the population, inequitable income distribution (top 20% of income earners account for 55% of income), and few advancement opportunities for the largely Amerindian population in the impoverished southern states Who made that? Hari? i bet he did! Mistake, mistake, and Wrong Wrong content, just to let know that person who made this contribution how far he or she is away to be wise. Wisdom Inmediatly! That is the children INEGI web page, so that person who created that content can read and have fun at the same time, how fun dont you think so! Ok, first Mexico is the country with the biggest Biodiversity in the planet wich represent the 10% of the total on earth (all sources in that page) Mexico is the world largest country in Avocato production, Agriculture weakness? Are you on drugs? Industrial Weakness? are u unsane? Well i wont argue with that i just want you to make u a favor and read that web page so you can a litle more about Mexico. Cheers! (Raveonpraghga)

Here go again with Raveonpraghga. Even if Garza García is not mentioned in the article Hari gave you, you have not provided any source to claim that Zapopan is now the third one. It is still your unsourced, unreferenced and personal opinion.
Secondly, biodiversity and agriculture are two different things. Agriculture in Mexico, unfortunately, is not very productive, due to inadequate infrastructure and low technology. True, Mexico is extremely biodiverse, but that doesn't make its agriculture any more productive. Unless you know the definition of agriculture, horticulture and biodiversity, your claim makes no sense. Moreover you, again, claim preposterous things: your source does say that Mexico's biodiversity represents the 10% of the planet's, but it doesn't say it is the "biggest in the planet". However, the claim about "weak agriculture" must be referenced, being such a controversial, disputable and strong claim (a "citation needed" template must be added). And if you want to contest that statement, please bring reliable sources not opinions.
Thirdly, please avoid insulting other users (i.e. "Are you on drugs..."). You already have a pending sockpuppetry accusation against you. Don't make things worse by repeatedly incurring in misbehavior to the point of getting blocked.
--the Dúnadan 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
First, lets not deviate from the topic. The topic is that there are certain unsourced claims in this article. It doesn't matter if they are true or not, sourced is ok, unsourced, if they can be contested (and I am contesting them) are not ok. That goes for the social stratification section.
Second, for the Zapopan section, I did not provide the article. It was there already. San Pedro Garza García is specifically menctioned in a Reforma article about this topic (I am looking for the online version and WILL be quoted soon), Delegación Benito Juarez was also specifically menctioned (in fact, cartoonist Paco Calderón mocked the fact that it was with a cartoon about it). Zapopan, however, was not. I am not saying that Zapopan isn't as prosperous as Delegación Benito Juarez or San Pedro Garza García (though I seriously doubt it, since per capita income in San Pedro is about 40K USD, and over 15 BMV companies are HQd here... more than all Guadalajara has). But it doesn't matter weather or not it is or isn't. What matters is that it is sourced. If you want to remove the menctions of Delegación Benito Juarez and San Pedro Garza Garcia while I look for the article you are welcome to do so.
Finally, I recommend that you leave your personal problems and your desire to attack, insult, and engage in sarcastic remarks someplace else. Wikipedia is not the place for them. Resolve your sockpuppetry case before editing this article. I am very tempted to treat ANY edits you make as vandalism, specially with the attitude you are showing. Hari Seldon 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


To Hari, excuse me Hari, but i have not personal problems, i'm contributor just like you, when i saw the claims abpout San pedro and The weakness of agriculture and industry, i was extremly moved to ask for sources and delete the unclear claims, you wanted to delete that part about the mexico-american discrimination and i respect it cuz, that is something i dont care about (although is not that civic try to remove something just for a personal reason) And that thing about Industry and agriculture weakness??? IM going to repeat it ARE U UNSANE (that is not for Hari of course but for the person who claimed that) They must be ignorant to don't know Mexico is one of the richest countries in the world in the matter of agriculture and economy i already sourced a webpage so can read about it. About the economy and DHI about the municipalities, San Pedro is not in the list, however we can source Guadalajara or Queretaro wich are municipalities compared to the DHI of Russia and Grece (the whole coutries) As you want, we can do that and you are free to do so if you want as well, anyway i dont want to argue about this stuff again, so please source with SPECIFICALY sources. thats for Dunanai or whatever it is.

Cheers! (Raveonpraghga)

Raveonpraghga: Lack of sources IS NOT a personal reason. Deleting sourced material is vandalism. Read the source I provided (the El Norte article)! It says that HDI is an index that measures educational, economic and life expectancy development. Indeed, if HDI is similar to Germany or New Zealand (the countries listed in the article), then educational, economic, and life expectancy development ARE similar to Germany or New Zealand. I am sure you understand that the source supports that fully because it states it, and that I am only trying to make it more precise for the reader. Finally, if Mexico is so great agriculturally and industrially, then why are the prices going up now? Mexico's industry, outside of Mexico City and Monterrey, is almost completely dependent on foreign investment. Mexican agriculture is controlled by mafias, and moved according to political motiviations. The Mexican agricultural industries are not properly capitalized, and many times loose money, not to menction the fact that millions of farmers perform only for survival and contribute little to the economy. Indeed, industry and agriculture are not Mexico's strenghts. This country has its strenght in its financial sector, in oil, telecommunications, and other very few companies in Mexico City and Monterrey, not in agriculture or industry. I, of course, can source it. You cannot source any of your claims. Hari Seldon 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Before entering into yet another edit war, here are my points about the inclusion of Zapopan, JAL into the paragraph that talks about HDI and economic disparity:
  • The article talks about HDI and economic disparity, two referenced sources point to a municipality and a delegación as an example of high HDI, and the same sources point to another municipality as an example of low HDI. These sources are referenced, they are concise, and above all, they help illustrate the point about the economic disparity.
  • Adding Zapopan, JAL is not necessary because it does not add into illustrating the point about disparity. San Pedro Garza García and Delegación Benito Juarez are at the top, while Metlatonoc is at the bottom. Perhaps it would be helpful if another municipality at the bottom was added, but adding one that is in the middle? Is that useful at all to illustrate the point? I think not...
  • Additionally, based on past experience with the user trying to add that particular reference to Zapopan, JAL (Raveonpraghga), it seems to me that his intentions are only to add the presence of Jalisco, rather than to actually make the article more complete. Though there is nothing wrong with adding this information in the article about Zapopan, Jalisco (or even the one about Guadalajara, since Zapopan is part of said city's metropolitan area), it is clear that adding this information in the paragraph about HDI disparity is unnecessary, and wikipedia is not a directory.
  • Finally, the addition is not referenced. The user claims that the sources referenced provide a backing to the fragment he wants to add, however, there is no note, reference, or summary about it in the references section. The source he claims supports his statement is 240 pages long. It is his responsibility to reference what he wants to add.
Therefore, because the fragment does not help illustrate the point the particular paragraph wants to make, because the fragment is not referenced, and because wikipedia is not a directory, I propose that the fragment is not included. Hari Seldon 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

pHOTOS and Maps of the states

Que piensan de las fotoS DE demographics claramente estan mal, el chico "blanco" no es blanco, ni el afromexicano es africano y el amerindio tampoco lo es en el caso de las chicas, la afromexicana no lo es, ni la amerindia, propongo que se eliminen esas imagenes, pues son erroneas, o almenos que se modifiquen. 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Enlgish please. Hari Seldon 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok i will try, but my english is not that good, what are your toughts about the "racial diversity photos" the "white" Mexican is not white, the afromexican is not black, the amerindian is not amerindian, in the case of the girls, the amerindian and afromexican are wrong, so can we change it? --MexxxicanoMexxxicano 06:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't like the photos in the first place. They don't look neither professional nor encyclopedic. And speaking of changing stuff, I guess we all agreed on replacing the map of Mexican states with the green one without the unofficial and arbitrary regions? Shall we proceed? --the Dúnadan 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was about to ask about the map. I vote for removal of the pictures. Hari Seldon 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, i will delete the images of racial diversity, and i will try to look for better images,about the map, lets change it. --Mexxxicano
Wow....I agree, those pictures are somewhat misleading (I remember seeing them and thinking that, but I didn't say anything)...I think we should follow in the footsteps of the Brazilian article...maybe we should get a picture of each: Amerindians, Mestizos, and finally Whites...all professional looking. I would like to see this resolved. Cali567 11:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of regions and maps, have you guys seen the article es:Mesorregión? The only reference about them that I found is here. It seems they were created under Fox's administration as part of a National Plan of Development. I don't know if these definitions (quite different from the map we have here at wikipedia) were just intended as a part to manage just this particular plan during of Fox's administration, or if they actually intend to serve as a new way grouping states. Does anybody know anything about them? --the Dúnadan 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were created by Fox and were used for management purposes only... and on a more personal note, I am against them, there purporse, and the logic behind them. Why? Because it is against Free Market! Hari Seldon 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't really read anything about them, or how they work. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up to show that regions are far from universally defined in Mexico. Per agreement above, and since this new region division is one of many that could be created, we must revert the map to the green one that only shows states and no misleading regions. --the Dúnadan 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cristero War

In my opinion, the Cristero War is a conflict to small to be relevant in this article. This article strives to give GENERAL information about Mexico, and the Cristero war is too specific, and should probably be included in the article about the Mexican revolution. Besides, NPOV wording is a challenge, and A LOT OF sources must be provided before adding anything about it. This is yet another hot potato ideal for more and more edit wars. Caution is suggested before thinking about including it in this article. I am open, of course, but lets discuss it first. Hari Seldon 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the Cristero war is as significant (for good or bad) as the Mexican Revolution, which shaped twentieth-century Mexico both politically, economically and culturally. If at all, briefly mentioning something like the conservative religious sector in Mexico opposed many of the liberal reforms embraced by the Mexican Revolution (most notably secular public education) which sparked a violent conflict known as the Cristero War, should suffice. --the Dúnadan 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Demographics???

Is it me or is the whole section on demographics gone from this article? I personally don't think that's OK. We delete the entire section because of photographs??? We need to put it back...every country profile has a demographics section....it's common practice I would think. If someone is doing a report and needs to know the different ethnic groups of Mexico....they're out of luck? Cali567 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I put 2 pictures meanwhile, if you guys can get better ones, you may change them. Supaman89 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FLora and Fauna

How about flora and fauna in the text? it could be in the geography section Mexxxicano 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with sections that are getting too long, and considering the discussion we are having about the first paragraph, I fear that particular section will get very long very soon.
How about an introductory paragrapgh in the geograpghy section, and a link to more complete articles: "Flora of Mexico" and "Fauna of Mexico"? Hari Seldon 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
well its ok for me, i will look for some information Mexxxicano 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be here

This discussion should be here, in this talk page. I don't think any of us have anything to do discussing this in my user talkpage!.

First of all, I am not judge of wikipedia, nor an admin, nor anything, and I am very annoyed that accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling, and other personal attacks have been launched against several parties in my talk page. And I am even MORE ANNOYED because it is such a minor issue.

Secondly, after reviewing the evidence provided, it seems to me that the best thing to do is add all available sources into the first paragraph, state EXPLICITLY that Mexico is in southern North America, as said in one of the references, and also state EXPLICITLY that Mexico is not part of Central America (i.e., by saying that it borders central america). Any further explanation (about how some few sources place Mexico in central america, and the geological reasons behind them) can be addressed in the geography section at lenght, provided sufficient sources.

Finally, the above is a personal opinion and has no other value than that of a personal opinion. Corticopia, Supaman, Alex, do as you wish on this issue. It is so minor I no longer care about it. All I care about is the article's quality: well written, very useful for the reader, and properly sourced. If any contribution to this article, regardless of who is the user making them, that has these characteristics will be considered valid and I will not revert it at all. If a sourced version is replaced with an unsourced version, I will revert no matter what either version says. Alex, Supaman, since you have sources stating that Mexico is not in Central America, ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE!!!

I hope this is the end of the edit war for this article. If, later you want to accuse each other of sockpuppetry or trolling, you are welcome to do so, elsewhere, but please, not in my talkpage!...

Hari Seldon 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan, I read your last paragraph after I added this one here. I agree with you on the price to pay for accuracy in wikipedia. Again, I urge the participants of the discussion to do as they wish, so long as the leave this article with better quality than they found it: concise, useful, and sourced. Unfortunately, Corticopia sourced his claims. I am still waiting for Alex to source his. Since he has the sources, I hope it doesn't take long, and, hopefully, that should be the end of it! Hari Seldon 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, which I generally concur with. First of all (directed to anyone as needed): users can believe what they will about my intentions; I will not parade them for others to pick at, nor engage in continued 'grandiloquence' with those who do the same. I have met the burden of proof in my editing, and also have more important things to do with my time.
Second of all, if you consult the editions to the article which I have made and are willing to support -- all cited -- none are inaccurate or biased. That being said, I would fully support a simple succinct introduction (the current version is also fine) while adding details from all sources below. If any user truly has difficulty in enhancing articles and making editions while adding sources that anyone can verify (as Hari indicates), regardless of who contributes them, they should rethink their commitment to this project. My experience with the various editors in this discussion (save one, and you can guess who that is) are definitely discouraging. And that is all I am willing to say. Corticopia 07:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Awww, pleasee... if Hari and Dunadan don't really mind which one stays because this is gone way too long and they're both technically "correct", as long as they're both sourced. Then the only ones left are you, Alex and I, and guess what? we prefer the one that doesn't say the word "southern", so too bad if you don't like it, and if you keep reverting it I'll really get someone to ban you cuz we're done with this. Have a nice day. Supaman89 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No comment. Corticopia 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To Corticopia: The enhancement of the articles should be considered regardless of who contributes them, as you aptly pointed out, but it should never be at the expense of breaking the rules of civility (with your ad hominem attacks towards me) and ethics (with sockpuppetry, if proven). I really don't care if you are a sockpuppet of another banned user. It is not the enhancement of the article what I challenged (for one thing, I agreed to almost everything in your proposal). And, in case you didn't read the discussion in Hari's talk page, the fact that you could be (if proven) a sockpuppet that doesn't make your arguments wrong. Ergo, I am not incurring in an ad hominem argument (that is, judging the argument not by the logic of it, but by the author of it). I have no problems at all with your argument. Regardless of any solid argument and valuable contribution (which will stay in the article), any user that overtly breaks the rules of the house should be blocked. If you didn't incur in sockpuppetry, then you wouldn't need to worry about this.

Please point out my ad hominem attack of you, which escapes me. You clarified/challenged my understanding, and I responded. Would you have me remain silent? We are supposed to discuss matters. If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize. Anyhow, this discussion has proceeded for far too long, and I am withdrawing from it. Corticopia 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To Supaman: you still fail to see the point. It is not a matter of whether you like it or not. It is a matter of which version comes from a solid and referenced argument. If it is a matter of "taste", then your reversions will be considered as vandalism. If you provide sources and solid arguments, then your reversions will be considered an alternative open to discussion. But you insist on not being collaborative and do not wish to reach a consensus over such a trivial matter.

--the Dúnadan 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I agree with Hari's balanced proposal.

Please Supaman stop your reversions. Your references could be as valid as the references provided by Corticopia. Please do not engage in an edit war. Why don't you try civility? If both positions are right as proven by different reputable sources, then both should be added, not just the one you particularly like. He has provided references from reputable sources. His point is valid. You have provided a reference. Why should we just pick your version, instead of providing the whole picture?--the Dúnadan 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Man did you see my paragraph? it's all sourced, I'm providing solid reference of what is writen, now the only problem is that Corticopia wants the word "southern" to be included in the description, and we all know that is correct, but then you tell me in how many definitions it is described like that, and in how many it only describes it as "North America"... in pretty much all of them right?, so let's say that one out of 30 definitions use the term "southern", and we are still going use it??, and even if we did, we'll have to do the same in the US article, but of course the will never agree, so that's pretty cool isn't it? we use the word "southern" (which is practically unknown) and they don't use the word "Central"... do you honestly think that's fair? in other words if they're both correct, but one of them is used just because of personal reason, which one do you think we should use?? Supaman89 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of what they do in the US article. We don't do things here because they do them there, we do them because they are the right thing to do. Neither yours nor Corticopia's definitions are used out of personal reasons (but both of you have personal reasons in opposing the other). And both can be referenced. You ask me, which one do you think we should use? Hari and I have both answered: both. The introduction should say Mexico is located in "southern North America" (with ample references backing up the term) and then that it borders Central America to the south (thus implying, Mexico is part of North America, not Central America). There is no bias, no racism, no prejudice, no lack of accuracy in saying that, unless you find it "racist" to say that Chiapas is located in southern Mexico (in spite of the fact that you will rarely find it stated verbatim). By agreeing to this version, we reach a consensus. --the Dúnadan 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It ain't doing no good to the article, sometimes you don't have to do what is "correct" but what is logical, like now, it is true that Mexico is "southern North America" but it is also true that the motive behind this matter is not to help the description but just exclude it from Canada and the US.

You said we don't have to care what happens with the US article, but we DO have to care, otherwise it wouldn't be fair, so I'm all willing to put the word as soon as I see central North America the other article, but that of course will never happen they will never allow it, and don't tell me to do it my self cuz I’m sick of that, that's not the point, if anyone really what's to improve that description just look at it like this, if you get to change the US introduction paragraph you'll immediately change this one. Supaman89 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, encyclopedias don't work with what seems to be "logical" (what you mean "common sense") but with what is academically correct and proven. You are assuming way too many things. Saying "southern North America" is in no way a motive to exclude Mexico, exclude it from what? Does saying "northern North America" in the Canadian article excludes Canada from US and Mexico? The only prejudice is that of your own logic, as if somebody has a "conspiracy" against Mexico.
Secondly, edits are not conditioned to what happens in the US article, but, again, to what is academically right. Moreover, you have no right to condition edits based on your own opinion, nor to restrict us editing from what is academically correct. If you do so, you engage in vandalism. You must condition based on proves and academically sound arguments. By conditioning it on something external to this discussion, you prove the fallacy of your argument.
Thirdly, can you please endeavor to reach a consensus? Or will you insist on keeping your own version of thing, in spite of the abundance evidence that supports Corticopia's claim? If not, we will call administrators to settle this matter.
--the Dúnadan 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is I am sad about Dunadan and Hari's position. It is very obvious that Corticopia is doing this based in a personal bias: he does want Mexico to be wrongly mistaken to be in CA. I have already provided information to prove me right. Just take a look at the article North America. Months passed with no other Canadian or American user objecting that Mexico is part of NA. Now that he's back with a brand new account, the problem is back. He's just motivated in prejudice. I am sad because Dunadan and Hari does not care about his motivations. I honestly don't think we should encourage this kind of users to spread their bias in Wikipedia, even if sourced, because even is Mexico is south of the USA, he wants the article to say "southern" as an exclusion. It is so easy to understand and so easy to see. =( AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And what are your motivations? I'm sorry to say, but you are rather incorrect: you were called to account for making false claims about cited information based on heresay and removing it ... and the topic is still being discussed. Corticopia 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, I'll say this one more time, if you love contributing to Wikipedia so much, why don't you go and improve the US introduction paragraph to make it more precise, and then you can immediately change this one, that way you'll make 2 contributions at the same time... but that's not gonna happen right?, first of all because you don't wanna do it, and second because the won't let you, why don't you try to explain your reasons to them to say that the US is in central North America I bet they'll understand. Supaman89 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say one more time: why don't you edit the United States article, since you're proposing it? I and others have stated above, as well, why this is slightly problematic in the main U.S. article since the country is not just limited to central North America (e.g., Alaska). However, I will try, and will also edit the contiguous United States. But, of course, you will find some other misguided reason to defer to your version and to continue your behaviour. Corticopia 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Read 'em and weep. I suspect -- given that article's excessive length -- the tidbits I added may be pruned, moved below (which would be fine with me), or removed, since these are facts not in dispute, are perhaps believed to be obvious, and/or essentially repeated elsewhere in the article. Nonetheless, I've added reputable sources that corroborate the claims. Anyhow, there you go! Corticopia 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Weep s'more -- I've made similar edits to 'Continental United States' without the citations, but I'll add these if it's an issue. Corticopia 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They erased what you wrote and the US article, see I told you they wouldn't let you do it, to do so you would have to start a new discussion to tell them why you think it is necessary to mention that the US mainland is located in central North America, so take your time.

You also said that those facts were obvious and that's why they were erased, well if those facts are obvious, then so are facts that you try to put in this article. Oh and stop changing the article, now I'm gonna have to revert it and we might get blocked again. --Supaman89

What are you talking about -- can't you read? I just made the edits to United States and Continental United States, and they are still in place.
Someone else needs to weigh in on your behaviour, since you obviously want to precipitate an edit war with no assumption of good faith. I will edit as needed, and will comment hereafter when needed. Corticopia 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

ok change it, but if they revert it, this one will be reverted as well. --Supaman89

Curiously (or advantageously) Corticopia's changes in United States were not done in the introduction, nor in the geography section, but in the "political and administrative divisions section". Just like I had proposed at the beginning concerning this article: leave the introduction as it is: "Mexico is in North America" and explain the nitty-gritty in the Geography section. But, alas, Corticopia insisted on having it on the introduction. I wonder why he didn't do the same thing in United States. Dont' get me wrong Corticopia, there is nothing wrong with saying "southern North America"... but your actions do unveil your motivations. --the Dúnadan 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, you seem to have missed my editions to the second paragraph of the United States introduction, and elsewhere. Please read carefully before you comment again on my motivations and engage in 'grandiloquence'. Corticopia 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
My goodness!!! Where is the goodwill? Hari Seldon 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes: it's rather regrettable. Corticopia 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed regrettable, and I apologize for my hasty misjudgment. --the Dúnadan 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After being challenged to make related edits to United States, this editor poses a question about the edit/fact anonymously and then proceeds to add duplicate facts to the introduction (for an article that indicates "the opening paragraphs on this subject are a topic of great debate" and is way too long). (Also note the above mentioned claims and removal of information by the instigating editor.) I'm unsure what these contributions are meant to accomplish and what this editor is trying to prove, but others should seriously look and point fingers elsewhere when deciding on content editions and determining the motivations of parties engaged in this discussion. I am done commenting on this talk page. Corticopia 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, and like I said, I apologize for my hasty misjudgment. If anything, what this editor does trying to pretend to be an anonymous user in order to instigate a debate is a serious lack of ethic. Fortunately, this user found out, before it became a serious case of sock puppetry. --the Dúnadan 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia thanks for improving this article, see we're all happy now, both articles are more accurate, again thank you for your collaboration, peace out. Supaman89 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, thanks for editing ethically, instead of trying to instigate debates under an anonymous comment like the editor who commented above did. --the Dúnadan 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Speaking of ethics: AlexCovarrubias recently admitted to creating a sockpuppet for the sole purpose of reporting my edit-warring, while of course deceptively failing to report himself or Supaman89 (who also edits under a sockpuppet). He then justifies this, incorrectly and disingenuously, by saying that he is being "harrassed" while continuing his 'scarlet letter' campaign against this editor. If editors are to consider the ethics of editors -- particularly self-admitted hypocrites who instigated this farce and remove information elsewhere to promote their viewpoint -- and what price there is to pay for improving Wikipedia, think again. Thanks. Corticopia 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't care about this. I think that this should be resolved elsewhere. I am more concerned about the integrity of this article rather on who is right or who wronged who. This has become personal, it is a shame, and should be taken elsewhere.
Hari Seldon 08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing would please me more than to put this entire farce behind us -- it is a shame and is also being addressed elsewhere. However, since this entire situation was instigated by this editor who called into question the legitimacy/ethics of my edits, such duplicity needs to be pointed out. Thanks. Corticopia 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry cases (since both have accused each other of sockpuppetry) should be dealt with elsewhere (if the instigators decide to open a case at all, since so far, neither has done so) This is not the place to say whether the use of an admitted sock puppet is valid nor not. --the Dúnadan 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is being dealt with elsewhere. Frankly, though, this section (note that it was not added by me) should not have been added to this talk page, either. Corticopia 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Other that bringing it up in the WP:3RR notice board (even though it is clearly stated that all cases of sockpuppetry and vanadlism should not be dealt with there), the case has not been brought up in the appropriate place to do so. It really doesn't matter. Whatever the outcome of these accusations, we should focus on trying to solve the issue at hand so that the page can be unprotected. There are a lot of corrections, improvements, and additions that need to be made in this article. --the Dúnadan 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Understood, and I will try to (continue to) help once this morass is over with. Just note that not all is as it seems. Corticopia 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG I never read this before until today. All I have to say is that sockpuppetry has a very well defined meaning: creating another account to use it to falsely claim consensus or to vote in several ocassion in polls. The account I created was to protect my identity (a valid reason not considered sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK), and if you check the edits, you will see my report was the only one contribution with that account. And yes, you are harrasing me, since you are watching every single edit I do. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- and you committed it (per the WP:SOCK page) for the purpose of good/bad actions since you didn't self-report yours and Supaman89's own edit warring at the same time. This is a publicly accessible website, so I monitor a host of things and editors -- deal with it. Corticopia 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting you are harrasing me, however using a euphemistic sentence: "I monitor a host of thing and editors". AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 06:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not use this article as your battleground. Resolve your differences elsewhere, and leave this article in peace. Hari Seldon 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Cities

The picture for Guadalajara was erased (unknown reason), and editor Joseph Solis deleted the non-working link. I don't oppose to links being deleted when they no longer work, but I urge for a replacement to be found soon. Guadalajara is a very important city in Mexico, and I particularly liked the way the pictures enhanced the design and the topic of the section. I am not near Guadalajara, so cannot take a picture. Anyone in Guadalajara with a Camera that would like to make a contribution? Hari Seldon 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a picture of the skyline of Guadalajara, from Commons. Not the best, but at least we have one for now. By the way, you had once proposed adding a pic of Monterrey to the Economy section. Could it be possible to add a pic of the industrial district of Monterrey or a specific conglomerate, say, Cemex? --the Dúnadan 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have several pictures of Monterrey, but have had second thoughts on this. The economy section in this article is too small to add many pictures (though, quite sufficient in its size for reader usability). Indeed, what I would like is the section to show a more global sense of the economy of Mexico. Mexico's economy is only 10% in Santa Fe, while another 11% is elsewhere in Mexico City, and another 15% in Monterrey, and another 10% in Guadalajara... Adding it all up, it still is less than 50% of the total economy. Added to this, financial services and the commercial sector are not the only areas of the Mexican economy. Mexico also has developments in agriculture, transformation and manufacturing, computer business, medical services, tourism, and import/export through numerous ground, sea, and air ports, not to menction the always important oil and the growing importance of remmittances. Indeed, a lot of pictures are needed to illustrate the diversity of the mexican economy: the business districts in Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara, the industrial parks in Cuernavaca, Queretaro, Coahuila and Sonora, the border with the US, the sea ports in Veracruz, Tampico, and Acapulco, the thousands of resorts, and the farmers in dozens of states, the PEMEX platforms, and even the Mexicans working in the US... Which should we portray?
My newer proposal is to add pictures of all of these in the main article Economy of Mexico, and perhaps think of a more globalizing picture of the Mexican economy for this article. The picture currently portrayed is not bad, but it shows only a partial view of the economy of Mexico. I would prefer a picture of the Mexican stock exchange, but perhaps we can think of something better... Hari Seldon 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess anything that is representative of the Mexican economy does the job, whether it is the stock market, or CEMEX, or PEMEX, but definitely not industrial parks of foreign companies. --the Dúnadan 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


I disagree. Industrial parks of foreign countries are also representative of the Mexican economy. For the most part, the industrial parks are developed by Mexican firms, and sold by Mexican real-estate brokers (which develop Mexico's financial and commercial sector). Additionally, industrial parks that house US firms produce goods for export into the US. When exports occur, American dollars are traded for Mexican pesos, and the Banco de Mexico gains in International Reserves, directly affecting the value of the Mexican peso.
In fact, I believe that the entire US-Mexico economic relation is grossly misrepresented in the article.
The current wording about Mexico's growing dependence could be interpreted as support for the common American far-right criticism "Without the US, Mexico is nothing", or the common Mexican far-left criticism "Mexico has sold out to the US". This could not be farther from the truth.
In Phoenix, I bought a pack of Pepto Bismol tablets. The box says "Made in Mexico by Procter & Gamble Manufactura, S. de R.L. de C.V." The list of consumer products made in Mexico and consumed in the US ranges from fruits and vegetables to automobiles, airplanes and computers. Without Mexico, the US would have no Lenovo Thinkpads, no affordable fruits and vegetables, no xBox, no GM or Ford automobiles, and the entire American economy would not exist as it exists today. it would be very different. In the same manner, without the US, Mexico would have no remmittances, a lot less tourism, and virtually no exports. Indeed, the Mexican peso would be nearly worthless and Mexico would not have such a sound financial system. Mexico and the US are incredibly interdependent, and though this is true for the relationship between the US and many other countries, for Mexico, the US relation is unique as it is replicated with no other country. Properly dimensioning and portraying the impact of the US-Mexico relationship in the economy is important. Mexico depends greatly on the US, but it also impacts greatly that nation.
In other words, Mexico has not sold out to the US, nor it has become "nothing". The US and Mexico have become interdependent.
Hari Seldon 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, and yes, we should rewrite the economy section to accurately portray the interdependence of all North American countries. It is just a matter of taste that I would rather have a pic of a transnational Mexican conglomerate like Cemex, than of HSBC or Citibank in this section, even if in the article of Economy of Mexico we include pics of all. But like I said, just a matter of taste. --the Dúnadan 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the picture most representative of the Mexican economy is one of Parque Fundidora in Monterrey, because of its history:
1.- Mexican businessmen create the first steel plant in Latin America (the biggest for quite some time too).
2.- Because it is profitable, the government decides that having people who are not politicians profit is immoral, and thus nationalizes the company
3.- Due to government corruption, the company goes broke leaving thousands unemployed. The company's location cannot be even sold as real estate, and is left to rot for about a decade
4.- After years of "modernization" of the economy, a Mexican-American JV transforms the old location into a beautiful, Central-Park like park to service the city of Monterrey, with the condition that it be used once a year for five years to hold car races.
As you can see, it mirrors the economic history of Mexico; private capital tried to make Mexico flourish in the early 20th century, but was hindered by a pro-socialist government that failed, and created widespread economic crisis, and is now re-flourishing with the help of foreign capital, but with the opportunities of the 20th century lost. Parque Fundidora will never be a successful steel company again, but it still lives as an economically sound enterprise, and a reminder for the people of Mexico that government should not interefere in the economy.
Because of the above, portraying Parque Fundidora would be my personal choice. But, I have other pictures to share!:
  • The Valle Oriente business district in Monterrey
  • The ITESM main campus in Monterrey
  • The industrial sky-line of Monterrey, with factories from FEMSA, Hylsa and CEMEX shown
  • CEMEX Mexico HQ
  • Villacero HQ
  • A street market in Puebla
  • Skyline of Saltillo
  • A farming community (ejido) in Coahuila
  • A picture of a "Gorditas Doña Tota" franchise restaurant
  • A PEMEX gas station
In my opinion, all of these represent a part of the Mexican economy. The question is, which represents more of it? Choose, or lets find more pictures!
Hari Seldon 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't object using a pic of Parque Fundidora for the Economy section in this article, and I find it more representative than the Santa Fe pic currently displayed (in any case, if someone else objects the replacement, we can leave both pics). yet, I guess we can select the Economy of Mexico article as our next project. I added a bunch of stuff about a year ago (it has probably been savagely reedited by now), but there is a lot, lot more we can add: history, maps of the Mexican states by GDP and HDI, graphs of GDP growth, sections on trade and integration... And all the pictures you have will probably fit in there. Let me know what you think. --the Dúnadan 06:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the picture. What do you think? I do have others of Fundidora...
This is the picture. What do you think? I do have others of Fundidora...
Hari Seldon 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you post a couple more of Fundidora before we decide? Btw, so what do you think of expanding Economy of Mexico? --the Dúnadan 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a different way we can share pictures? Its just that I have like 5 or 10 and would not like to waste wikipedia space on "deciding" which picture to use.
Today was my first day of classes. Tomorrow I'll take a look at Economy of Mexico and we'll get to work.
Hari Seldon 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

fairy tales and folk stories

could someone put a list of folk stories and fairy tales of mexico for me please

La llorona
Los Niños Heroes
The Mexican national team will one day win the FIFA World Cup
Mexico is a first world nation
Mexico City is the center of the universe
Government will solve all of the people's problems
Government involvement in the economy protects consumers
Government should give people work and pay for all their needs. People have the right to happiness (instead of the pursuit of happiness)
Hari Seldon 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph "Méjico".

I'm opening a discussion to see the convenienience of adding the spelling variant "Méjico" in the introductory paragraph. We all know that "México" is recommended in the most prestigious dictionaries and even the Real Academia de la Lengua Española recommends the use of "México" and all its derivatives instead of "Méjico".

Also, this spelling variant is not as used as before and this issue was already discussed in a previous debate. Please see the Archive of this Talk Page.

My proposal is not to include it in the introductory paragraph, because the issue is already treated in the Origin of the Name section.

Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not about what is recommended; it is about what is a matter of verifiable fact. Please note that two -- actually three -- authoritative English sources upfront (Columbia x 2, Merriam-Webster) have listed the alternate Spanish rendition as being legitimate. While it may be infrequenyly used, nothing has been presented to indicate that it is invalid ... particularly in Spain. And 2 million online instances of Méjico is not insignificant. I'm open to adding 'rarely' upfront (if this can be sourced, above and beyond the indisputable prominenence of México in all contexts), but I see little reason why information like this needs to be removed.Corticopia 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


The following is a quoted message from user Hajor, in the previous debate about "Méjico":

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)''

Thanks, AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything, This supports just the relative use/appearance of said terms online, not the reasons for excluding the alternate version as cited in a variety of English print publications. Corticopia 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So Corticopia what you're saying is that you're not convinced that the BIG majority of the people use the term Mexico instead of the word Mejico?...cuz according to you "it's just the relative use/appearance of said terms online"... so you don't believe it... I mean... no comment. You also mentioned that many of the English publications do spell it like that... could you open Microsoft Word and write down Mejico, as you can see the word doesn't even exist, and this is the english wikipedia just so you know.

Oh and Corticopia did you know that many people in other English-speaking nations have such a variety of names for calling the Americans, but we don't mention them in the US article right? Supaman89 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying the prevalence of the term -- I merely seek to add more information (and cited at that) rather than less. Indicating the alternate version in Spanish (the majority tongue in Mexico) is noted as such in a number of English volumes. None of the country articles indicate versions of the country's name in a language that it shouldn't. Corticopia 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that Corticopia is not saying that "Méjico" is more used than "México". He isn't saying that "México" is incorrect, either. He simply is saying that "Méjico" exists (which it does), and that it is used, even if rarely, so much that it appears in 3 reliable, verifiable sources in English, and appears in numerous instances in Google. This is not irrelevant.
Note: "it is sourced" does not mean "it is widely used", and "it is verifiable" doesn't mean "big majority use the term".
So, since the term "Méjico" exists, and it can be sourced and verified, I think it obvious that the term should stay in the article.
Having said that, I don't think that it is necessary for it to stay in the introduction. You are right in pointing out, the term is not widely used, and, according to Alex, the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española can confirm that (too bad that, as usual, he doesn't give us the reference to verify it). But I believe him because I am assuming good will, and because I happen to have that experience.
Because of the above, I propose that the term "Méjico" stays, but not in the introduction, rather in a different subsection about the name of the country.
Hari Seldon 04:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We must beware of not abusing the use of "sources". It seems that if anything can be "sourced" then it must be added to the article. Can't we rate, classify or evaluate our sources? I mean, a certain user so insists in using his particular source when referencing the usage of North America in the English language (while minimizing other English sources, which I even offered to scan), and yet he ignores the ultimate source of the Spanish Language (RAE) and justifies the inclusion of a word based on number of occurrences on Google and other reputable non-normative sources.

If I can provide a "source" in French, written by a famous political scientist, that happens to contradict, distort, or give a wrong interpretation of the American constitution and we are writing an article about the First Amendment, which source is normative? Should the French source be used or should we use the constitution itself? Why do we minimize the ultimate institution of the Spanish language based on common usage on the internet, or based on what happens to be reported in English "authoritative" sources (in everything except the Spanish language)? I wonder, who should we believe, Colliers' editors who list the alternative as legitimate, or the Spanish institution that establishes the norms and determines what is legitimate, normative or recommended and what is not in the first place? [11]. And, above all, if the user has defended the English usage of North America [since this is an encyclopedia in English, not Spanish] and based on his highly reputable source, then, by the same logic, a non-recommended, out-of-date variant of a name in another language shouldn't be included in the introduction, based on RAE, the ultimate normative source, or should it? Perhaps the best place for that is Mexico#Origin_and_history_of_the_name. At least, that is my opinion.

--the Dúnadan 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not an abuse of sources, nor have I ignored yours: I merely point out that the alternate version is noted in a number of reputable English publications. If you'd like to accuse me of an abuse of sources, feel free, but I will ignore such arguments without further consideration.
That being said, it should also not be given undue weight (which I concede). Thus, can we not include it in the introduction as before but predicate it with 'rarely', with a footnote to usage details? This does appear to be dealt with in a dedicated section (which previously escaped me), but it can probably be enhanced (which probably explains why it escaped me). Perhaps this needs to be refactored into a dedicated article and reframed as a briefer section in this one -- e.g., Canada's name? Corticopia 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. NPOV clearly states that all points of view must be equally represented. I think that the most NPOV solution would be to not include "Méjico" in the introduction, but put it someplace else with proper context (meaning, explaining that it is neither official, nor widely used). If you can source RAE, or other sources, then it should be included. The problem is that I keep hearing about "other" sources, but don't see them in the article being referenced. I know they exist, but I am simply to busy to add them myself. This is Alex's and Supaman's issue, and I recommend that they add them.
Hari Seldon 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all the word doesn't exist in english, there might be some english articles that for some reason spell it like that, but at the end the term doesn't exist, it's like the word "United Statian", even thought it is not a real word in the english language, if you google it, you'll find a lot of results, but we're not gonna include it just because of that right?

And about the RAE (Real Academia Española), I couldn't put some links because it keeps the same address at the top http://www.rae.es/ however if you do a lil research the term Mexico has more than 50 results (I didn't count them all) and the term Mejico as only 3, but also if you go to this section http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/ and look up for both words, it doesn't include the term "Mejico". Supaman89 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, Supaman! Did you know that RAE is also in print? Did you know that wikipedia is not a "link-only" referenced encyclopedia? Did you know you could reference MLS style as well? (In fact, I think this is preferrable).
You can reference from books in wikipedia. Let that not be an excuse. Just add the darn reference to the article and let it be the end of it!
By the way, I did look up both words:
"Méjico": "la palabra Méjico no esta en el diccionario" (this may look indicative that the term is officialy -though perhaps not coloquially- out of use in spanish, however...)
"México": "V., anona de México" (redirects to anona, "Árbol de la familia de las Anonáceas"), "té de México" (redirects to té, "Arbusto del Extremo Oriente"), "unto de México" (redirects to unto, Mexican usage, "m. coloq. Dinero, y especialmente el que se emplea para sobornar.")
In short, neither word was founf in RAE to have a definition, so this doesn't necessarily mean that RAE is officially discontinuing the word Méjico, however implicitly it is done.
Any other search in RAE's tools did not indicate anything else conclusive.
I'm sorry supaman, you will have to get better with the sources.
Though, I am sure they exist! Keep looking!
Hari Seldon 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, didn't you read my previous comment and relevant external links!?!? I already gave you the direct link to RAE's Mexico entry and recommendations! --the Dúnadan 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah man, I missed it, I'm sorry, Link well... as you can see it's recommended to use the word "Mexico" instead of "Mejico", the spelling with the "J" is pretty much just a reference on it should be pronounced, so people won't be confused, but they strongly recommend to spell it with and "X". Supaman89 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Supaman: nobody is arguing that "México" is not the recommended form of spelling the name of the country.
However, notice that the reference says "en España, las grafías usuales hasta no hace mucho eran Méjico, mejicano", ("Until not very long ago, in Spain, the usual writing were 'Méjico' and 'mejicano').
This is not to be ignored. Méjico exits and existed and is still referenced in some renowned books in the English language.
My proposal remains: have only México in the introduction, and add "Méjico" with the appropriate explanation someplace else in the article, but not delete it altogether. This will be NPOV, keep the article current, and also incorporate all sourced material (RAE and Webster alike).
Hari Seldon 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat concur and concede: as noted above, perhaps the alternate rendition can be included upfront, followed by 'rarely' with links explaining this? Alternatively, add something to the first section of the article, much like Canada's name and move much of that content to a dedicated subarticle. Corticopia 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I can read, everybody agree with my initial proposal (but Corticopia): Not to include the spelling variant "Méjico" in the introduction, but in the subsection about the name. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have not yet commented on my suggestion, so this isn't a done deal just yet. As well, please do not try to expedite a 'consensus' when you could not accept 'southern North America' in its original form, which all commenting editors but you supported. Corticopia 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I have to say that you guys didn't read my comment at all. You guys not only missed the link to RAE's entry on Mexico, but you also missed the point that there is a subsection already written in the article, but it is located at the bottom in this section. That section explains the consonant shift phenomenon from x (sh) to j, and why writing toponyms with the old spelling is recommended (even if it doesn't coincides with contemporary pronunciation). Most of all, it already includes the alternative spelling. I think that section could be improved and polished, but I can't see how it could be expanded to create a dedicated subarticle. I think it elaborates enough. It has always been that way, before this discussion started, and that is why I saw no need on adding unnecessary stuff to the introduction. --the Dúnadan 01:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dúnadan, there's no need to put it in the introduction, and as he said, it is already been mentioned at the bottom of the page. Supaman89 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a non-issue...
What IS an issue is the fact that there are no sources to reference and verify any information in said sub-section. There is where my proposal differs. I am not talking about adding a new sub-section. I am talking about adding sources to the already existing sub-section. The RAE source that Dunadan provided explains it perfectly, almost word by word as it is written in the menctioned subsection. It is only a matter of adding the reference link. That should be the end of it.
The sub-section says "The Real Academia Española states that both spellings are correct, and most dictionaries and guides recommend México first, and present Méjico as a variant." this is great. The problem is that it does not have a reference link so that the user con confirm that the Real Academia actually states that.
Then, immediately afterwards, the article says "Today, even outside of the country, México is preferred over Méjico by ratios ranging from 15-to-1 (in Spain) to about 280-to-1 (in Costa Rica). X is also used in the local placenames "Oaxaca" and "Xalapa" or former territories like "Texas"; in places like "Xochimilco", however, the x represents a /ʃ/.", a source for this would also be useful.
Finally, I notice that the edit war about the introduction is still going on. This is a shame. We are supposed to be improving the quality of the article, not denigrating the country's name by showing that our so-called "nationalists" can't stand the scrutiny of references, and that the editors of this page would rather play shameful parts than concede and reach consensus...
Hari Seldon 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hari in taht this edit war is a shame. But I blame both parties for it. References can be found for both positions, and neither is willing to compromise. --the Dúnadan 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I would say, though, that there is more than enough information to create a dedicated subarticle about the name. If there's one for Canada, for example, there can be one for Mexico. I still maintain Méjico should should be noted in the introduction as an alternate in Spanish (with 'rarely'), that section moved up in the article (and I wonder if it was moved down precisely to minimise its utility given its content, as other articles seem to place content about nomenclature upfront), and source everything as Hari indicates.
As for the intro, it's regrettable but I can only ask the other editors who keep reverting to explain why the current version of the introduction -- which is the one I've restored and incorporates everything discussed on this talk page -- is of issue; if passable, this shouldn't be an issue. I have outlined above in numerous spots why the other version is an issue, and this was complicated by the 'inspired' edits to the intro of the editor who instigated this morassdiscussion. Corticopia 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just can't believe that the same person who had given a lecture about not judging the motivations behind other user's edits, now judges the motivation of another user saying "[the section] was moved precisely to minimize its utility given its content". I can't assume anything about why they prefer a distinct order, and why they put this section at the end. I mean, the fact that other articles put it at the beginning doesn't mean we should do it here, as if it was a rule, unless everybody agrees. Just as I said before, the fact that the US article doesn't say it is located in central North America doesn't mean we shouldn't say Mexico is in southern North America in this article; that is how I defended the editor's inclusion of that adjective. I believe we must not be ambivalent in our criteria when dealing with different issues. If we uphold "authoritative" [or normative] sources above all others [which we might choose to ignore], we uphold them for all cases [and RAE is the authoritative source]. If we ask not to judge motivations behind our own edits, we do it for all cases. I haven't changed my opinion: I agree with Hari, nothing else needs to be added at the introduction concerning the alternative spelling of Méjico. There is already a subsection that deals with the issue, and if the concerned editor wishes to elaborate on the subject, he can create a separate article, if he deems it appropriate. But please do not make this trivial issue another storm in a glass of water. --the Dúnadan 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I might create just an article, but I said "I wonder" if the naming section was moved down due to the controversy of its content and as many other articles have similar naming sections upfront. Do not misrepresent. You know, I say again you really need to articulate your commentary more judiciously: if you do not wish to create another 'storm', turn the tap off. And that's it. Corticopia 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why the subsection was moved downward. Perhaps it is because information about the nations history, geography, economy, demographics and culture are more interesting or more useful to the reader than information about the name.
In any case, for Spanish words and Spanish-origin names, the "Real Academia Española" IS the authorative source. The source says that it was "used until recently", which implies that it is no longer in use, at least in Spanish language countries.
Corticopia, you are free to create the article if you want, but I would suggest that if you are going to do it, then focus on more than just the "Méjico" controversy. The nation's name is far richer than that.
And I agree with Dunadan that all parties concerned were/are shameless in the edit war. That is why I walked away from it. I continue to urge everyone to stop and to reach consensus by conceding and negotiating. There are no winners in wikipedia, and our goal should not be to "win", but to create better articles.
Hari Seldon 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, I do believe you also need to articulate your comments more judiciosly, especially after your recent edit on your own comment, in which you adeed "to create another storm", like if I had originally created the first one. I didn't engage in 3RR and I offered a mediated solution (with scanned sources) which you rejected. I gave up. In this particular issue in hand, I guess I misinterpreted your comment "moved to minimize its utility" when you actually meant "move down due to controversy", or did I? Look, sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. I have defended your position or proposals several times, and I have objected to your proposals at other times. But it seems you don't like when we disagree with you. We are here because we believe in this project of universal knowledge, not because we want to prove we are always right. And we have to learn to agree to disagree and to compromise on several ocassions. Sure, everything needs to be referenced and only that which can be proven should stay, and not mere opinions or hearsay, but referenced facts. Now, how we present information, should the introduction say this, or that first, or should we include it in another section [as long as everything is said in the article, NPOV] its a matter of taste, to which we agree by consensus and compromise.Let's do that. For the sake of the harmony of this project, please, let's all turn the tap off and have a positive, constructuve attitude. --the Dúnadan 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can agree to disagree. I've no issue with disagreement per se, and particularly well reasoned ones, but I take partial issue with your 'gradiloquence' that (whether intentional or not) provokes, and does not evoke, commentary. Hari Seldon has not done that, and I commend him for riding the storm: for instance, when you frame my arguments as "lecture" and comment in a condescending manner, your perspective/commentary is that much less compelling. In addition, when you frame discussion as 'another storm in a glass of water' (not instigated by me, I might add), merely saying that it's an exaggeration is sufficient. Moreover, please return to my original edits -- before this lengthy discussion began -- and tell me that they are truly contraversial ... yet look what has arisen. Lastly, in summary: your sources were not 'rejected' (and they still are not, even though mine have been challenged throughout and reverted/reframed by other editors at whim), but your argumentation surrounding those sources may be. Anyhow, I apologise if any of my commentary has been misconstrued, and will hereafter limit my comments to the topics at hand, since others are detracting us from improving the article.
I have already conceded, largely, regarding the alternate rendition: I still believe that it can be properly framed in the intro (though won't press this) and that a dedicated subarticle regarding all aspects of the name be created (essentially copy content in this article and move it there, summarise herein). As for where the section about the name should be, it wouldn't be the first time content has been moved down (in this or other venues) to either reduce a topic's prominence (and there's nothing wrong with that, considering other content) or avoid contention. That is not my point: most of the the country articles appear to have this content upfront, and I wonder what the rationale was for its current placement.
Anyhow, I will also turn the tap off, since at this point the proverbial glass you speak of appears more to be half-empty. Do what you will. Corticopia 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Dúnadan, Corticopia, this is getting a little bit too personal... Shouldn't we be focusing on the article?
Why don't we just settle the matter with a vote?
Hari Seldon 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Hari -- yes, we should be focusing on the article: given the time and effort involved in discussing items (sometimes repetitively) on this talk page, this has been difficult. I'm unsure if a vote will yield a different result than what is apparent: not to include the alternate rendition in the introduction of the article. I've already conceded that, and I'm somewhat fine with this, but the current content needs to be refactored somehow. I'm unsure if the other edits to the introduction necessitate a vote -- as it seems stable for now, with what I think was a consensus (or at least indifference) regarding 'southern North America' until recent edits that casted doubt on who supports what and where precisely -- so perhaps we should keep our fingers crossed for now. If others support a vote, though, I will participate. Corticopia 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I have to say is I agree with Hari and Dunadan: not to add anything to the intro. It was what I initially proposed, so it's ok with me. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on voting, if necessary. Just remember that consensus dose not mean unanimity. We can still reach a rough consensus in which all opinions are expressed for sensitive or controversial issues, and all are taken into account in the final version. Before voting, though, we can poll; say three or four[or more] possible solutions which may combine different NPOV proposals in different ways, instead of voting amongst only two extreme versions. That way, we will not risk falling into a false dichotomy. --the Dúnadan 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Before continuing discussion, I urge for someone to call an admin and ask for this page to be protected. This edit war has gone for too long! Hari Seldon 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that this edit war has gone for too long, it's not my fault though, I'm just reverting Corticopia's changes, cuz he keeps on going with the Mexico/Central America thing. Supaman89 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Supaman, grow up:
1) It doesn't matter who's fault is this because, this is not personal... or at least, it shouldn't be.
2) Having said that, this edit war has been caused by users who have refused to make concessions, refused to reach consensus, and refused to leave the article alone while this was discussed. The behavior is inexcusable and must stop. i am sorry to say this, but all editors, including me, but also you, Alex, Corticopia, Dunadan, and more recently, SqueakBox have engaged in this shameful behavior. It has to stop.
Lets just leave the article as is for the weekend, get some proposals in, and vote. Lets ust END this now.
Hari Seldon 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested this page to be fully protected to prevent more violations of 3RR. But, just for the record, neither Hari nor I have engaged in 3RR. --the Dúnadan 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wasnt edit warring either, just trying to help. I agree all editors involved should stop for a couple of days, though, SqueakBox 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox I know that you were just trying to help, as for myself, I compromise not to edit the article until we resolve anything. Supaman89 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if any of you have seen it before, nor the influence it can have in wiki... but britannica has the alternative spelling "Méjico" in the very first paragraph of its México article. Anyways... in my opinion, it would be ok to just put it in the "origin name" sections as the main language of this articles is not spanish, but it's a shame to embrace in an editing war just because of that, Méjico is part of our origins, just like the name of Téjas and a lot of places and names which are nowadays written differently. For me, it's not important enough to put it in the first paragraph (at least not for the english language version) but I wouldn't mind seeing it there, just will anybody cede so this can be unlocked? greetings.. Aldoman 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who are debating (instead of attacking the other party) understand that "Méjico" is referenced widely. I am not proposing its elimination.
However, another authoritative source, Real Academia Española, who is far more authoritative than Britannica, states that "Méjico" is no longer in use. Therefore, why settle with being an encyclopedia as good as Britannica when we can be a better one?
It is still my opinion that Méjico should go in the "origin of the name" sub-section, and that this sub-section doesn't necesarily need to be in the front. There are things that are far more interesting about this country than its name (like its history, or its culture, or even, its economy).
And, I agree, lets reach consensus as soon as possible. Hari Seldon 02:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

States

Once the page is unprotected, we should change the list of the states of the federation. The Federal District is numbered as the 32nd state of the Union. This is wrong, the Federal District it is not a state, but a... federal district. Moreover, Mexico city is not the capital of the Federal District; Mexico City is the Federal District. (see both the 44th article of the constitution and the Statute of Government of the Federal District). --the Dúnadan 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the Name

Man, I think the "History of the Name" section, is just WAY TOO LONG, probably the longest or one of the longest of all the articles in wikipedia, I definitely think we should make it smaller, maybe one or two SMALL paragraphs, like in pretty much any other country. Supaman89 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This could be due to the fact that the name has one of the most interesting histories of all nations. It can be shortened by improving the writing style and by referencing sources to verify some statements.
Overall, the following should stay:
  • The Aztec origin of the name
  • The origin of the "x" in the word, and how the term "Méjico" is no longer in use, though it was once an acceptable way of naming the country in spain. (Cite RAE).
  • Information about other place names where the "x" remains (Texas, Oaxaca, etc...)
  • The nahuatl name of the country, and if possible, perhaps a few other ways the country is named in other indigenous languages.
Hari Seldon 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know how much of a patriot I am, but I have to be impartial, and saying that the history of the name of Mexico is the most interesting of all, just doesn't seem fair, nor correct, all countries have a story on how and why they were named like that, and Mexico is not different from any of them, I bet the Chinese, Japanese, Germans, etc. would love to spend two pages talking about the history of their names, but they only spend a couple of lines, 2 paragraphs as much, so I strongly support the idea of summarizing the section. Supaman89 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have to say that whatever they decide to do in other articles should not be our guideline. If the story of a name is truly relevant, they will include a section, in spite of what the Chinese, Japanese, Germans want to do. --the Dúnadan 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Amidst everything else, I previously suggested that one could move all of the information in that section into a dedicated subarticle (e.g., Canada: Origin and history of the name / Canada's name) without losing anything while building it, and summarizing it into a paragraph or two in this article. Also, most other articles have this information upfront, which is also indicated for the lead section in the country wikiproject.

However, no progress can be made until other items are resolved beforehand. Corticopia 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, I have created Etymology of the name Mexico. I essentially copied the content from the name section in this article to that one, with minor edits, while borrowing the introduction from List_of_country_name_etymologies#M. It needs much work but is a start. Enjoy! Corticopia 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead section refers to the format and content of the introductory paragraph (therein called "lead section") before the first headline, and not to the "etymology of the name" section (or headline). That is, there is no rule stating that the etymology section (if it exists) should be located at the beginning or at the end. Personally, I wouldn't mind a separate section about the origin of the name being located at the beginning if it can be summarized in one single paragraph, and the rest be said in the article that Corticopia has created. If this section, however, is left just as it is, or if it is expanded then, in my opinion, it should be located at the end of the article. --the Dúnadan 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification: perhaps the wikiproject should address this. In any event, perhaps paralleling in microcosm (what should be in) the lead section, many articles appear to have naming information in a section upfront (e.g., Afghanistan, Canada, Czech Republic, France, India, Iran, Republic of Ireland, Italy, ...), a few after (e.g., Mexico, Russia). Anyhow, this is mere commentary and not preference or argument; however, I would think that, given the new etymology article, the section in this article can nowsoon be summarized and pruned significantly. Corticopia 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just finished a radical restructuring of Etymology of Mexico (I also changed the name, since I thought "Etimology of the name..." was rather redundant). Its too late now, tomorrow I will write a small summarized paragraph as a proposal to replace the "Origin of the name" section here. Then we can decide whether it should be placed at the beginning or at the end of the article. --the Dúnadan 07:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see your proposal, as for the location of the name I've no problem in putting it at the top, so you've got my vote. Supaman89 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work. As for the article title/move, I considered just 'Etymology of x' but thought that might be confusing and unclear -- e.g., 'history and usage of words for all things Mexico'. I'd prefer/support an upfront section regarding the name, and am eager to see the rewrite. Thanks. Corticopia 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All we have to do is to move the "History of the Name" section, right on the top of the page, then summarize it into one or two paragraphs, and that's it. About the Mejico thing, we know that the word is no longer in use, therefore we shouldn't include a word that technically doesn't exist anymore, so let's just wait for Dúnadan, to show his proposal. Supaman89 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, the word still exists. It is only rarely used (if ever)... All important information can be summarized into a paragraph. Lets see some proposals. Now, summarization should be important, since I believe we will just add a link to the new article, right?
Hari Seldon 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes: it is a rarely used -- or disused -- variant, but it exists nonetheless and should be noted as such. I would imagine one or two paragraphs living in this article (wherever) with a link to the detailed etymology subarticle. Corticopia 21:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


OK, I just finished editing Etymology of Mexico. Please review it. Now, here is my proposal for the subsection:

Etymology
After the independence of the viceroyalty of New Spain it was decided that the country was to be named after its capital city, whose original name of foundation was Mexico-Tenochtitlan, in reference to the name of the Nahua Aztec tribe, the Mexica. The Nahuatl word Mexiko or Mexihko ['me∫ihko] is composed of the root Mexi and the suffix -co that means place or city. The origin of the name of the tribe is rather obscure. Some argue that it derives from the Nahuatl word Mexitl a secret name for the god of war and patron of the Mexica, Huitzilopochtli, in which case Mexico means "place where Mexitl lives". Another hypothesis suggest that it derives from the words metztli ("moon"), xictli ("navel", "center" or "son"), and the suffix -co ("place"), thus it means "Place at the center of the moon" or "Place at the center of the Lake Moon", in reference to Lake Texcoco at the middle of which Mexico City was built.
The name of the city was transliterated to Spanish as México with the phonetic value of the x in Medieval Spanish, which represented the voiceless postalveolar fricative (/ʃ/). This sound, as well as the voiced postalveolar fricative (/ʒ/), represented by a j, evolved into a voiceless velar fricative (/x/) during the sixteenth century, which led to the use of the variant Méjico in many publications, most notably in Spain, whereas in Mexico, México was the preferred spelling. In recent years the Real Academia Española, the institution that regulates the Spanish language, determined that the normative recommended spelling in Spanish is México, and the majority of publications in all Spanish-speaking countries now adhere to the new normative, even though on rare occasions the disused variant might still be found. In English, the x in Mexico does not represent neither the original nor the current sound, but the double consonant /ks/.

Well, I tried to summarize Etymology of Mexico but I couldn't do it in one single paragraph. Let me know what you guys think. --the Dúnadan 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I., Today, Sunday February 4, 2007, Enrique Krauze writing about the Mexican constitution in Reforma writes the following:
"Dices tú -concluye Valverde- que la Constitución modernizó a Méjico, instaló la tolerancia en materia religiosa y lo abrió al mundo; pero ¡a qué costo! A punta de bayoneta y de metralla"
Notice the usage of the controversial term "Méjico"? This man is a Mexican writing in a Mexican media inside of Mexican territory. There, rarely, very rarely, but the term is still used.
Now, granted, Krauze is quoting someone else, but the point is that Krauze decided not to modernize the term for his readers in Reforma. Why? Because despite the fact that it is greatly out of use, RAE says that "México" is merely preferred, it doesn't state that "Méjico" is now gramatically incorrect.
Please consider this when writing. Let reason come before supposed patriotism!
Hari Seldon 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, still I think the paragraph above does consider that, especially the second paragraph. For example it states that RAE's normative recommended spelling is México (it doesn't say it is the only and correct spelling) and that "on rare occasions the disused variant might still be found". --the Dúnadan 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you, Dunadan, I am merely providing examples for those supposed patriots who argue that "Méjico" no longer exists... Hari Seldon 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected: let's reach a consensus

In spite of the fact that we now have a proposal and a separate article dealing with the etymology and the disused variant spelling of the name of the country, I believe we are diverting our attention to a secondary issue. This page was protected because of an edit war in the introductory paragraph (not the etymology section) and it will not be unprotected until a rough consensus is reached. Please note that this does not imply unanimity. I had said that I wouldn't participate in this particular debate anymore, but I believe it is important that we reach an agreement soon, so that we can continue editing and improving this article in other areas.

We must endeavor to reach a consensus regarding both the controversial issue of "southern North America" and "central American countries of..." and the inclusion of the disused spelling in the introductory paragraph. Hari suggested voting, yet before doing so, I think we can use polling to avoid a false dichotomy and extreme positions.

Corticopia I fully understand that precision and NPOV are extremely important. But I believe that the introductory paragraph can briefly summarize the important details whereas the appropriate subsection can deal with all precision and can fully explain the different usages of the terms North America and Central America. Just as we might not need to include the disused spelling Méjico in the introduction, but we can include it in the relevant subsection, we might not need to specify the different versions of North America vis-à-vis Mexico in the introduction, but in the Geography subsection.

Supaman and Alex, while this might be a sensitive issue for you guys, please note that unless you provide a source that clearly states that the phrase "southern North America" is widely recognized amongst scholars as a racist qualifier with the intention of excluding Mexico from the subcontinent for some obscure racist reason, we must consider this term to be a mere neutral geographical or geopolitical term. As such, let's leave all personal opinions and accusations of motivations behind us, and focus solely on the academic value of the proposals.

Poll

POLLING CLOSED, please do not edit this section

DEADLINE: February 8, 2007 at 00:00 (midnight) (i.e. February 7 at 11.59 is the last minute you have to participate). It just dawned on me that we all live in different time zones. Therefore, let's wait until February 8, 2007 at 12:00 PM at GMT (UTC+0); that way all time zones (if there is an editor in the mid-Pacific) would have reached the deadline. the Dúnadan 06:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Having said the above, these are the alternatives that have been proposed (options for polling could be: object, support, indifferent). After all opinions are expressed, then we can see if a consensus can be reached. That is, this is not a voting procedure per se, but a tool to reach a rough consensus. Please note that these proposals refer only to the introductory paragraph. The Geography section will be as precise as it needs to be and all possible definitions amongst geographers will be included (NPOV).

Please express your opinion on ALL proposals (object, support, indifferent).

  • Mexico is located in North America and is bounded on the south by Central America... [Mexico is North America and never Central America: not fully precise, and possibly POV]
  • Mexico is located in southern North America and is bounded on the south by Central America... [more precision: Mexico is in the southern region of NA, but it is not Central America, which might lead to POV]
  • Mexico is located in southern North America and is bounded on the south by the Central American countries of... [precision plus the possibility of the alternative usage of North America is implicitly allowed, and the fact that 12% of Mexico is indeed located in CA]
  • indifferent --the Dúnadan 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • indifferent (as a conciliation only) Corticopia 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • object Hari Seldon 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • object Aldoman 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • support SqueakBox 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Mexico is located in southern North America and is bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala... [same as above]
  • Mexico is located in North America and is bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala [allows for the definition of North America all the way to Panama but does not exclude a possible subregion of Central America of which Mexico could be [partially] part of]

Discussion

Whichever of these alternatives is chosen (and all users are welcome to add another alternative) we should elaborate on the Geography section and clearly specify that

  • Mexico is indeed geographically in the southern portion of North America, just as Spain in in southern Europe
  • 12% of the territory is geographically in CA in spite of the fact that it is almost fully located in the North American plate
  • Geopolitically the most common definition of the subcontinent includes Mexico, but other definitions exist and have been used in the English language. We will not discuss the "intentions" or "motivations" of those alternative definitions (this is not the place to do so) but simply state that they exist, in spite of the fact that:
  • in most of the Spanish-speaking world Mexico has always been considered North America and never Central America and most importantly:
  • Mexicans have never considered the country to be located in Central America, and Central Americans have never considered Mexico to be a Central American country, and do not include it in the postal usage of the abbreviation CA (Central America) [In Central American countries, after the name of the country, either CA or Centroamérica is almost always added].

I believe that NPOV can be achieved in the Geography subsection by including all possibilities without judging inentions (POV) even if the introductory paragraph is simpler.

Fortunately, the article has been protected, so there will be no further editing until a consensus is reached. Let's try our best to do so as soon as possible. --the Dúnadan 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and efforts. Actually, the appropriate subarticles of Central America, North America, Americas, etc. can and should clarify the usage/distinctions between the multiple terms (as this editor indicated in his revert). The terms mean different things to different people and nothing exists in isolation; to put it another way: it is not just about what Mexicans or the Spanish-speaking world may nor may not consider themselves to be. Many English sources, if not most indicate that North America is not a subcontinent or a region but a continent, with Central America a southern region of it. Also note that continents are defined by continental shelves and shorelines, not by tectonic plates. Anyhow, this is something that needn't necessarily be dealt with in this article: I agree that much more detail can be added to the 'Geography of Mexico' section and subarticle.
That being said, there's little reason to not be more precise in the intro (if only mildly) while doing so impartially -- given what either side presents regarding usage/definitions. Thus, my choices for the intro are the last two (in no particular order; votes added above): the first of these is conciliatory yet valid, and the last of these two is particularly ambivalent regarding regions. There you go -- thanks! Corticopia 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree: The terms mean different things to different people and nothing exists in isolation; to put it another way: it is not just about what Mexicans or the Spanish-speaking world may nor may not consider themselves to be nor about what Americans and Canadians consider their region to be. I believe we must explain the differences briefly in the Geography section. --the Dúnadan 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one comment: it may not just be limited to what many Americans and Canadians believe, if the above (basically British) sources are to be considered/believed. (Use my talk page if you'd like to discuss this additionally.) Ta! Corticopia 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you're the only two who are discussing this issue, as you probably guessed I strongly support the first proposal, why?? because, we can mention that Mexico is located in southern North America in the second paragraph, just as Corticopia did right here, also we have to go with the majority of the people, and the majority of the people KNOWS that Mexico is in a region called North America that includes (Canada, USA and Mexico), and the only way to make that clear is by saying that it bounds at the south with Central America (Guatemala, Belize), the 3 other versions use the phrase "southern North America" in the first paragraph, and I already explained above why it has to go the second one, they also make it unclear to know if Mexico is part of Central America or not, and as we all know is not, people come to wikipedia to learn, if they thought that the United Mexican States, were located in Central America, then they'll learn that is not. Supaman89 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Central Americans have never considered Mexico to be a Central American country", says Duanadan. There is a historical reason for this too. Remember that Central America gained its independence from Mexico, For about 10 months, the countries in Central America were part of Mexico. And for about a year, the countries in Central America were one nation, the "United Provinces of Central America" until they all separated into independent nations.
Because of the complexity of the "12% of Mexico is in Central America" issue, I believe that this should be dealt in the Geography subsection, at lenght, and have the introduction as short and as precise as possible without controversial statements that require clarification (e.g., Mexico borders Central America, or "Central American nations"). As far as the Guatemala article shows at the time of this writing, someone in Guatemala still feels that Chiapas is a part of Guatemala that was retained by Mexico... So, technically, under that point of view, Mexico doesn't "border" Guatemala, but "owns a part of" that nation... The most reasonable NPOV would be to say that Mexico is bounded, and not bordered... This can be used in the introduction, and then a more detailed precision can be added in a sub-section.
What do you think?
Finally, and to address Supaman, it is ridiculous to discuss the "southern" North America. NPOV and verifiablity would indicate that the only option is to add "southern" in the introduction. There is nothing pejorative or negative about the fact and I see no logical reason why it should be removed from the introduction, after all, it is only 8 letters.
Hari Seldon 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Supaman would you please add your opinion in the appropriate proposals with the options support, indifferent and object? Also, please note the several usages of the term North America. One of the usages, like you said, includes Mexico. Others don't. In other words, a user that comes to wikipedia to learn will wrongly learn that Mexico is always geopolitically and geographically in North America; while it is true in most cases, it is not always the case, and it depends on the language, region, country or discipline (politics vs. geology). NPOV requires all alternatives to be equally represented. --the Dúnadan 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, to all users, please comment on the proposal for the Etymology section. --the Dúnadan 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, as for Chiapas and Guatemala. I didn't find anything claiming that Chiapas is considered part of the Guatemalan nation (I might have missed it). In any case, let's be wary not to confuse NPOV with the acceptance of all personal opinions. After all Chiapas seceded from Guatemala legally by referendum. If we accept the [personal] claim of Guatemala and Chiapas, then Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California are part of the Mexican nation which did not secede but were taken by war. Neither one (Chiapas and the American states) are considered territories under occupation. --the Dúnadan 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems the discussion is now not just between 'two'. :) Anyhow, to succinctly address both editors and make decisions: (1) You should both add choices and/or assert your choices above. (2) Added clarity aside, "bound(ed)" is effectively a synonym for "border(ed)" and I'm unsure whether that is a significant change. Indeed, Belize is also sometimes not included in CA; nonetheless, 'Central American countries' is intended to be a conciliation to a common viewpoint.
As well, I fully support an upfront 'Etymology' section in this article (once it's unprotected) of one or two paragraphs -- with notation of the alternate Spanish variant, etc. -- and with links to the dedicated subarticle Etymology of Mexico. Corticopia 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia: I already wrote a proposal for the Etymology section of two paragraphs. I just wanted the opinions of all users concerning the content of that proposal. See section above. --the Dúnadan 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah: thanks -- given the length of this page and the multiple contributions to it, I just noticed it. Other than some minor tweaks to reflect recent minor edits in the subarticle, it looks good. :) Thanks. Corticopia 03:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, if we just leave it as "North America" it could mean both, and then in the second paragraph we explain that geographically it is located in southern North America, like Corticopia did in the US article, but if we mention "southern" and we don't mention that it bounds at the south with central America, it'll automatically imply that Mexico is in Central America, you don't need to be a geographer to see that coming. --Supaman89

I didn't understand your comment at all. Moreover, I don't see how saying "southern North America" we imply that Mexico is in Central America. It would be equivalent to saying that if we write "southern Europe" we imply that Spain is in Africa. Moreover, it can be argued that Mexico, under certain definitions is partially in CA, which would make the first option POV. Could you please add your choice (support, indifferent, object) in the appropriate sections? This is not a voting procedure in which you choose one option. This is a poll in which you grade or qualify different proposals. --the Dúnadan 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I said that since we're saying that Mexico is in southern North America (even if it is in the second paragraph), we've got to mention that it's bounded at the south by Central America, cuz if we don't do so, it'll automatically imply that Mexico is located in Central America. cuz then people will think "Oh, so Mexico is in the south right?, and... it borders Guatemala and Belize, so... Mexico is a central american country" that's the impression people will get, and we don't wanna mislead them to wrong thoughts, do we?? DO WE??. Supaman89 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you don't want to mislead anyone. Therefore, you will not want anyone to think that in all possible definitions Mexico is bounded on the south by Central America. Because that would be POV. On some geopolitical and geographical definitions Mexico is indeed partially or totally a Central American country, whereas in others (possibly the majority in the Spanish language) it is totally a North American country. Given that you don't want to mislead anyone to think anything without reading the Geography section, I assume that you prefer not to say that it is bounded on the south by Central America. By saying it is bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala, or bounded to the south by the Central American nations of Belize and Guatemala, we offer the possibility of implicitly saying that there are diverse usages of the term "North America" without misleading anyone in implying that there is only one universal definition of North and Central America. Moreover, it would be NPOV to include all. --the Dúnadan 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Dunadan, Texas did secede, the other states were taken by war. Remember the Alamo?
At the time I checked the wording in said article implied that Chiapas was part of Guatemala... In any case, the point is that up until a few years ago (in this decade) Guatemala still had diferences with Mexico regarding the common border. Therefore, implying that Mexico borders Central America through Guatemala could be seen as a POV statement at best. Other POV issues exist with the wordings about the southern border. That is why I favor the "borders Guatemala and Belice" without any specification of which sub-continent/region option better. Explaining the precise issues in the Mexican southern border would simply be too extensive for an introduction. It would be best to discuss them in the geography section.
As for "southern North America", Supaman has a point: in one usage of the term "North America"(seen in Encarta online), "Central America" is seen as part of North America. Therefore, saying that Mexico is in "southern North America" may imply that Mexico, in whole or in part, is in Central America.
However, this is true. 12% of Mexico is in Central America. I don't want to make a statement about anyone's motivations, but I don't understand what is so wrong about saying that some of Mexico's territory is in Central America, particularly if it is true? Is Central America inferior to North America (or, for that matter, is Africa inferior to Europe)?
I see no problem with saying "southern North America" in the introduction, it is true, verifiable, and NPOV. Any further precision, such as the issues that Supaman arises, can be discussed in the geography sub-section at lenght.
Hari Seldon 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My point precisely, Hari, Texas seceded, so did Chiapas [not from Guatemala, by the way] from the United Provinces of Central America. Until very recently (1970s) the Texas-Mexico border was still in dispute (see: Boundary Treaty of 1970). Considering Chiapas to be part of Guatemala, for the sake of POV [bounded vs. bordered] would force us by logic to consider Texas to be part of Mexico, and the other states taken by war. My point is, I would think it would have been POV if and only if Chiapas was a disputed territory [like Gibraltar] or a territory under ocupation [like Western Sahara] before the UN and the international community. It is neither. Therefore, Chiapas is fully part of Mexico, just as Texas is fully part of the United States. --the Dúnadan 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing against saying that Chiapas is fully part of Mexico. I am only saying that territorial disputes still remain. My point is that this is a clear example that Mexico does not "border" Central America, if Chiapas could be considered part of the region. This is why I support simply saying that Mexico is bounded, or bordered by Guatemala and Belize, without precising anything in the introduction, and writing more details in the geography section.
Hari Seldon 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
We cannot please everyone, we either say that Mexico is in North America or in Central America, whichever we choose, we have to make it really clear to the viewer to know it and understand it, if we play with the words, people will get different interpretation of what the introduction says, and since the majority of the people, and both languages believe that Mexico is in North America, then we have to go with it, even if some people have a different a opinion, I'm sorry but again we can not please everyone, cuz then we won't make neither of em clear.
I agreed with the decision of saying "southern" but in the second paragraph not in the first one, Link, but since we're mentioning it, we also have to mention that it bounds/borders at the south by Central America, if simply say that it borders with Guatemala and Belize, it'd be like playing with the words, and people will misinterpret it and will think that Mexico is in Central America. Supaman89 17:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No Supaman, we cannot please everyone. That is why Wikipedia is not a democracy. We go with whats reliable and verifiable.
Mexico does not bound at the south with Central America. Perhaps if Chiapas and part of the State of Oaxaca where independente, this could be true. It is isn't. Mexico has states that are in Central America, and thus we cannot allow a lie to be printed in the introduction of an article that demands the greatest quality.
Again, Supaman, I don't see what your problem is. Part of Mexico (12%) is in Central America. Why is this fact so repugnant to you?
Hari Seldon 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Supaman we are not playing with words. It is a fact, Mexico is bounded on the south by Guatemala and Belize. We are not lying. What playing of words are you talking about? Moreover, we cannot choose to say that Mexico is North America or Central America, because you will find references to prove both versions. It is not for us to choose which one is right (i.e. original research). We simply state them both. People are not misinterpreting anything. But when people read it, if half of them "think that Mexico is in Central America" and half of them "think it is in North America" they are technically both right. So it will be WRONG to say it is only North America, and it will be WRONG to say it is only Central America. Therefore, we simply say that which is 100% true, and that which is ALWAYS RIGHT regardless of which definition of North America you use: Mexico is bounded on the south by Guatemala and Belize. Wow, I guess it can't get clearer than that, can it? --the Dúnadan 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation of northern, central and southern north america is much "easier" (for them) to define with the U.S. and Canada, but not with Mexico as there are lot of reliable sources and opinions in the matter but specially because of the fact that Mexico and the U.S. are not divided by a "straight" line such as a parallel like the U.S. and Canada, if we want to be "precise" then we would have the need to write that most of the country lies in southern north america because in the U.S. article it states (written as a fact) that all of the its states are in central N.A. so Chihuahua, Coahuila, Sonora, Baja California and half of Nuevo León are also part of central North America; And also change the introductory paragraph in the U.S. article. Therefore my support for the first proposal and objection of all the others.Aldoman 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

True, central and northern Mexico are North America under one definition (possibly the most extended) and the south-east is Central America. In other definitions that is not necessarily the case, and Mexico is either all or nothing North America. The fourth option avoids the fact that we have to pick a particular version. We can get into all details about the fact that 88% of Mexico is indeed in North America in the Geography Section. Oh, that addition about all the 48 contiguous states being in central North America is objectable: Texas has always been considered southern North America[12]. So, the US article would have to say that the US is in northern, central and southern North America. I have never heard any reliable source that states that Coahuila, Nuevo León, et al. are central North America, but if you can provide a source for that, we can add it to the number diverse definitions so far presented. If not, then we will stick to that which has been sourced. --the Dúnadan 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right, but as I said, that is what the "même" wikipedia's article about the United States say, if we reach a consensus between us and modify only Mexico's article it will be hurting the wikipedia as a whole having 2 articles that contradict themselves. So, in my humble point of view, either we are vague but true (because according to Oxford Reference North America goes all the way to almost the equator -You have to pay to access that source, http://www.oxfordreference.com-) and choose the first option OR engage into a discussion in the U.S. article and modify it accordingly so both articles agree in the definition and be precise about the central and southern north america portions of both countries. edit: Yes I know that then, my vote for the first option would be without basis, so I'm changing my vote accordingly. But I would like the article NOT to say that we lie in southern north america but that most of it does and change the american article accordingly Aldoman 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you will note that the challenge of noting the United States as being just in central North America was discussed above, since the country is so broad in area: the contiguous U.S. occupy much of the continent's central portion, Alaska is in the northwest, Hawaii is not even in North America proper but in the Pacific, etc.
It was also indicated previously that edits to that article needn't and shouldn't be tied to this article. So what I find more objectionable is this: Supaman89 first refuses to make said edits to this article until parallel edits were made to that article, despite the fact that Canada uses similar wording already ("northern North America"), and then -- after those edits were made, with citations of course -- another reason was found to engage in 'sophistry' and insist on doing so only if it's upfront. Well, please read the U.S. article again: the location of the U.S. and its constituents is now clearly placed in the first paragraph. Also note that these edits arose more out of a desire for precision (and commenting editors seem to not have difficult with it) but al so (since that article is way too long). The intro in that article may yet change again, but (again) should have little bearing on this article.
We are digressing: even 'south-central' is somewhat correct to describe Mexico's location in North America (as opposed to 'southeast' or 'southwest'); however, this isn't necessary (as any glance at a map will reveal): the verifiable fact that Mexico is in 'southern' North America (continent, subcontinent region, whatever) is neither inaccurate or biased and has numerous citations to support it. Let's put this another way: if editors are adamant in maintaining that America is just one continent -- and an option not previously addressed is to merely note that Mexico is in America -- then it can be said that Mexico occupies just a central or middle portion of America -- e.g., Middle America. Remember: in Wikipedia, it is not necessarily what is true, but what is verifiable and impartial. So, please let's stop going in circles, be decisive, and make up our minds. Corticopia 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
At what point does a verifiable fact is mere observation? True, we can determine that Mexico could be located somewhat in the middle, but I do not think we should base the accuracy of our article based on observations but on geographical sources, like the ones you provided. [I had originally disagreed on sourcing obvious facts, but then, this fact proved to be not that obvious]. Aldoman made a very interesting point: depending on the definition of North America, Mexico is in southern North America, or central North America [in spite of the fact of the existence of an subregion called Central America]. --the Dúnadan 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
At what point in time do we decide that most of the editors have been polled and that we are ready to move on? Are we going to debate this forever? Alex and Supaman have no incentive to continue the discussion, as it is their version that is presently posted. Hari Seldon 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. I think we need to wait a little more, to have other users participate (with the possibility of setting a specific deadline: say 8 February midday, or any other option). In spite of Supaman's arguments, he did not express any opinion on the poll (and I asked him twice to do so; if he didn't do it, it is because he does not wish to vote, or because he is not reading our comments thoroughly, in which case there is no point in continuing our discussion with him). As of now, we can see a strong objection to options (1) and (2) and a [weak] support for option (4). I agree with Aldoman in that we might need to review what was written in the US article, but whatever we do there should not be the basis of what we do here. Our concern should be the accuracy of our own article in the first place. Our lack of accuracy should never be justified by another lack of accuracy elsewhere.

Now, Aldoman has brought up a very interesting fact that I had overlooked. A definition of North America does go all the way down to Panama, in which case Mexico is not in southern North America. That is, Mexico is southern depending on which version we use. With a spirit of writing a NPOV introductory paragraph, I guess an alternative fifth option could be: "Mexico is located in North America and bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala". Again, this doesn't rule out the possibility that Mexico is [partially] in Central America, and that will have to be explained in the Geography section. Should we insert the fifth option in the poll then? --the Dúnadan 03:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most definitions of the North American continent indicate that it extends down to the Isthmus of Panama, including all or part of Panama. Anyhow, this does not at all invalidate that Mexico is in the southern portion of the continent, just as it doesn't invalidate that Central America is a southern region of the continent. Both can be true.
I am not quite sure if all possible definitions can coexist. For example, Texas has usually been considered "southern North America" but, even in publications in which this phrase comes out, the assumption is a restricted definition of North America that excludes Mexico. On the other hand, as you or someone else had pointed out, if we take the inclusive definition of North America all the way down to Panama, then Mexico is not necessarily on the southern region of it but in the middle. Finally, at least from the Encyclopedias I offered to scan, it is assumed that Mexico is southern North America under the [less] restricted definition of Can+US+Mexico. Now the definition of Central America, as I have seen it used does coexist with the definition of an all-inclusive North America [whether Mexico is part of it or not]. --the Dúnadan 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, what are you talking about? Mexico [13] AND Central America [14] are both located in southern North America, it just so happens that one is further south than the other. They are not mutually exclusive. Corticopia 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess that if we use this particular dictionary Mexico is "southern North America" and Central America is "at the southern portion of North America", and arguably it refers to the same region, so indeed they are not mutually exclusive. In any case, let me check the encyclopedias I was talking about [I have to go to the uni's library tomorrow], and see how they define Central America. If I recall properly when they refer to Mexico (southern North America) they excluded Central America implicitly from their definition. If that is so, and for the sake of NPOV I would slightly prefer the fifth option, but in any case I gave equal support to (3), (4) and (5). After all users express their opinions we can see which option gets the "strongest" support. That's the good thing about polling, since you can support more than one option, consensus could be reached more easily, whereas in an either-or voting, it is harder to agree. I think this has been a surprisingly good exercise. Congratulations to everybody. --the Dúnadan 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not even that particular dictionary: I've added another indicating the same thing, though I don't deny that some volumes may keep it simple (e.g., Britannica mentions just 'North America') or say something different. Anyhow, I still do not follow the logic above maintaining that 'Mexico is in southern North America' is POV. I mean: if we think there's any POV in saying that Mexico is in southern North America, then that logic could extend to saying that it is POV to indicate that it is in North America -- as opposed to just America(s). Thanks. Corticopia 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That logic will only make sense [as we had assumed and you pointed out by mere observation of the map] in an all-inclusive definition of North America that implies that Mexico is at the middle, not at the south. If all sources that mention an all-inclusive North America define southern North America as Mexico+CA, then you are right, saying 'Mexico is southern North America' will not be POV. Just let me check these books tomorrow to confirm. --the Dúnadan 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Corticopia 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyhow, I would ask that a reputable citation be provided to support the assertion that Mexico is in just central North America. The one to date ('south-central') doesn't negate other citations to the contrary. I see none, though I suppose this is true if one considers just longitude ... but that alone is imprecise. Corticopia 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyhow, while the simpler option you propose is a possibility, I'm indifferent to it and prefer slightly more precision ... in the intro and below. Corticopia 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the above, I would support the following wording:
Mexico is located in North America and is bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala...
Lets keep precisions that might necessitate too much wording due to POV in the geography section. What do you think?
BTW, Feb 8 is fine with me.
Hari Seldon 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the wording proposed by Dunadán and to explain further in the Geography section.Aldoman 03:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I added the fifth alternative. I set the deadline Feb 8 at midnight (that is, the last minute to express your opinion is Feb 7 at 11.59 PM) --the Dúnadan 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia: you say that you disagree with the proposal without "southern" and without "Central America" or "central american" nations because "'southern' is verifiable and accurate regardless of interpretation"
However, as stated before, a possible interpretation of "North America" would have the region end in Panama. If this was so, then "southern" will not be 100% "accurate" in this interpretation.
Sure, it is verifiable, but so are other points of view verifiable. The proposal of keep pov statements out of the introduction is simply to make sure it is short and most useful for the casual reader. After all, if the reader desires deeper clarification, he can go to the geography section of the same article to find all NPOV statements properly sourced.
Does this seem fair to you?
Alex, Supaman, please vote! Time is running out!
Hari Seldon 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems fair (hence my indifference, actually guarded support) for the simpler version; however, I don't think the above argument holds much water. Why? Even if the region 'ends' in Panama, that still doesn't mean Mexico or Central America are not located in the southern portion of the continent/region. The two are not mutually exclusive, it just means that one is more southerly than the other. I have addressed this above and provided sources to validate this; I don't see any sources above to validate Aldoman's argument, though (if so, please provide/point out). This is like saying that South Africa (the country), Namibia, Botswana, etc. are and cannot all be in the southern portion or region of Africa. If anything, Mexico is in the 'south(ern)' region of NA (and this holds true whether or not one considers all or part of Mexico to be in North America (continent or region)), while Central America also does but occupies the 'southernmost' portion.
Actually, the only instances where I believe Mexico and or Central America cannot be qualified as being in 'southern North America' are as follows:
  • (a) if one accepts that North America is considered to comprise just Canada and the U.S. (a not uncommon perception in English, which I don't necessarily agree with); and/or
  • (b) if one accepts that (the) America(s) comprise just a single continent, in which case both Mexico/Central America occupy a central or middle portion of the continent/region -- read: Middle America.
Thoughts? Thanks! Corticopia 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was busy doing some other stuff, anyhow I don't have much time right now, so if I had to choose, I would choose "'Mexico is located in North America and is bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala...", so there's my vote, BTW nice discussion guys, I’ll be absent for a couple of days, so just make your decision. Hope you decide what’s the best for the article :) Supaman89 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Review of a couple of publications

Like I had told Corticopia I would do, I made a review of a small number of encyclopedias in my university's library and online, and here's what I found:

  • Wordlmark Encyclopedia of the Nations (2001)
  • Mexico: located on the North American continent
  • No entry for Central America (after all this is an encyclopedia of nations not continents or regions), but Mexico is implicitly excluded from Central America in that the entries for the Central American countries explicitly state that they are Central American republics, whereas that of Mexico doesn't.
  • Encyclopedia of the World's Nations (2002)
  • Mexico: located on the North American continent
  • No entry for Central America (same as above), but Mexico implicitly excluded from CA. The entry for Guatemala reads: "Guatemala is located in Central America... it is the third largest nation in Central America" (i.e. after Nicaragua and Honduras, Mexico excluded).
  • World Geographical Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill (1995)
  • Mexico: located between the United States and Central America (explicit exclusion from Central America)
  • Latin American entry states that Central America geographically could include Mexico by considering the Gulf of Mexico a "Mediterranean Sea" but that the conventional definition of Central America refers only to that hinge that joins the North American and South American plates, and therefore Mexico is not included in Central America. (Tectonic plates are used then for the "conventional definition").
  • World Geography encyclopedia is made up of 19 volumes of the different regions of the world. There is no volume on North America, but separate volumes for the US and Canada. Mexico is included in the Central American volume, as part of the "Central American arc" (sic)
  • Columbia Gazetteer of the World
  • Mexico: located in southern North America
  • Central America: located in the southernmost region of North America, geographically CA starts at the isthmus of Tehuantepec, but it is composed of 7 republics (i.e. Mexico is excluded).
  • North America: includes all of the mainland and related offshore island lying N of the isthmus of Panama. Distinguishes between "Anglo-America" (Canada+US, with (largely) British/English roots) and "Middle America", the latter is composed of Mexico+republics of Central America+Caribbean.
  • Oxford Dictionary of the World (1999)
  • Central America: "the narrow strip of land to the south of Mexico linking North America and South America and including Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa rica, and Panama". This implicitly states that North America is Mex+US+Canada.
  • Mexico: "country in North America"
  • North America: "northern half of the American landmass, connected to South America by the isthmus of Panama..." (i.e. all-inclusive definition of North America). The rest of the entry briefly elaborates on US, Canada and Mexico, but only mentions Central America as Mexico's "...Central American neighbors to the south". This means that Central America is a region within North America to which Mexico does not belong.
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary [15]
  • Mexico: located in southern North America
  • Central America: the narrow southern portion of North America connecting with South America and extending from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the Isthmus of Panama OR the republics of the Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Belize
  • North America: continent of the western hemisphere NW of South America
  • Britannica (not the online version, but the paper version)
  • Mexico:federal republic located in North America.
  • North America: From Alaska to Panama. The introduction reads: "This article treats the physical an human geography of North America... for discussion of individual countries of the continent see the articles CANADA, MEXICO and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Other North American countries are treated in articles on regions under the titles CENTRAL AMERICA and WEST INDIES" [caps not mine, I am not shouting, that is the way Britannica writes it). This means that Central America is a region within North America to which Mexico does not belong.
  • Hispánica (in Spanish, 1992)
  • Mexico: (a very confusing long introduction) ...el país más poblado de habla española, México, extiende por América del norte y central (sic). I assume it implies it stretches over North and Central America, however this would have been written as "México se extiende". Afterwards it states that el istmo de Tehuantepec... constituye para la mayoría de los geógrafos el límite entre América del norte y América central.
  • No entries for North America or South America, but one for America (the Americas). That is, Hispánica follows the Spanish convention in which América (i.e. the Americas) is a single continent, and in which North and South America are geographical subregions or subcontinents but not 2 separate continents. As such, in the "América" entry, the definitions of "Norteamérica", "Sudamérica" and "América central" are purely geographical and not geopolitical: "Tradicionalmente se distinguen dos grandes conjuntos territoriales, los subcontinentes norteamericano y sudamericao, unidos por una serie de istmos que componen la América central (Tehuantepec, Guatemala, Nicaragua y Panamá) y por el conjunto de archipiélagos del mar Caribe". Central America is thus defined as a "series of isthmuses" that "includes Tehuantepec", which then heps explain the introduction on the entry about Mexico.
  • Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (I am translating from Catalan, if you are fluent in Catalan, follow the link) [16]
  • Mexico: "country of North America"
  • North America: I think it does an excellent explanation on the possible definitions of this word:
  • "subcontinent formed by the northernmost part of the Americas, [the area] north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec"(i.e. geographical definition)..."
  • "...or if we follow a geophysiographical (sic) definition, [it refers to the area] north of the Trans-Mexican volcanic belt.
  • "...conventionally [lit. practically] the limit between North America and Central America is the border between Mexico and [the countries of] Guatemala and Belize..."
  • A fourth additional definition was used in the 1970 version of the encyclopedia. I assume they eliminated this alternative definition given the economical shift produced in the 1990's in which Mexico has become economically, and arguably politically, integrated with its northern neighbors. The definition was: "...following economical, political and cultural criteria, North America [when] used [only] in opposition to Latin America, refers to the regions north of Rio Grande and excluding the Caribbean islands". Arguably, the UN scheme might follow a similar logic when it separates "Northern" America (compare with Anglo-America), from Latin America/Caribbean or from the region of 'Central America (including Mexico) and the Caribbean'.

As for myself, and given the above, I think I slightly support the (5) alternative over the rest. I don't find "southern North America" to be universally used. But all the information above is for your benefit. Read it, and may it help you in deciding how to vote on the poll.

Cheers --the Dúnadan 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your worthwhile research -- it is most appreciated and, hopefully, it will help guide future decision-making in this article and related ones. Corticopia 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting the results of the poll

Through the poll and the comments that ensued we can see:

  • strong opposition to alternatives (1) and (2)
  • weak objection or indifference to alternative (3)
  • [strong] support for alternatives (4) and (5)
  • alternative (5) received the strongest support, but not unanimous support

Notes:

  • Unforunately, one of the main editors (User:AlexCovarrubias) who had engaged in the edit war, did not participate on this poll, and hasn't edited since 2 February.
  • User:Supaman89 did not express his opinion on all alternatives. Given what he wrote on the comment section, his opinions were interpreted as: support (1) and (5); oppose (2), (3) and (4).

If we consider the poll to be a voting system, and if we interpret Supaman89 opinions as as expressed above, then alternative (5) emerges as a rough consensus. If User:SqueakBox agrees with (5), then we will reach full consensus, whether we take this to be a voting system or simply an agreement.

If nobody objects (speak today or forever hold your peace) I will request the page to be unprotected and we will rewrite the introduction according to the rough consensus. By the way, I will also add the Etymology of Mexico section according to the proposal presented and will put it upfront, before the History section.

After that, I propose the creation of a "Frequently Asked Questions" link à la Talk:United States, so that this agreement/consensus can be accessible to future editors who might wish to know why the introduction is written the way it is.

--theDúnadan 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to unprotect the article. Having an article for a sovereign nation protected should be done as little as possible as it reflects badly on wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dúnadan, I don't fully concur with your interpretation. I would characterize Supaman89 as being 'indifferent' (not necessarily in 'opposition') to options other than (5): this is particularly applicable since this editor has previously supported any number of those versions previously, and said editor's stance on 'southern' here but 'northern/central' elsewhere. And SqueakBox opposes (5); unsure why. So, we should not be interpreting these results beyond their face value (i.e., making extraneous inferences) unless those editors say differently.
That being said, I agree that a rough consensus has emerged (and I generally agree with you otherwise): options (4) or (5) are acceptable (with slightly more support for the latter, and -- due to sample/survey size -- you'd probably need far more input to say which is preferred), while other options appear to not be. I too think that we've enough to move forward with and that the article needs to be unprotected so that we can include a consensual version and other much-needed content. Thanks for arranging everything and to everyone (well) for participating. Corticopia 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested unportection, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, SqueakBox 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

True, I was actually thinking of saying Supaman89 was indifferent to alternative (4), but in any case alternative (5) was still preferred by all participants. (I used the "Catalan-wiki" approach to polling, though much more simplified, of assigning "points" to preferences: support 2 points, indifference 1, objection 0). As for extending the sample survey, I didn't intend this to be a survey of everybody's opinions but a mechanism so that concerned editors (that is, those who participated in the edit war and those who commented on it) would reach a [rough] consensus. Since all, but one, have already expressed their opinion, I would [only] consider making an exception of the deadline (and extend it a day or two, at most) if AlexCovarrubias wishes to participate. But, nonetheless, for the rest of the editors, I would consider this polling closed, and an accessible link à la FAQ-in-Talk:United States should be created. Of course, that doesn't mean that in the future this consensus can't be challenged by a new editor. But, at least for now, the concerned editors have reached a consensus and the page can be unprotected.
Correction: options (4) and (5) are preferred, while others may not be. It is correct to say (barring scrutiny of all commentary/editing behaviour) that Supaman89 is indifferent to all options other than (5), which he 'chose', because he didn't specifically comment (support or oppose) the others. I also disagree with extending the deadline, as the show must go on ... so let's. :) Anyhow, thanks for mediating a consensus. Corticopia 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually he did support (1) at first, and when option (5) was added he said he agreed to it. So I cannot say he is indifferent to (1). But I guess we can't assume anything. --theDúnadan 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, peruse the edit history: I believe he also supported (2). That's my point: assume nothing, and treat other options not commented on as indifference and not opposition. Otherwise, we open a can of worms. :) Corticopia 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, SqueakBox, I didn't fully understand what you meant on the page for requested unprotection. Are you comfortable with the consensus that has been reached or do you wish to extend the debate until unanimity is achieved? --theDúnadan 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary inferences aside (also considering comments on this page), I believe he agrees with the consensus and is requesting that the page be unprotected. Corticopia 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with the consensus that has been reached, if that consensus isnt 100% that has nothing to do with me. I guess I feel there may still be disagreements but that we arent going to slide back in to last week's situation again, SqueakBox 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it has nothing to do with anyone if we didn't achieve unanimity. Each and everyone expressed their opinion and we are all entitled to disagree. I only wanted to know if you wished not to insert the consensual version until unanimity had been agreed (even if the page was unprotected) or it that was fine with you, in spite of the fact that you disagreed (i.e. agreed to disagree). -theDúnadan 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly where 4 and 5 are different from each other but 4 does reflect my own view more about CA (which is where I live) but I absolutely will accept the consensus from what i can see of it even if disagreeing. What I dont want is more edit wars, especially as it is now unproetected aftyer me saying we are all being civil, etc. I believe no nations should be protected for more than a tiny amount of time and this is my priority, SqueakBox 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between (4) and (5) is just "southern" (i.e. Mexico is located in [southern] North America). Both say that Mexico is bounded on the south by Belize and Guatemala. --theDúnadan 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can agree that (based on polling) that there is a current consensus to not include Central America as proposed in the intro, and support for other variants. Since the article is now unprotected, we can act with a modicum of consensus even if it's not unanimous. Corticopia 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the preferred consensus is (5) not (4). Even if we way Supaman89 does not oppose but is indifferent to (4), (5) still is preferred to (4). I believe the article should use (5) as the consensual version, not (4).--theDúnadan 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, both (4) [4 Yes:1 No] and (5) [5 Yes:1 No] are consensual versions (1 editor opposed each with comments in the poll) and enjoy roughly comparable levels of support. It shouldn't really matter. (I would not be doing this if (4) was not agreeable or if more came out against it.) Corticopia 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar but not equal, and the introduction should reflect the most supported version. Moreover, since you supported version (5) in the same manner as (4), the balance should, in any case, hang on Supaman89 opinion (say if he suddenly says he supports (4)). Until then (5) is the consensual version. --theDúnadan 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

'Most supported' is a matter of opinion. I explicitly indicated preference for (4) above -- so much so that I previously indicated something different for (5) ('strategic voting'). If you wish, I will amend my vote above, which will balance things out for now. And you continue to infer what Supaman89 (who has been all over the place with edits/comments) would or would not support, when you should not be based on his comments in the poll. And if a balance truly teeters on one editor's opinion, it is questionable whether there is a true consensus (harking back to sample size) or in how it is being interpreted. I maintain that (4) and (5) have muster, while others do not. Corticopia 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the poll is closed, I do not recommend anyone to change their votes now in order to re-balance the outcome. If we allow you to do so, then anyone who wishes to change the outcome (say Hari) may remove his "support" for (4) and set it to "indifferent", rebalancing the outcome, then another editor will change it... and so on and so forth, and balance is never reached. True, we didn't offer mid-possibilities such as "weak support" vs "strong support". I also said I slightly preferred (5) to (4) [strategic voting if you will], but I didn't add any numeric value to that [à la Catalan-wiki, like I explained above]. If you truly wish to change your vote, or if you wish to add the possibility of adding other options (strong objection, objection, indifference, support, strong support) then I will request the page to be protected again, until consensus is reached.

As for Supaman89's comments, I think it is clear he didn't support (4). He might have been indifferent to it, but his explicit support was given to (5). If you believe this interpretation is objectionable, then we will protect the page and wait until Supaman89 clarifies his comments.

Oh, and also, remember this is not a survey, but a mechanism for consensus. As such, sample size is irrelevant. What is important is that all editors that disagreed (but one) reached a consensus.

--theDúnadan 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do find your interpretation, particularly of what is a consensus in this respect (e.g.,, on what can be included, rather than on what not to include; tallies), objectionable: stop inferring. I do not find it so clear based on Supaman89's editing behaviour. His explicit support was for (5) alone; he didn't object NOR support (4) or other options in the poll -- if we truly wanted to infer this and that, there are plenty of comments outside of the poll that demonstrate he actually supported including 'southern' in one form or another (e.g., parallel usage in Canada/United States, etc.). Speaking of which: you indicated your preference for (5) in the discussion below, not in the poll itself as I did previously. And again: if this entire discussion/consensus hinges on such ambiguity given the number of participants, then the poll or its interpretation is flawed. If you are willing to so liberally interpret editorial intentions, I will correct any ambiguity of my intent and will unequivocally render my votes in a binary manner to clearly indicate one preference above others.
Feel free to extend the poll or request a reprotection, which seems rather insipid at this point (seeing as how there is no current edit warring and that I will not break 3RR for this sole point): let's just get on with editing. However, please note that, if you alone request reprotection, this discussion/poll must be opened to a wider audience, administered/interpreted by an uninvolved party, and that the article not be unprotected until a clear consensus/course of action from that materializes. The ball is in your court. Corticopia 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I find plenty of comments from Supaman89 in the poll to say he only accepted "southern north America" when combined with "Central America", but not when combined with "Guatemala and Belize". But given your emphatic demand for me to stop inferring I will stop my inferences, and I propose that we wait, whatever time that is necessary, until Supaman89 returns.

I guess I committed a terrible mistake in not saying I slightly preferred (5) to (4) in the poll, but in the discussion, just like Supaman89, whose vote, nonetheless, was incorporated in the poll out of good faith, but not my "strategic voting".

Originally I didn't want to open the debate to all users, because I really doubted an external editor would read the thousands of kilobytes of history to fully understand the discussion and all positions involved, and would vote out of their own opinion about what Mexico is vis-à-vis North America. If you wish to extend it to a larger audience, however, I do not oppose.

Finally, let me explain why I want to protect the page. I believe a consensual version was achieved, which is the "most preferred" version. I don't think this support is that ambiguous. I simply said "most preferred" because 5 supports vs. 1 object is better than 4 supports vs. 1 object or 4 supports vs. 1 object and 1 indifference. Even though I have not inserted this version in there, maybe another user will, if he sees the most preferred consensus they way I do. However, if they do, you (or another user that disagrees) will probably revert it.

If however, when Supaman89 returns and clarifies his position, you still disagree on how I am interpreting "rough consensus", then I do not think we should open the poll again, but start, like Hari had originally suggested, a voting procedure. Polling has unfortunately failed (and with it mediation) and we got stuck into a dichotomy; a dichotomy that hinges on a single word that not all encyclopedias and geographical sources include: southern. The very same word that originated the edit war in the first place. I guess the easiest thing to do is to vote.

I am honestly frustrated with how things have turned out and do not wish to organize a new poll out of which a hundred interpretations and caveats might emerge that will take us back to where we started. I propose voting now. If however, another users wishes to create a new poll, then I won't oppose the mechanism, but I will not create the mechanism myself.

--theDúnadan 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The results are pretty straight-forward:
  • Option 1 had 5 "object" votes
  • Option 2 had 5 "object" votes
  • Option 3 had 1 "support", 2 "indifferent", and 2 "object" votes.
  • Option 4 had 4 "support" and 1 "object" votes
  • Option 5 had 5 "support" and 1 "object" votes
Without inferring ANYTHING about Supaman's attitudes to any other options (he clearly supported option 5, saying so explicitly), Option 5 is clearly the most consensual of all.
Of course, if Corticopia back's up and says that he prefers Option 4 over Option 5, then both Option 4 and Option 5 would be consensual. However, it would be important to note that Option 5 is the least controversial of them all and thus would be reasonable to have that one in. Additionally, the reason why Corticopia prefers option 4, as stated in the poll, is because "southern is both verifiable and more precise", however, recent research by Dunadan shows us that this is not so. Both versions are verifiable and more precise. This means that one option presents only one point of view, while option 5 leaves all points of view open to be discussed in greater detail in the "geography section" without advocating for any point of view up front.
Therefore, because option 5 clearly has a broader consensus, and becase, even if we assumed that both option 4 and 5 had equal consensus, because the latter is more NPOV, and both are equally verifiable and precise, option 5 is the clear winner, and should stay in the introduction.
Is this fair? Can we finally end this edit war and archive this nonesense?
Hari Seldon 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Like I said: I do not disagree with (5) (and won't revert), I prefer (4). Actually, to correct you Hari: both (4) and (5) are verifiable; while (5) is precise and more 'neutral'ambivalent, (4) IS more precise (and nothing has yet been presented to indicate that it is not). Just because many of the researched volumes do not indicate the same thing, others do. That's called style.
Anyhow, I do still take issue with how information has been interpreted or inferred throughout this poll/discussion ... but this can wait for another day. Yes: let's end this nonsense. Corticopia 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Corticopia, after what we have seen that can happen to an article, and how passionately some people can take this word, I am reluctant to call this variances just "style". It is a point of view. And, while verifiability is a guideline, precision, or "truth" is not. However, NPOV IS a guideline of wikipedia. This settles the dispute: NPOV is more preferred than precision when verifiability is available for both.
If only because of this, Option 5 should stay. However, the poll also gives stronger support. This is not about interpretation. Just count the explicit votes!
If you want, we can do a recount vote by vote, polling station by polling station. Just, please, do not march with a million people to Mexico City's Zocalo and proclaim yourself "legitimate editor" of Mexico. I don't understand why we keep arguing. You supported 5 too, Corticopia! I am simply amazed.
Hari Seldon 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did I do it? I was bold. I wouldn't have done so if (4) was overwhelmingly opposed, and the opinions of the instigating editors were varied or non-existent. I generally share your hesitancy about merely calling such content editions 'style', but I did cite my original edits (as we're supposed to). I suspect that this discussion arose more out of a foolish disagreement regarding content (which I'm still amazed at) and its source. I don't understand your comment about legitimacy, though. Anyhow ... :) Corticopia 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just making a joke, on the legitimacy.
I am not opposed to adding more precision in the geography section. If I am not mistaken, this is a step that we should take. I have something to do now, but will be back tomorrow to continue in this effort.
Hari Seldon 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mexico baseball league

Someone has to change the fact that Mexico has 2 professional baseball leagues, mexican pacific league (Liga Mexicana del Pacfício) also sends one team to the Caribbean Series, I'd do it myself, but can't. --Unsigned comment left by User:201.141.74.200

Metro areas

I suggest that we reduce the list of largest metro areas to only those with more than 1 million. The list is way too long, and there is an article (List of metropolitan areas of Mexico) which can list 20 or even more metropolitan areas. --theDúnadan 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. :) Corticopia 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And of course, also remove from the list the subjective regions... Hari Seldon 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I also edited the List of metropolitan areas of Mexico accordingly. --theDúnadan 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography or recommended readings?

Are the books listed in the bibliography section really used in the text or are they simply recommended readings? (Or worse, advertisement?)

  • When in Mexico, Do as the Mexicans Do, was it really used?
  • Opening Mexico: The Making of a Democracy I read this book myself, but I don't think (other than general historical data, available elsewhere) that it was used for the history section or the politics section.
  • The link to Cristobal : The Political climate, the article doesn't even speak about San Cristóbal!!
  • The link to a description of Mexico's geographical situation by Ekaterina Zhdanova-Redman is redundant. It is not used in the Geography section. Corticopia has offered more relevant sources.
  • The link to the Zimmerman Telegram, even though it is interesting, the article doesn't even mention anything about World War I!!!

Therefore, I think we should remove this "bibliography". --theDúnadan 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly haven't read them, but if better sources have been provided and/or the texts are not used in the article, then why not? Hari Seldon 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Supaman89

It seems like you guys finally decided what to do with the introduction paragraph, I don't have any problem with it, I just wanted to inform you that I made a couple of adjustments throughout the article, if you have any objection, please talk to me right here ok? Supaman89 21:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. You didn't make minor adjustment, you reverted the recent changes. I oppose the following:
  • Mexico City is not the biggest city on earth nor one of the biggest...in fact, in area it is very small. It is one of the most populous (which is far more accurate and NPOV), but not the biggest. Precision is better. Biggest means area, or size but not population. And in area, Mexico city is not large.
I never said it was the biggest, I clearly stated that it was one of the biggest, if you go to Google and search for "the 10 biggest cities on earth" you'll certanly find MXC. Supaman89 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Again: precision. Biggest in what? Biggest is way too subjective. Biggest in size? population? crime? poor people? rich people? factories? The most common interpretation is size, but Mexico is a small city in area with high population density. The right choice is biggest in population. --theDúnadan 00:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Mexico has the 13th largest GDP (Gross Domestic Product or production in a year). Arguably, that doesn't mean "thirteenth richest"
Well, maybe we could change it for "Mexico has the 13th largest economy in the world" or something like that, cuz the way it is right now, doesn't mention it at all. Supaman89 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
True, I'll add it. --theDúnadan 00:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You unilaterally replaced the Palenque ruins for a map, in the history section. Also in the politics section the two pictures of the symbols of politics are more adequate than a single low quality pic of the current president. We can add (not replace) another picture, but a professional one available at commons.
The map is part of Mexico's history too, actually I would say that Palenque is part of the history of the Mayan civilization and not of Mexico as a country, everything that happened from the moment that Mexico was declared a country could be part of its history, whatever happened before, is not part of Mexico’s history because back then the country didn't even exist. Supaman89 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Mexican history, as you would have studied that at school, includes all pre-Columbian civilizations. Cuturally, as a mestizo culture, the Amerindian component is as important as the European component. --theDúnadan 00:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As explained above (while you were gone), professional pictures of ethnicities are preferred to unprofessional pictures of children posing to prove "race" instead of "ethnicity". If you object to the new pictures, please open a poll.
The current pictures have bad quality, and the second one, focuses on the back of those indigenous peoples, and you also erased the picture of Felipe Calderon, what was the reason behind that??. Supaman89 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, these pictures are far better in quality than the ones before. But you missed the point, we are trying to represent ethnicity (as a concept of peoples-groups-culture) and not race (white vs. Amerindian). In that sense, these pictures are less racist and more encyclopedical. The picture about Felipe Calderón was of very bad quality. I replaced it with a recent one from commons with Lula. --theDúnadan 00:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was agreed to add the picture of Fundidora Park to provide a larger picture of Mexican economy, which is industry, markets and Santa Fe. Again, you unilaterally reverted it, and unilaterally deleted a picture. That is not called "improving" an article nor a minor adjustment.
It is the economy section for god's sake we need picture of buildings, highways, etc, the photo of Fundidora doesn't represent the economy of Mexico, neither does the Market, it's like showing a ghetto in the Bronx to show NY's economy. Supaman89 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A ghetto?? Wow! I am amazed at that classist comment!! A market is one of the most beautiful characteristics of Mexican culture, and European culture as well!! Only in the United States (and not everywhere) markets have been replaced by supermarkets. In Europe markets still exist as well as in Mexico. Markets are the very central place of economics (remember, trade?) Moreover, the great, great majority of Mexicans engage in economic activities in central markets, not in Superamas, Sorianas and Wal-Marts. Oh, and like I said, we had already agreed to add Fundidora. It represents the industrial sector of Mexico. Sure, if you have a picture of a "high-way" we could add it.
Please, read the discussion above and do not revert that which was agreed upon while you were gone. --theDúnadan 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

About the new pictures... I am sorry, but I simply have to object to having a picture of "Estadio Tecnológico" in the subsection about sports. Here is why:

  • Soccer is not the only sport in Mexico. Why not a picture of a "Centro de Alto Rendimiento", or of Mexican teams in the olympics?
  • Even if we recongnize that soccer is Mexico's most popular sport, there are 7 larger (and arguably) more beautiful stadiums than tecnológico: Azteca, Jalisco, Universitario (NL), Universitario (UNAM), Azul, Hidalgo, Luis Pirata Fuente...

I am sorry, but couldn't we take a broader, more relevant view of the subjects when adding pictures?

In the same manner, I don't see what a picture of Neri Vela has to do with Science and Technology. Space flight is not a Mexican technology (yet), nor was he conducting Mexican scientific experiments. True, he is our only astronaut to date, but its almost as if we placed a picture of some guy on a trip to Cancun in a subsection about air travel. The picture is also disrupting the graphical layout of the article. At the very least, this should be fixed. Hari Seldon 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I actually chose Tecnológico stadium as a conciliation to show pictures of any other stadium other than Mexico City's stadiums (there are enough pictures of Mexico City already in the article, and this article is about the whole country). Any other picture will do. Feel free to change it. =)
As for Neri Vela, well, I really don't oppose to his picture, but what about Guillermo González Camarena? or Mario Molina?
--theDúnadan 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Neri Vela specifically, he was a respected scientist on his own right apart from his space flight. However, I don't like it that that is the only reason he is represented. I would, however, prefer Mario Molina. The main issue I have with that picture, however, is the effect it has on the layout. This has to be corrected.
About the Estadio Tecnológico, well... The only pictures I have about sports are UANL Tigres-related... Replacing the "Rayados" stadium with something about Tigres is inviting an edit war. I think I will just respectfully ask other editors to look for alternative Mexican sport pictures. I would be in favor of Estadio Jalisco, or anything about Mexican olympics.
Hari Seldon 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To Supaman:
Why does Fundidora Park represent the Mexican economy? Please read the comments on the image page...
Why does a market represent the Mexican economy? Because the economy is about producing and exchanging goods and services. A market is a perfect way to do that, it is also a very traditional way of doing that. I am sorry if you have a predisposition (clasist, racist, or of any other kind) against that particular manner of exhange, but the picture is not only valid, it is also representantive of the Mexican economy. In fact, I would even beg an editor from Mexico City to please contribute a picture of their "Mercado de Abastos"!
Santa Fe? Well, I am sure Dunadan didn't mean to say that only "Santa Fe" is part of the Mexican economy. I believe that he was trying to refer to "business" or "financial" districts in Mexican cities. The economy has two sides: the "goods and services" side, and the "money" (or "financial") side. Santa Fe is the largest business district in Mexico. I would, of course, prefer a picture of the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores, but it is way to cliché. I believe a picture of Santa Fe is excellent for the article.
The arguments above are what sustains these pictures. I am sure you can understand that.
Hari Seldon 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the picture of the Central Market is the Central de Abastos of Mexico City. Central Market seemed a natural translation, or perhaps "wholesale food market"? And yes, thanks for clarifying my comment about Santa Fe, I meant that a picture of Santa Fe, as one of many business districts, is representative of the Mexican economy, in the same way as the Central Market is. --theDúnadan 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you ask me, the Central de Abastos of Mexico City deserves an article of its own, considering the amount of goods it moves.
The current label is fine. I didn't realize it was the Central de Abastos. I only know that market through its rather impressive statistics.
Hari Seldon 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I copied the picture form the Spanish Wikipedia, and that's what they say it is =). --theDúnadan 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan what do you mean by "only in the USA markets have been replace by supermarkets"??, I don't know and I don't care if people in Europe go the local market to buy their groceries but here in Mexico we go to Wal-Mart, actually to any super market, in every single city there are plenty of them to go to, and believe or not, MOST people so their shopping at those places. You honestly need to stop watching Hollywood movies, did you watch "Nacho Libre", do you think we live like that?? do you think that we need to put people shopping in a local market cuz then it wouldn't be Mexico?? Supaman89 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when I am in Monterrey, I shop at Soriana. But, I think that Dunadan meant to say, "only in the US have markets been completely replaced by supermarkets"... Of course people in Europe and Asia have supermarkets to! (Even Wal-Marts)... But, it is true, I've been in Phoenix for a year now, and I have yet to see a market. Even the "Tradiciones Mexican Market" is a Super Market! =(
Finally, I believe that stereotypes like "only the middle-upper class matter, and whatever is done by the lower class is degrading Mexico" are as hurtful as the stereotypes promoted by Hollywood. Please be mindful of plurality.
Hari Seldon 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, I guess I'll take your comments, Supaman, in good faith. I actually liked Nacho Libre, it was quite funny. Surreal, untrue, like Napoleon Dynamite (I think it was the same producer), trying to emulate the 1960's Lucha Libre movies of "El Santo", and of course in Mexico things are not like that.
But man, I don't need to watch Hollywood movies: I grew up in Mexico. And, for the most part, my family did grocery shopping at both markets and supermarkets. Markets are ubiquitous in Mexico, and the great majority of Mexican families buy and sell their products in markets. And, if you have never been to one, try going to one. They are awesome. You'd be amazed at what you find there... and the prices! You'd never find such a wide selection of tropical fruits and vegetables anywhere in Europe! It doesn't matter where you go, to Oaxaca, to Mexico City, or to Zacatlán and Ocotlán in the middle of the mountains you will find a central market (sometimes the architecture of the markets is amazing, like the one in Guanajuato built à la Paris, by orders of Porifrio Díaz [17]). If you ever go backpacking through Mexico (I did it once, over 13 states, and I loved it) you'll see what I am talking about, plus you'll get a wider panorama of the richness of Mexican culture and folklore that goes far beyond an emulation of American upper middle-class urban lifestyle.
You see, that's my point. Mexico is not only the Wal-Marts, Blockbuster, Cinépolis, Starbucks, Hard Rock's, modern transportation systems, high-tech universities and tall skyscrapers of major metropolitan areas. Mexico is also the beautiful small towns in Chiapas, San Cristóbal de las Casas, San Miguel de Allende, the amazing architecture of Morelia and Querétaro and the indigenous communities of la sierra de Puebla which have kept their rich ancestral traditions and languages alive (even though you think nobody speaks these languages), the majestic pyramids of Teotihuacan, Palenque and Chichen-Itzá and the joyous danzón and marimba music of Veracruz. In fact, I wish we could add pictures of all of these things, and not just of the skyscrapers and highways. It is precisely because of this cultural richness that 20 million tourist a year go to Mexico from all around the world, making it one of the most visited countries on Earth! --theDúnadan 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
And if I may complement Dunadan's comments. Tourism is Mexico's third largest source of foreign currency, after oil and remittances. =)
Hari Seldon 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that those "wonderful traditions" might be pretty interesting for a tourist, the problem is that whole world already know them, and every time I try to show something out of "those traditions" it seems like I'm lying or I'm just trying to emulate the American life style, which is ridiculous because the whole world keeps evolving, everyday they keep creating skyscrapers, SM, Huge highways, Gigantic Stadiums, etc. and it doesn't mean that we're trying to be like the United States, or maybe I'm wrong and the US are the only ones that are allowed to have technology and everyone else is just copying them?.

Most Mexican-Americans, look at Mexico as their backyard where they can go and have fun, it's like "Whatever happens in Mexico, stays in Mexico". About the movies, Nacho Libre and Napoleon Dynamite were pretty funny weren't they?, it's quite easy to make fun of other people when it doesn't affect you but what if the whole world thought that the Americans looked like monkeys, that are drunk all the time, that live in towns that barely have televisions? it wouldn’t be that funny anymore right? cuz then they'd be making fun of you and not of someone else, if they made a movie like that about... the Middle East, I would laugh my ass off, and I would even say that middle easterns have "wonderful traditions" but the truth is that I wouldn't want those "traditions" to be in my country... for example Africa, everyone talks about those "Wonderful African Traditions" but the truth is that they want Africa to like that so they can kinda escape from "civilization" but if you ask an American "since those traditions are so damn beautiful, would you want the USA to be like that?" they'd say no, and then you ask 'em "would you like African nations to become first world?" and they'd think, no, cuz then there wouldn't be a wild place to go to.

Anyway I made up all this "reflection" just to show what people really think, despite of what they say, and that people don't really wanna show the developed Mexico because that's not want they love about the country, "and who gives a damn if Mexicans are developed or not, I like the idea of them living in towns and if someone doesn't show me that part, then he's a racist, clasist, etc. right?". Supaman89 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this wonderful traditions of Mexico are not interesting for a tourist, but for many Mexicans, amongst them Frida Kahlo, Octavio Paz, Elena Poniatowska, Diego Rivera, Carlos Fuentes, Maná and many others. I actually didn't understand your "reflection" at all, except for the fact that you need to watch your language. Ohhh, by the way, if you think you were insulting me in your previous comment, well it didn't work because... I am not American. I just find it interesting that you compare colonial architecture, majestic pyramids and world heritage sites and traditions to "monkeys", "donkeys" and "wild places". Not for me. At least, I've been to those places. And they are not uncivilized. If it makes you feel better, yes, even in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Guanajauto and Ocotlán, you'll find cable TV, Blockbusters, internet, cell-phones, and all the high-tech stuff could think of. I have no problem at all showing the "developed" part of Mexico. But I have no problem in showing the "developed" but traditional part of Mexico either. Tradition, at least in Mexico, is not an enemy of development. --theDúnadan 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to offend you, I'm sorry if that's what it seems, man all I was saying is that people don't care if Mexico is developed or not, all they care of is showing the non-developed parts of the country, cuz according to them "that's the beauty about Mexico" they love to see poverty when is not in their own country, and when someone like me tries to show the other side of it, they think that you're a racist, clasist, etc. Supaman89 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Supaman, here is where you demonstrate your ignorance. The Mercado de Abastos may be traditional, but it certainly isn't undeveloped. I worked in IT for a few years, and I know for a fact that the technology infrastructure in the Mercado de Abastos is cutting edge. They certainly need it with the amount of trade that goes on in there.
Which brings me to a request: lets focus on the issue, and not on our feelings. The issue is that there is a picture that represents the Mexican economy (the Mercado) and you disagree with that picture. You'd rather have a picture about infrastructure. Well, if you've studied anything about economy you'll know that infrastructure is not the economy, but only a facilitator for it to occur. The Economy is all about production and trade, be it of goods and services, or of currency and monies.
The Mercado de Abastos is one of the largest places in Mexico were trade of goods and services occurs. It might even be one of the largest on Earth. I would recommend you do some research on it and find out. Additionally, not only the picture represents accurately and relevantly a very important part about the Economy of Mexico, it also may be appealing to tourists, which, as I've said before, represent the third larges segment in that side of the economy that has to do with currency. Twenty million people a year trade their foreign currency (Dollar, Euro, Pund, Yen, Yuan) for Mexican Pesos, resulting in stronger International Reserves and the stability of the Peso against the dollar.
So, if the amount of trade is not enough to convince you of the economic relevance of the Mercado de Abastos, perhaps its potential impact on the Mexican currency might convince you.
Finally, I must remind you to Assume Good Faith. It doesn't matter wheather they depict "poverty" or "wealth", or whatever reasons they have for it. As long as it is NPOV, Verifiable, and Relevant, it is welcome, because it makes the article better.
BTW, who said that the Mercado de Abastos was about poverty? You need to be a little bit more informed...
Hari Seldon 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Has anyone thought to edit this page for fundamental syntactical errors? Little things like tense, subject object agreement and correct pronoun usage. rad2 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you find them, fix them. --theDúnadan 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

World Cup

Mention the Fifa World Cup in 1970 and 1986.

Debate and poll on naming conventions

There is a consensual rule of thumb for naming articles of places already in use for cities and states in Mexico. (See: WP:Naming conventions/city names/Mexico). While this rule has been applied successfully, there are two issues that require our attention: (1) an inconsistency in regard to boroughs in the Federal District (2) naming convention with regards to metropolitan areas and core cities. Please participate by expressing your opinion, agreement or disagreement so that we can reach a consensus. The debate is taking place here. --theDúnadan 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

&#%$, they blocked the page again? Supaman89 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Only to anonymous users to prevent vandalism. You can edit yourself. --theDúnadan 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Prikipedia?

The history section has an outrageously strong priísta point of view, it really has to be fixed. In casu:

  • "an example being the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968, which by some accounts claimed the life of about 250 protesters by security forces". This looks like a way to play down the Tlatelolco massare. The Tlatelolco massacre didn't claim 250 lives 'by some accounts' but by most accounts. Although estimates differ, all serious accounts give a higher death toll than the official 43.
I agree, let's change the "some" to "most". By the way, it would be valuable to use Poniatowska's work as a reference. Or Time's magazine contemporary report. --theDúnadan 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, it was in this decade that the first substantial changes to electoral law were made, which initiated a movement of democratization of a system that had become electorally authoritarian." and "The first cracks in the political monopolistic position of PRI were seen in the late 1970s with the creation of 100 deputy seats in the Chamber of Deputies assigned through proportional representation with open party-lists, and at the municipal level with the first non-PRI mayor elected by plurality in the early 1980s. " The democratic opening was a complete farce. The biggest difference it made was giving a few more seats to the sattelite parties, that's hardly democratization.
I disagree. Not with your opinion, but with the fact that it is an opinion. Let me explain, it is an opinion to say that all parties, PAN, and the predecessors of what became PRD (PARM, PSM, et al.) were all satellite parties. And it would be even more POV to say, some parties were and others weren't. The political scientists that studied the transition of Mexico's electoral authoritarianism [and that is their label], and whose work is being cited saw the events of 1977, as the "first crack" of the system. I agree with you in that it was far from true democracy, but nonetheless, the first crack. However, it was these political scientist, whose work is being referenced and cited, who said so. Not the editors of wikipedia. And, when I read the book I understood what they meant: by conceding to small reforms, small parties little by little got access into the game, and demanded more and more; it is something called "nested games" in political game theory. According to this political scientists, Mexican transition was unique, in that it wasn't an external radical shift [like deposing a dictator in Argentina, Spain or Chile] but an internal and very slow change, and with countless setbacks. It was a change within the system by the [slowly increasing] players of the system, and in which the system itself [the authoritarian government in power] coordinated the change. I don't think they disagree with you in that the first crack was far from true democracy, but a change towards democracy [implied by "the first cracks in the monopolistic position" instead of a "blow to the monopolistic position"] But in any case, by Wikipedia guidelines, NPOV verifiable data supersedes POV. --theDúnadan 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "While the prices of oil were at historically high records and interest rates were low, Mexico made impressive investments in the state-owned oil company, with the intention of revitalizing the economy. In the early 1980s, however, oil prices plunged and interest rates soared, and in 1982 the government defaulted on its debt. In an attempt to stabilize the current account balance, and given the reluctance of international lenders to return to Mexico given the previous default, president de la Madrid resorted to currency devaluations which in turn sparked inflation." It looks like this part puts all the blame for the economic crisis on foreign country, completely ignoring overspending, overborrowing and economic mismanagement of the López Portillo administration.
True, overborrowing and overspending (or, borrowing and spending without saving) was indeed a major cause of the crisis. Besides mismanagement of resources, I would add "terrible forecasting". Mexico was not the only country that decided to borrow in a time when interest rates were low (and even negative) and when oil prices were not expected to decrease (in the short run). These abrupt changes were rather unexpected, and brought havoc not only to the Mexican economy, but to many economies in the world. But I agree with you, if the government had better managed the resources (like Portillo [in]famously said "administrar la prosperidad"), the crisis wouldn't have been as catastrophic as it was. We should definitely write a sentence that truly conveys the mismanagement of the resources too. --theDúnadan 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "However, it is claimed that in 1988 the party resorted to election fraud in order to prevent leftist opposition candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas from winning the national presidential elections who lost to Carlos Salinas" As with Tlatelolco, something that is widely believed to have happened, in this case the election fraud, is described in a way making it look like a minority opinion. Mixcoatl

05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, many reports and books (like the political scientists I was talking about) do suggest that fraud most probably occurred, and others that it did occurs, and we must cite them. But that's the big difference: references. I totally agree with your what you are saying about the 1988 fraud: it happened. But I don't propose that we change the text just because "I believe" or "many believe" [or we "wikipedians" believe] but because many reputable sources claim that. --theDúnadan 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in that the some sentences need to be rewritten, other need to be totally rephrased, and still others need to be properly referenced. But I also think you were quite harsh on all active editors of the section (to the point of assuming their political preference) by saying "outrageously strong priísta". I can't speak for the rest of the editors, but I am not. I really don't think it was as "outrageous" as you see it. --theDúnadan 06:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Mixcoatl: I totally agree with you, however, Wikipedia must be sourced. Please provide references to objective sources (i.e., news articles, other books or encyclopedias, but not editorials or opinions) to substantiate the majority point of view.
I think that with enough references these points could be re-written as:
  • "Despite the official apparatus claiming a death toll of 43, most reputable sources (reference) claim a death toll of 250 or more in Tlatelolco.
  • "The PRI had maintained a monopolistic, corporativistic position in power for most of the 20th century. Cosmetic openess started since the 1970s, when the PRI-led government gave 100 new Deputies to the opposition through plurinominal representation. This amount was not enough to offset the PRI's majority in Congress, and the corporativistic monopoly of power remained until the early 1990s, when political pressure to Carlos Salinas de Gortari led him to form a coalition ("concertacesión"?) with the PAN and other political parties to distribute power. This led to the development of democratizing institutions, such as the IFE, that were the base for Mexico's eventual democratization in the late 1990s, and that culminated with Vicente Fox's victory in the 2000 election."
  • "The 1988 election was heavily contested as clear evidence of electoral fraud were made public. A suspicious 'systems failure' that changed the vote tendency, and the opinion of reputed international observers, have made it clear that Carlos Salinas de Gortari most likely won that election by electoral fraud".
That sort of wording seems more accurate. Now, lets find sources and references to support them. Hari Seldon 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to rephrase the sentences, with a mixture of Hari's and my proposals, however, I got stuck with the 1988 fraud. Was the election legally contested? I know there were manifestations and complaints, but, since there was no Electoral Tribunal, I do not know whether they were legally contested or just protested. The "system failure" (se cayó el sistema), can be widely referenced in many books (I remember reading one) but I didn't find the opinion of reputed international observers (I don't even know if they were physically present at all; I thought the 1994 elections were the first to have international observers, but I might be wrong). Maybe, reputed international organizations (and survey-takers) did report the anomaly, but not direct observers. Any ideas? --theDúnadan 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

National Palace is the seat of the Executive? Pardon my ignorance, but, other than Wikipedia, I cannot find a source for this. Isn't Los Pinos supposed to be the main Office of the President, and therefore Seat of the Executive?

However, Lopez Obrador had promised that he would move to Palacio Nacional if he won the election. Since he lost, and this fact doesn't seem to be easily sourced (at least not online), I find having this information without a source controversial. Could somebody provide a source?

Hari Seldon 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. I know that it was (or is) considered the symbolic seat of the executive and that many offices, including some offices of the general staff, were therein located, whereas Los Pinos was the "official residence". Fox transformed many of the residence buildings at Los Pinos into executive offices during his administration (in fact he moved out of the main complex where presidents used to live and built a "small" adjacent cabin that has been expanded by Calderón), even though some staff still works at the National Palace, so I guess it can be argued that Los Pinos is now, for most practical matters, the seat of the executive. --theDúnadan 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)