Wikipedia

Talk:Mexico

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlotteWebb (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 26 April 2007 (Reverted edits by 66.76.23.190 (talk) to last version by 201.141.98.254). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by 201.141.98.254 in topic 2000: the first time the opposition defeated the PRI?
Learn more about this page

Please start a new section at the end of the page

WikiProject iconMexico B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of November 2, 2024
A map showing classes of articles in WikiProject Countries.
  Featured article
  Good article
  B-Class article
  C-Class article
  Start-Class article

What's new?

Did you know

Proposed deletions

  • 21 Aug 2025 – Cấn line (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Henrydat (t · c) was deproded by Kvng (t · c) on 26 Aug 2025

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(25 more...)

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada or Japan)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general ___location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

 Y Sweden,[a] formally the Kingdom of Sweden,[b] is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
 N Sweden (Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ), formally the Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ), is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail, duplication and tangible information
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

Example:

 Y A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada promotes its domestically shared values through participation in multiple international organizations and forums.
 N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of gross domestic product in nominal and PPP-adjusted terms, as well as their respective world ranking. Include both total and per capita amounts.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level ___domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Prose should provide clear, relevant information and links to relevant sub-articles about the country, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

 Y Corruption in Liberia is endemic at every level of society, making it one of the most politically corrupt nations.
 N Liberia scored a 3.3 on a scale from 10 (highly clean) to 0 (highly corrupt) on the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index.

 
Comparison table of section sizes in country articles as a percentage of article size. Click image for latest data.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Culture. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
 
Graphic showing article quality, size, contentiousness, protection, and vital level. Click for live data.
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually 250 to 400 words as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  •   Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  •   Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  •   Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
  •   Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  •   Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  •   East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
  •   Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
  •   New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
  •   Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH for more recommended hatnote usages.

 Y== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

 N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged - (unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made) - as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and might cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Clusters of images may cause images to appear too late or too early for associated prose text, see MOS:SECTIONLOC for general recommendations. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Notes

  1. ^ Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. ^ Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ

Template:WP1.0

United Mexican States -or- United States of Mexico?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just want to make sure that no one made a mistake.

-G

United Mexican States; also see Toponymy of Mexico. Corticopia 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

population figures

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The table shows 19 million people in Mexico City, but the Mexico City page says 36,720,916. That's an awful lot more! On the Mexico City page, that 19 million is just the suburbs ("greater Mexico City"). I wonder which one is correct? And are the numbers for the other cities correct? Xezlec 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the figures shown in this page are those reported from the 2005 Census. Of course a mischievous user can change them arbitrarily, and it might take a while before someone notices the changes and reverts them back to the official figures. In any case, you may want to follow the link provided to INEGI's Conteo 2005 report. --the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Xezlec 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

maná the most known mexican band?

what? which is the source? ive searched but there isnt a source that show that this statement is a fact.

What about the mention of African Ancestry in Mexico?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's hidden, until the second moon returns. Still isn't Mexico's black population more like 3-5% at least of the country?

I do believe there is a significant mixed black population specially in the coastal areas of Mexico, unfortunately, INEGI does not have any reports on ethnicity, except for indigenous peoples in Mexico, so we cannot give a precise percentage, but we can briefly mention the fact. --theDúnadan 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Economy

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I deleted a claim about the muncipality of San Pedro in economy section, due to the fact it has not a source the source it used to have; source Doesn't content the right caraceteristics to be considered as a source. And the fisrt source; 2004 UNPD Mexico Report on HDI source 2 specifies clearly the first claim and never specifies the second claim, wich is probably true but as i said the source doesn't the caracteristics to be considered as so since you need an spanish account to get the information. If somebody has a source wich specifies the claims i deleted please paste as soon as posible. Cheers--Raveonpraghga 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We've had this discussion before... A newsgroup of wide circulation (like Reforma) is a reliable source and is allowed to be referenced in wikipedia. In fact, this sort of sources are recommended over blogs and other unreputed websites. You are attitude throughout the last few months makes me suspect that you are in a personal vendetta against Monterrey and/or in favor of Guadalajara. This has motivated you to make vandalistic edits instead of constructive ones (with proper english and reputable sources). I again encourage you to increase the level of your edits, and not be moved only by regionalistic emotions with no wikipedic quality. Hari Seldon 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Hari is right. Reforma is a perfectly valid source. And the report that says San Pedro Garza García has the second HDI in Mexico is true. It was in the news also. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Graphical material that might be needed

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

As some of you know, I am a web designer and I started contributing here in Wikipedia because I wanted to improve the quality of the graphics used (I started with the Mexican Flag). So I would like to a make a list of the graphical material that might be needed to improve the article. Please, help me make a list. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, not for this article, but I would certainly appreciate a graphical revamp of Pipo. I would do it myself, except that I am not in Monterrey and graphics offshore are hard to find. Hari Seldon 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't think I have any picture about Pipo, but I think I can do something about it, just tell me exactly what you need. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking of doing it myself, but I am not an expert in Graphic Design (as my low-quality maps show). But can you make a map of the world highlighting in any color (say green) the countries with which Mexico has a free trade agreement? You can review the list of countries at: Economy_of_Mexico#Trade. Just don't forget that the European Union must include all 27 members (including the recently admitted Bulgaria and Romania; for a list of all 27 members see: EU#Member_states). --theDúnadan 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done. I included the FTAs map in the article Economy of Mexico. I also created a new map with the HDI of each state. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

North America as a region of America (continent)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As all of we know, there are two basic models applied to the American continent:

  1. America is a single continent, divided in North, Central, Caribbean and South.
  2. The Americas, with two separate continents, North America (Can, US, Mex and Central America) and South.

I created the article North America (Americas) that is about the region/subcontinent of the American continent. It was nominated for deletion because they say it is the same as North America (meaning continent). Both articles are about different subjects.

Please READ the evidence, comment and vote here. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Prostitution

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is prostitution legal in Mexico? What exactly are the laws, what is allowed and what isn't? -Mike Payne 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Its not legal but not strongly enforced. In fact in major cities throughout Mexico there are whore houses which identify themselves by having a red light bulb. Thus the light bulb is on when its open for business. Police have been known to take bribes in order not to shut this houses down and some cases receive personal favors as well.

Serio 310 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)serio_310Serio 310 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 0410, 25 March 2007 (India)Reply

Creation of the page "Mexican United States"

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The user that tried to change the translation of United Mexican States has created a page titled Mexican United States, which is clearly a POV forking, due to the fact that that is an incorrect translation. I think we should nominate that article for deletion.

Why "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is not translated as "Mexican United States":

  • In spanish, there are two forms of constructing sentences. One is called "enunciado sintáctico-lógico" (sintax-logic sentences) and the other is called "enunciado lógico-sintáctico" (logic-sintax sentence).
    • Sintax-logic: Basicly, the spanish sintax says that the noun should be listed first, then the adjective (e.g. "El vestido rojo", meaning "The red dress"). This is nowadays prefered way of writing in spanish, following the sintax rules.
    • Logic-sintax: However, a person can write following the inverse order, listing first the adjective(s) and then the noun. This style of writing is very used in poetry and literature, and was specially in common use in old spanish. It is considered an elegant way of speaking. Every day usage is not common nowadays. (e.g. "La señorita de rojo vestido se sentó", meaning the same of "La señorita de vestido rojo se sentó", both sentences translated as "The miss of red dress sat".

By the time the official name of the country was coined (19th century), the logic-sintax style was highly common. The official name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", which is exaclty the same as saying "Estados Mexicanos Unidos", meaning the union in a federation (political system of Mexico) of all the Mexican states. It was not coined to mean the "Mexican United States" which would sound like they wanted to name the country the "Mexican" version of the "United States".

English translation must not be literally taken from the name in spanish. It is a common mistake because in english, the sintax rules state that the adjective should be listed first and then the noun. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion your syntax-logic and logic-syntax explanation doesn't bring much to the point here because it only refers to the combination noun + adjective and not to the combination noun + adjective + adjective. The main problem here is that you have one adjective after another adjective; it is not "Mexicanos Estados Unidos" or "Unidos Estados Mexicanos" but "Estados (noun) Unidos (adjective) Mexicanos (adjective) and that's exactly the point where it seems to be problematic. Does Mexicanos refer to both Estados and Unidos (I think it does) or just to Estados? Does Unidos refer to both Estados and Mexicanos even if it is between both of them (I don't know any adjective which has a double directional reference, i.e. to the word before and the word afterwards; in that case it would be wrong to say United Mexican States because United would refer to both Mexican and States and it can't work like that if it is between the two words in Spanish). On the other hand, I think most of the "new" countries in Latin-America were inspired by the French Revolution and the USAmerican Independence War and their ideals of freedom, brotherhood, equality, etc. In that case, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Mexican government decided to name the country after their liberty ideal: US. I don't see the problem there. The comment below (theDúnadan) also seem to go in that direction. Aldera 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I just nominated the page for Speedy Deletion. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If this is a common problem, a redirect makes more sense than a speedy. WilyD 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I had brought up the same issue several times, as well as several other users [see above, or archive], for whom mexicanos is the qualifier of the Union of Mexican States (ergo, the proper translation would be Mexican United States). In fact, in both the 1824 and 1857 constitutions the name of the country was shown dashed: Estados-Unidos Mexicanos, in which case "Estados-Unidos" does function as a compound noun which is qualified by the adjective mexicanos.
In other words, Mexican United States would be a valid translation of the name. However, in English the name of the country has always been translated as United Mexican States, probably because in English, as Alex pointed out, the "literal" translation might be misinterpreted. It is because ALL (well, at least to my knowledge) political and geographical authorities in English use the translation "United Mexican States" (and occasionally United States of Mexico), that we should use this translation in this article (otherwise we would be doing OR). However, I would have no problem in keeping "Mexican United States" and have it redirect here as proposed above, because that is a literal translation of the name.
--theDúnadan 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the biggest problem here is that this official translation wasn't surely made by a Linguist nor a Historian and so it might not be really correct but it has just become the official one. My humble opinion says that whoever translated Estados Unidos Mexicanos as United Mexican States just tried to avoid calling Mexico a Mexican variant of the United States. That may also be valid but as a linguist myself (and after reading the interesting comment by User:Dúnadan) I don't think it is the best solution to delete a literal and historic correct translation just because it is not official. For me that's like saying that the world is plain because the church said so, even if you know that it is not like that. Why not keep both? Maybe even with the observation: official translation: United Mexican States, literal translation: Mexican United States. Aldera 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Redirect it (to Mexico): otherwise, it's begging for someone to (re)create it. There are 402K online notations of UMS (and I have not seen translations in English publications to be anything but this), as opposed to 52K for MUS. If the argument that MUS is valid, I'm sure it can be reliably sourced (and I see none as of yet); if so, this can be included in the 'Etymology' subsection/article. As D. indicated, the 1824 constitution includes both "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (upfront) AND "Estados-unidos mexicanos" (see sections 52, 74, 101, 110...), so a redirect seems prudent. To recreate and build on it, though, constitutes a fork and promotes confusion. Corticopia 13:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Delete review of North America (region)

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Administrator took a dubious decision about the debate about the deletion of this article. The result should have been no concensus. This article was about the region of the Americas named "North America". All of the other regions within the Americas, under the various geographical models to divide it, have their own article: Middle America (Americas), Central America, Northern America, Caribbean and South America. Please, read carefully the AfD page and the reasons provided to undelete the article. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, he did not -- an apparent consensus of 65% supported the admin action and the nomination. Comments at AfD. Corticopia 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Both of you, just let it go. You've been at similar discussions for over three months now. Is this issue really so important? Alex, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Learn from both experiences. How about, next time, you provide more sources?... And Corticopia, why is this precision in geography so important to you? I really cannot understand how such a minor point has developed into this ridiculously big war between two otherwise sane editors. It has gotten into the point where I would suspect both of you are just doing it to spike the other party. Lets just let this go! Hari Seldon 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tell you why. The Americas are divided using the following concepts (most of them geographical) and each of them have their own article:

Linguistically:
Continentally:
Regionally:

Central America, the Caribbean, Northern America and Middle America are said to be part of North America as a continent. Then, should we also delete all of those articles and merge them into "North America"? Because that's the rationale they are using for the deletion of NA.

However, and most importantly, the debate was closed and the opinions were highly divided, between keep, delete and merge. So, no consensus was reached. They say it was not a votation, so why are they giving more weight to the delete votes? It is just unfair.

About the win/lose situation, as you said, it is not about that, at least, it is not to me. It is a question of accuracy and now, justice, since the article was unfairly deleted. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Based solely on the numbers, 'delete' votes outstripped 'keep' votes in a clear majority (56%), coupled with votes to merge to North America or redirect (which clearly don't mean 'keep'), a consensus of 65% clearly supported the admin action. As well: (1) the 'keep' votes were generally nothing more than sigantures that were ... (2) the result of canvassing which said editors engaged in throughout to 'stack the deck'. The admin had other valid reasons to affirm the decision, so the article was fairly and equitably terminated. My future comments regarding this will be there.
And, yes, HS: it's not about conflict and it's regrettable -- but read the definition for what an encyclopedia is, which demonstrates why we should (and I continually) be both precise and comprehensive. Ta!Corticopia 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Precise and comprehensive? What about economic regions? I mean, there is a valid point of view that NAFTA is a region of the Americas. It is frequently used in Canada, the United States (particularly in the south) and Mexico (particularly in the bigger cities). It is, with the EU, the only region in the world in which banking systems are so interrelated that there is a near free flow of capital, deposits and financial instruments. It is also a region with the most international economic activity and border crossings (both legal and illegal) in the world. It is controversial, economically important, intense, and, most of all, valid. I think that if an article pursuing North America as an economic region, as a result of NAFTA, but also due to other causes and a 200 year old history would be perfectly valid. Perhaps, this would please both editors? Hari Seldon 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If those territories comprise an economic region, is there any reason why information cannot properly reside in either NAFTA or North America? This still has not been dealt with or glazed over, nor have the concerns expressed throughout the AfD regarding reliable sources about NA as specifically being a 'region' as opposed to a sub/continent (unlike the other regions cited above), so an article about what some may consider an original concept appears a fork. Also note that 'North America' is frequently used to refer to just the US and Canada together (which have a shared history, British (and French) roots, political/military/economic integration, border) -- compare with Anglo-America and Northern America -- but were treated in the article as an aside, which is more indicative of that article's agenda than anything. Corticopia 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As for NAFTA, that article is about the treaty which is part but not the entirety of the economic region. About North America I don't see why not. I know that in the north of the United States and pretty much all of Eastern Canada, North America usually refers to USA and Canada only. Indeed, when many companies advertise "all of North America", they mean only the continental US and Canada, without Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and sometimes even without Alaska.
However, the same is not so for Vancouver (at least not while I was there), most of southern US (particularly Florida, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and California), and definetly not so for urban Mexico (though some leftist do disagree and tend to place Mexico with "Latin America" instead).
The trend of economic integration is growing and, no, this is not original research on part of this editor at least. As a business student I frequently encounter sources that refer to the "North American region" as Mexico, USA and Canada. Indeed, Times Magazzine has done articles, and even front pages on the subject since 2000.
Because this POV is valid, and there is a trend to its more frequent use in the three countries in the region, I don't see why it shouldn't have a section or sub-section in the article North America for NPOV, with the additional precision that anglo-america (i.e., US and Canada) have a shared history.
By the way, just so you know, the history of Mexico and the US are also shared. It was due to Spain's success in Mexico that immigrants from England decided to embark in a dangerous enterprise to what is now New England. Additionally, it was the US who supplied weapons for Mexico's independence, who sponsored the liberal civil war of the early 19th century, and who conquered half of Mexico's territory (which is now "anglo-America"). Aditionally, at least one historian quoted by Isaac Asimov argues that the French Invasion of Mexico in the mid 19th century had the purpose of aiding the Confederation. During the Mexican revolution, US military involvement was frequent, and so remains today. Of course, other countries can claim that the US has shaped its history, but apart from Canada, none at the extent that Mexico can. Throughout all of its independent history it has, in one way or another, been determined by the US.
So, as a valid point of view with widely available, non-original-research sources, I move for it to be entered into the article North America. What do you think?
Hari Seldon 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
TY. Of course, one cannot deny US-MX integration, but the topic matter is not being dealt with properly in the existing articles (perhaps a result of edit warring) -- that's why this fork is arguably a farce. I have maintained throughout that said notions (if applicable) should be included in North America (if not already, e.g., usage section) or elsewhere as needed (NAFTA) ... go ahead and add equitably, just remember to reliably and equitably source. :) Corticopia 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I, of course, agree with Hari. The integration "between the three nations of North America" (quoting US President George W. Bush) is not only enormous, but deepening. And this integration is not only in the economical sphere. However, that is another topic I guess. And again, Corticopia, read WP:POVFORK. The creation of the article was not a POV fork, since it was not created to avoid NPOV in the article North America, nor as a consecuence of disagreement there. In fact, there was not debate/edit war in the article (as I have said multiple times). No disagreement. The only thing that cheers me up is that educated Canadians and Americans, don't have that "anti-Mexican" feeling, and that most of the population of those two countries, think about North America as a region containing Mexico, of course. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Alex: this is not my issue and I frankly do not have time for this. I will add North America to my watchlist and aide as well as I possible can. However, I will not start these edits. Please go ahead and do so. It is obvious that you have the talent to seek out sources, so you might as well quote them there. If you encounter resistance, we can discuss it in the talk page.
About the forking accusations, I have no position on the issue. In any case, I really don't see how "North America (region)" elevated the quality of wikipedia. What is needed is a vast improvement of the article North America, which I urge you to commence.
Alex, your track record isn't exactly spotless, but neither is mine nor that of any editor. We all start making mistakes. This is your chance to show your wikipedia learning. When editing North America remember to follow the guidelines. If you need help with this, I will help. Lets just get this three-month old issue over us and close this chapter.
By the way, I take a course called "Regional Business Environment: North America", and the countries discussed are "United States, Canada and Mexico". The course is taught by an American teacher in an American business school. If you can find a way to reference my class notes (which are definetly not original research), I can contribute these as well.
Hari Seldon 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a great idea. However, I don't see how/where to start. The most important issue would be if all that information should go into a separate subarticle and how should we call it? AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be a section or sub-section of North America. Mexico should be added to the list of nations, and the section should be called "Economical Region of North America", and talk about the background (before NAFTA), then a paragraph about NAFTA and how it has intensified the region. Hari Seldon 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
HS; I'm unsure course outlines/curricula can be used to justify content in such a way unless there are reliable sources to support it (e.g., published and explicitly indicating those three countries are a region different from the continent, etc.): while your course might focus on just the three countries (and there's no disagreement about deepening integration among them), that may merely represent a topical focus which still doesn't exclude other constituents due to relative size/importance (e.g., Canada = 32 million, Greenland = 56 K, or 600x the population).
Other sensational comments aside, there should probably be a section in North America (and eventual subarticle) entitled 'Economy of North America' (like in country articles) -- elaborating about integration, NAFTA and all that -- AND discussed there beforehand. Otherwise, we're back to where we started with only the venue changing. Corticopia 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Corticopia: I believe that a class taught in a major business school, one of the top in the world, can be considered "reliable"... Otherwise, I should ask for my money back, don't you think?
Aditionally, I am not referring to class notes, I am referring to published material that is copyrighted and can be accessed only through the school. In any case, even a "tocial focus" represents a valid point of view that must be included in the article as NPOV. Of course, I do not intend to "exclude other constituents due to relative size/importance". But if some other editor is doing so, that still is no reason to invalidate this particualr point of view.
Finally, I don't know what you mean by "sensational" comments. I thought we were assuming good faith here. You seem to ask for it, then you should give it too... And yes, i do agree that the article North America requires a section about its economy. I further think that this discussion should be moved to said article's talk page.
Hari Seldon 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regarding course items: I'm neither here nor there regarding them, as long as they are Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And let me clarify points regarding reliability: if materials reliably assert something and they are verifiable and equitably presented, I have no issue with them. The challenge to date (in addition to others) is that the sources provided in the fork did not generally support the content, nor were they dealt with in the proper place (viz. North America). And, given the content therein, it still has not been demonstrated that this [{WP:NPOV|point of view]] is not equitably accounted for already in North America (e.g., talk of NAFTA, Usage section) nor in justifying a fork of that content.
Assumptions of this and that notwithstanding, the 'sensational' comment was not really directed at you but at other commentators (e.g., regarding forks, etc.). :) Agreed: discussion should resume there. Corticopia 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Poverty

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

This whole article is largley incorrect. It portrays mexico as a modern and prosperous economy with harly any poverty. If this were the case why would there be over 10 million people or roughly 10% of the entire population of Mexico, risk their lives crossing through deserts with hardly any water into the United States just to get away from the poverty in mexico.

"Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country."

This incredibly false statement generally summirizes the view on poverty in this article. How can anybody believe this hearing reports every day on the news of more people dying of thirst crossing the border to the United States to escape the poverty in Mexico. Whoever wrote this article is just like all the other people who try to shove the problem under the carpet and expect no one in the outside world to realize its there.

The phrase "Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country" actually comes from the World Bank Country Report, and so do their reports on poverty. I guess the World Bank is blind, incorrect and biased, just trying to shove the problem under the carpet and expect no one in the outside realize its there. --theDúnadan 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


This article menctions the problem of poverty extensibly. It also menctions international evaluations on the nations economy. Sure, Mexico has many in poverty, but also many in the middle class, and more billionaires than Canada. Mexico is far too complex to be summarized in one sentence. So, I think that what is biased is a reasoning that takes a statement that talks about average, and translates it into an accusation of absolutism. It is almost like listening to a left-wing Mexican politician talk... Hari Seldon 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hari, you were the champion of avoiding personal attacks, why say derogatory things like "almost like listening to a left-wing Mexican politician talk" I encourage you to avoid such statements. We have been through this road before, some people in Mexico are oblivious to reality and simply don't get it. I don't want to be harsh with anyone, but it is hard to be a judge of such things when you are not representative of the majority of people in Mexico. How many Mexicans speak english, or have higher education? How many of them are able to study an MBA abroad?. Not even 1%. That has an inherent bias, because those facts alone makes anyone realize that whoever is in that position, for sure has not been exposed you to the hardships that 40 million under the line of poverty have to endure. It is also worth noting that the third richest person in the world is Mexican. How he got there, is another story. (Perhaps we should review how competitive the Mexican telephone market is, and how government protection have gotten him where he is). I would even go as far to say that this has been the case for most of the richest people in the country, they have been favored by monopolies enforced by the state (look at Televisa and TV Azteca against Telemundo... when both own interests in the US market). Here is an interesting story from an anti-immigration website that reviews these and more. (http://www.vdare.com/awall/060510_memo.htm).
Without being an expert in the subject, it seems that the social and economic policies that the country currently has are a manufactured consensus from the higher authorities in world economics: i.e. the world bank and the IDB. I would not expect less than praise from them when it comes to analyzing the situation the country is in. However, it is no secret that the situation of the country is largely unequal.
Also, I keep reading that you spell mention with a C in the middle. Mention, not "menction". Andy Rosenthal 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Andy, I recommend that you read the reports of the World Bank, the IMF and the OCED on Mexico, and you'll find they are not "praise" towards the economic policies Mexico has pursued. It is an undeniable fact, and this article should portray it, that income inequality and poverty rates in Mexico are still high. In fact, while the percentages of poverty reported in this article are accurate, they refer only to extreme overty, whereas mild poverty, even according to the World Bank, still affects 45% of the population, something that is indeed not reported in the Economy section. But it is also true, whether it is due to the policies of recent presidents, or a macroeconomic trend, or simply due to the amazing increase in remittances, rural poverty has sharply decreased since 2000 (from over 45% to 27%). We would be misreporting by not portraying that there has been a reduction in poverty, in spite of the fact that it is still high.
Education attainment is still low in Mexico, compared to developed countries. While your 1% of MBA's seems to be only your personal opinion (which might be true, I haven't checked INEGI's report on higher degree education), it is also true that the percentage of overall master's degrees in developed nations rarely exceeds 3% of adult population (the US being the notable exception with 5.6% [1]).
Unlike other users who wish to see poverty only in the south but not in the north, from what I can see both in official reports, and physically when I travel there, income inequality and poverty affect all Mexico, not only the poor south, but even the industrious north, even if at smaller pecentages.
My point is, the article must be balanced without falling into extreme qualifications. Mexico is both the high income industrial suburbs of Mexico City and Monterrey, as well as the poor villages of Michoacan, Guerrero and Oaxaca. Failing to portray either reality is misleading. The article does speak about income inequality, but I agree that it should elaborate on poverty. But I wouldn't go too much into details, after all there is an article specifically about the Economy of Mexico, which was recently expanded.
--theDúnadan 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the article is well balanced in general, it can still be improved in demographics, culture, education and science. However, let's think about what can be said about poverty in Mexico? Most of it is already there: poverty rates and how this is mainly focused in the southern states of Chiapas, Oaxaca and Guerrero. I think that Mexico is a prosperous country and is also improving (falling poverty rates indicate this). The article is about Mexico in general so, it is obvious why the poverty problem looks "so small", because Mexico has a lot better things than only the poverty problem. That's what I think. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Andy, I didn't intend my comments as a personal attack. I did not want to focus on the personal moral quality of the person making the statement, but on the overall quality of his arguments (i.e., the arguments are as baseless are those made by leftists). There is a clear distinction between argumentation and personal attacks.
Now, I may not be representative of the majority of Mexico, but I also am not in the minority. I mean, the fact that I study abroad doesn't make me Carlos Slim, or Lorenzo Zambrano. On the contrary. Additionally, you might find it interesting that everyday, more and more young professionals from Mexico go abroad seeking for opportunities (by studying MBAs, some), and it is not just 1%, it is a much bigger number. You treat me like I was some kind of elite, and, granted, compared to the unfortunate minority of Mexicans who carry the heaviest burden of poverty, you and I might be considered that. However, when 30% of the population live in poverty, and only 10% live in extreme riches, that means that there is 60% of Mexicans stuck in the middle. That middle is the majority, and you and I are in that majority. That is also what this article states: there is a huge problem of poverty, and there is a huge problem of income inequality, but Mexico is, on average, a middle income country.
About your arguments, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft is a monopoly "enforced or protected" by the state. In the US, the "state" takes every chance it gets to fight Microsoft. That doesn't mean he is not a monopoly, simply that he is a monopoly the government doesn't like. The difference between Slim and Gates is that Gates's products are so popular that, no matter what the government does, people keep buying Windows and MS Office, and using explorer and Media player... On the other hand, people stay with Telmex because they have no choice, and because there is not enough economic freedom to provide for a choice. Same is true for Pemex and Mexican gasoline, by the way... My point is that, true, Mexico suffers from lack of economic freedom. More liberalism is needed. But the fact that some benefit from the current situation doesn't mean that all riches and all monopolies come through evil purposes. As for Microsoft, sure, it annoys us that it is such a big and dominant player, but Apple has 6% of marketshare and growing, and Linux is always a threat, and in the server market, Microsoft is no longer a monopoly, it is a minority player. So, in the end, when enough economic freedom exists, monopolies can always be overthrown by the freedom of consumers. That is not the case in Mexico, and eventhough it is wrong in this particular case, it doesn't necessarily follows that all riches are wrong.
Finally, the IMFs priority is to stabilize currencies, and the World Bank's is government investment in infrastructure development. Mexico does stabilize its currency, but by means that are frowned upon (i.e., "el corto"), and President Calderón has announced that Mexico will invest more in infrastructure, but through the private sector... So, despite leftist propaganda, the Mexican economy is a lot more complex than that, and understanding it gives us keys to critizice what is REALLY wrong, and try to solve it with tools that actually work. Criticizing something because our heart doesn't agree with it, and without a complete understanding, often times brings about innefective "solutions" (like those proposed by the left).
So, I think I answered everything, Andy. I did not intend this to be a personal attack, but an evaluation of the quality of the argument (i.e., argumentation and counter argumentation, in other words, debate). I am not an elite, rather, an ignored majority which doesn't fit into the country's poorers or the country's richest, and thus is ignored by policy makers, taxed heavily, and frowned upon by the other two dominant minorities. The article mentions all necessary data in the most objective manner possible (i.e., using reliable sources to data, and not to opinions), being rich is not bad, but being rich in an unfree market is, and Mexico's economy is not a formula of the IMF and World Bank, and it is more complex than what is described by leftist propaganda (or rightist propaganda, or any other form of political propaganda, for that matter)...
BTW, thanks for the precision on the "mention". Hari Seldon 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think I have to agree with Hari. Rich people and people suffering poverty are not the majority in Mexico, there is a large and growing middle class. I don't know how the article can be improved about the issue of poverty. What else can be said about poverty in Mexico? I think that's the main question, and I also feel it is already answered when reading the article. That's my opinion. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you guys, but like I told Andy, what is missing is the recent report on mild or "moderate" poverty in which 45% of the population lives. It is a high percentage, and it could be argued that moderate poverty is the relative majority (not the absolute), and not necessarily the middle class. --theDúnadan 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, poverty is a very relative term... Any new information added must include the definition of poverty for whatever source. (I.e., x report defines poverty as anyone living with income lesser than 40K USD a year)... This should add context to the article. No doubt, poverty can be measured in many ways, and Lorenzo Zambrano can argue that he is 49 times poorer than Carlos Slim. Does this makes him really poor? I don't think so... Hari Seldon 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really, really, really, really, and I insist, really doubt the World Bank uses definitions as relative as Zambrano vis-à-vis Slim to define poverty. I don't think their highly educated analysts are that naïve, do you really think so? But if you wish I will find out what they mean by "moderate" poverty. --theDúnadan 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thats not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the World Bank can use one definition, and the UN use another. So, if we are going to quote from multiple sources, it is best to add to this article what each source means by "poverty": less than a dollar a day? less than the amount needed to buy a "basket of basic goods" (which "basic goods" and at what prices)? You get my meaning? Hari Seldon 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Mexico is clearly a middle income country, as it's per capita income is slightly above the global average. What such a measure does not account for is the high inequality of income distribution in the country. Therefore, it would be wise to balance the information concerning Mexico's relatively high per capita income with its high Gini coefficient reading of indcome inequality. Also, the segments of the Mexican population that immigrate to the United States do not represent the predominantly indigenous poor of southern Mexico, who generally live in deep poverty. 72.191.175.36

Estadio Azteca

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wondering, which futbol stadium picture should we put in the Sport section, "Estadio Azteca or Monterey. I reckon Estadio Azteca should be the one, because it is the premiere and biggest staduim in Mexico. --Ramírez 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer Estadio Monterrey, because it is a baseball stadium and not a soccer stadium. I would prefer no soccer stadiums depcited in the sport section. Why? Well, it is very easy to find information on Mexico's most popular sport, there are articles for each of the major teams, each of the league levels, and at least articles for 5 of the minor teams in Mexico. Simply mentioning (thanks Andy) that soccer is Mexico's most popular sport should suffice. I don't see why it needs even more publicity with a picture. Regardless, the rationale behind having the Estadio Tecnológico (note: not "Estado Monterrey") in this article was because it was the only one to be found, and because it is not in Mexico City, as said city already dominated virtually everything in the article. Remember, this article is about the whole nation, and not just one city. Estadio Tecnológico also has the advantage of being multi-use: its primary purpose is American Football, and it is only adapted to soccer because Club de Futbol Monterrey have nowhere else to play (and thus have been planning for a decade to build their own stadium, and for a time, that alternative stadium was going to be Arena Monterrey, but not anymore)...
So, as you can see, with regards to the sports section, we all agree that Azteca is the biggest soccer stadium in Mexico, however, it promotes mainstream topics (soccer and Mexico City) that already get enough attention. Mexico is a plural nation, and some of the editors here would prefer if other, not so mainstream topics were promoted. For example, a "Centro de Alto Rendimiento" in central Mexico, outside of Mexico City, or a baseball stadium for any of the teams in the Liga Mexicana del Pacífico would be nice.
Hari Seldon 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Administrative Divisions Map

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Hey guys, I was thinking that the table with all the states' info is kinda repetitive (and looooong), since the main article already has one. What about creating a more visual-appealing table, with the map of states and only the state name and extension?

It is just that the current table is really long, I don't know... I think I can do create a more beutiful table. What do you think? Or perhaps a clickable map with the name of the states? AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, about the map... I really liked the colored map I recreated. The big problem about that map was that the regions highlighted were arbitraty (I just redesigned it!). What about highlighting the regions as traditionally used within Mexico? Here are some states I know for a fact are linked in regions:

 
This is the "new" regional map
  • Northwest: Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Durango
  • Northeast: Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamapulipas
  • West: Jalisco, Colima, Michoacán, Nayarit
  • Bajío: Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Zacatecas
  • Southeast: Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo, Veracruz
  • Center: Puebla, DF, Hidalgo, Morelos, Estado de México, Tlaxcala, Queretaro

My suggestion is to create a colored-clickable map as the one in the article Provinces and territories of Canada or Brazil. It look so professional. I know I can create a map like that for this article, it deserves it! AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Make two maps. One for the entire country, then a zoomed-in map for central Mexico. How on Earth am I going to be able to click on Tlaxcala, if Chihuahua is small as it is? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hehehe, that map size wasn't the suggested size, I just put it there as an example of the old colored map. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of the clickable map very much, it looks very professional, but I still dislike the idea of creating regions that simply do not exist. They do exist in the US, they do exist in Brazil, they do exist in Argentina, but not in Mexico and not in Canada. We will engage in endless debates with new users as they complain that their state should be located in such and such, but not in such and such, or why did we name a region like that and not differently, and anyone could be right because there is no definitive universal regional division in Mexico. And even if we all agree on the regional division, we would be engaging in WP:OR, something that shouldn't be done in Wikipedia. I would rather have a colored map of the states without grouping them by region. --theDúnadan 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You know what? I have noticed that even if there is no official regionalization of the states, the typical arrangement is not controversial, since there is a long tradition in Mexico about grouping states in a particular region. I have always lived in Mexico and with no doubt I can tell you that, for example, no people from Zacatecas would complain if their state is grouped in "El Bajío" region, because everybody know that. But they will complain if the region is included in "Northeast", because traditionally the state is not linked with this region. However I understand your concern and your opinion. Coloring the states could be another solution, but it will look wierd, because there are 31 states. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Controversial states are usually at the center-south-southeast. For example, Puebla, which is often reckoned as an Eastern state (because it was the connection of the East with the capital, not because it was economically related to them; in fact, Autobuses de Oriente was headquarter at Puebla to service the Oriente of the country), and sometimes as a central state, more related economically to Hidalgo and Querétaro. El Bajío is usually a region, but I have never seen it as an administrative region (usually comes up as simply center, or center-north). Moreover if El Bajío is an administrative region, so is la Comarca Lagunera (Coah-Dgo) or la Huasteca (SLP-Ver-Hgo). Same thing with the southern states of Oaxaca and Guerrero in relation to the Yucatán Peninsula, which you grouped as a single southern region. I think the only more or less defined regions are the north and northwestern. Even the West is a little controversial, in that Aguascalientes is could be placed in the West along with Jalisco. See what I mean? We can open a poll if you wish, but I still think we would be bordering in WP:OR.

Now, I wouldn't worry about colors. See for example the map of the US states; just pick 5 or 6 colors, and use them for the states; simply do not use the same color for two adjacent states. I don't particularly like the layout of the US map, I think you would do a much much better job than they did. =)

Speaking of maps, would you be interested in doing a map of the municipalities of Mexico? (the whole country) I can provide you with a map (copyrighted) of the whole country divided into municipalities, if that helps you. I might be a tedious job, but we can use it for many purposes (economics, IDH, GDP, etc.). Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

--theDúnadan 01:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well yeah, I guess using regions could be kinda tricky. It is just that a colored map using regions looks more appealing. Well, I think I can think about something else about the coloring of the map, because I want it to be really professional looking. About the municipalities map, wow, it would be a really hard job (some states have more than 100), but I guess I can do it, patiently. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 02:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well I just finished the clickable map! I have also added it to the geography section. I hope you guys like it. I wanted it a little smaller, but it would have been hard to add the links for the central states. There's still the issue about the regions. I haven't added any reference to them, but the map is colored according to the above regions. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 09:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Even though I like the map, I was very disappointed to see that you divided the country into regions in your final version. You will find no references to support them. The only temporarily "official" regional division (only for development programs) was that created by Fox of five "Mesoregiones", which do not even resemble the regions you made up and which worked [if at all] from 2001-2006. I don't know what to say man. I have already tried to explain why regions are not only subjective, controversial but also constitute WP:OR simply because they do not exist. Since we have already discussed this issue in January (see here) and it was decided by all users to eliminate the old map of regions, I think you should re-think this issue again, and if you still want to pursue this matter, at least open a poll in order to change what constituted a loose consensus in January. --theDúnadan 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The map can be changed. I will design a colored map with no region highlighting. It was very late and I was sleepy! Hey, I want to ask you, why you changed the map position? I think it looks better, more "book-looking" or "encylopedia-looking". AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I really like the new map Alex created and I congratulate him for his work. The article is improving in quality and design. Thanks for your valuable contributions. --theDúnadan 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Dúnadan, I appreciate it. I just finished a smaller version of the map that will fit the layout I want to give to the subarticle. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Coat of Arms (PNG vs. SVG)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know that the SVG file is vectorial, so it can be resized. However, it is not a very extended file format and regular users can't really use it or edit it. Also the SVG version (a conversion, not an original file) has lower quality and the details of the COA are lost. Please comment/vote on this:

 <-PNG   <-SVG

  • Should we use the PNG version until a better/equal quality image is provided?

Please click the images and take a look at the higher resolutions available. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mexico and Middle America

Latest comment: 18 years ago58 comments3 people in discussion

In order to avoid another bunch of edit reversions I open this debate and ask for a votation. I'll present the facts and suggested solution. Please comment.

FACTS

1. As all of we know, Mexico is in North America, a continent (or subcontinent) that can also be divided into smaller geographical regions:

2. The current first paragraph of the section Geography, mentions that:

"Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America or also within Middle America."

This wording implies that the term Middle America is broadly used, in almost the same sense as NA is, which is not accurate. The paragraph also fails to report that Middle America is not the only possible geographic subdivision that can be used, since there is no reference to NA meaning the US, Mex and Can.

3. Most of the references and citations we have seen in the part months, define Mexico as a country in North America or at the south of North America. So far I have not seen any reference directly indicating "Mexico is a country of Middle America".

PROPOSALS

Simply edit the current paragraph in order to give the term the appropiate weight, to mantain accuracy. The fact that Mexico is also in North America (as a region) can be ignored, since the article North America already elaborates about it in the usage section, that's OK for now.

1. "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America (alternatively within the region of Middle America)."
2. "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America, alternatively within the region of Middle America."

Or, as an alternative:

3. "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of the south of the North American continent. Its territory can be described as within the region of Middle America or North America."

Please comment/vote about the proposals. Also feel free to add your own proposal. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The current version is sufficient, and I will await comments from others before advocating any changes. The facts above merely represent a particular point of view. After some stability/agreement about content and (your) abortive forking of content, you first tag your 'rewording' as a minor edit without discussion and then instigate (in this case) a discussion of proposals when you can't get your way through persuasion. The order of terms in the sentence already implies importance (read: due weight) and the 1/2 proposals clearly indicate bias, since they do not indicate 'comprising much of the North American continent' too. [http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/NAmer.html One of the references -- for North America, the continent -- says:
  • The term Anglo-America is frequently used in reference to Canada and the United States combined, while the term Middle America is used to describe the region including Mexico, the countriesrepublics of Central America, and the Caribbean. This is an overview article, with details in appropriate subarticles.
As well, alternatively implies MA is something completely different from NA (it's generally a region of it); if so, the only necessary change may be the removal of "or also". Number 3 is clearly wordy for not what. Lastly, initiating useless dialogue over here-nor-there proposals is a waste of our collective time. Give it a rest. Corticopia 19:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ignoring your Ad Hominem attacks... I'll just add that you were the only editor that reverted the changes I made. Other editors saw the changes and did not reverted them, which indicates they were OK with them. About the "minor edit" thing, I got checked the option to mark all my contributions as minor. All my contributions are automatically marked as minor. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Do you even know what ad hominem means? Pot, meet kettle. Your edits are being challenged; your attitude is just gravy. Nor do I deny, given your behaviour, pointing a finger (sometimes the middle one) at you when needed. When you pass off edits as minor, things can be glazed over by editors. As well: even more time -- days/weeks? -- passed before you decided to change the text without discussion, during which no one objected. And I am one of the other editors clearly in disagreement regarding this -- so the first way to avoid conflict is to not initiate one. Until then ... Corticopia 20:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You said the first way to avoid conflict is to not initiate one. That's very hypocritical from you, since you give advices and you don't follow them. For weeks, the usage section of North America was not touched... then you came and edit it and add info about CA. Then after your changes, you waited for a debate. It's just funny... AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Spend your time on fruitful pursuits; this one is going nowhere. Corticopia 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is the right place for personal comments. I commend you both for your valuable work and encourage you to debate peacefully. Having said so, in spite of considering that any changes to what has become almost a consensual version are, for the most part, minimal, I think the first sentence in the section does need a little rewording. As of now, it reads "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America[5][6] or also within Middle America.'" From what I can tell (and I might be revising my own perception, based on what I've been reading), Middle America seems to be a cultural or geopolitical region, whereas Central America (and North America) are also geographical or geophysical regions (clearly defined by geography, i.e. isthmuses, tectonic plates, or physiograaphically by changes in topography). The sentence, as it reads now, implies that Middle America is a geographical region defined by latitudes who also "happens to be" a cultural region. (In fact, none of the sources listed here define Middle America by latitudes but by "countries", i.e. [maybe] geopolitics, culture or linguistics).

In that sense we must be careful when defining implicitly Middle America here (or explicitly in Middle America (Americas)). While it is quite obvious that Mexico is located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (geographically) and according to some sources also in a region called "Middle America", that doesn't mean the two concepts are the same, or that one is the definition of the other. (Corticopia, if I am mistaken, and there is a source that does define Middle America exclusively by geographical latitudes, then could you please add a link to it?). So, I would accept any rewording that includes all locations of Mexico within the different geographical, geophysical, cultural and geopolitical regions, as long as we do not generate confusion. --theDúnadan 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see the article about Middle America (Americas), which contains a physiographic/'geographic' definition for the region (from Britannica). While not all sources define Mexico in NA, allmost if not all include Mexico in its entirety in MA (those that may not may equate MA with Mesoamerica). Corticopia 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I read it, but it doesn't define the region by latitudes (as it is implied here and in explicitly defined as such in Middle America (Americas)). While I cannot [?] argue against a reputable source such as Britannica, they are considering the whole country [Mexico] to be an "isthmus" south of the Rocky Mountains (while the Sierra Madre ranges are usually defined as extensions of the Rocky mountains with a different name). I guess this is the first time I've read that Mexico is defined as an isthmus. Anyway, that's a separate issue. Even if Middle America is defined (and even if only by one source) as a geographical and not a geocultural region, it is not defined by latitudes. In that sense, I still advocate for a [small] rewording here and in the other article. In this article I would include Middle America as a cultural region in which Mexico is located after the geopolitical definition of Central America. --theDúnadan 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How can one call MA just a cultural region, when other sources have been provided to say it is not just that? Only Dow (from what I've seen) says it is a cultural area subsuming Mesoamerica. And the notion of Mexico comprising the northerly, wider part of the isthmus adjoining the two Americas is probably the root of the confusion regarding its ___location. And yet other sources provided merely list MA (succinctly) as a region (with no qualifier) and Mexico within it (e.g., Geography section of its entry in CIA World Factbook). This is getting circular and frustrating. Corticopia 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Noted. Perhaps we should avoid the qualifier (any qualifier). I am just being a little strict when it comes to definitions, and sometimes no qualifiers are needed to be explicitly stated in the sources. For example, if a region, say Central America, is defined as Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama and El Salvador, then I understand it as a geopolitical definition, because a geographical or geophysical definition would include [part of] Mexico. Many of the definitions provided in Middle America (Americas) seem to be referring to a geopolitical (in that the borders of the region are the borders of the constituent countries, and not geophysical or geographical features of the continent).
True, Britannica also provides the geographical situation of Middle America, but I do think [and that is my personal perception], that given that the majority of sources provide a cultural or geopolitical definition of Middle America (even if they do not use that specific qualifier), (and I somewhat agree with Alex) that the cultural/linguistic [and geopolitic] definition probably preceded the geographical one. But we are digressing, and I don't think we should argue about which preceded what. We can't really prove either way.
In spite of that, a rewording is still necessary in that no source defines Middle America by latitudes (so far, maybe there is such a source). We can say that Mexico is also located in a region called Middle America that includes such and such countries (the most widely used definition: by countries), without giving it a qualifier. Just a region.
--theDúnadan 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This seems an overcomplication: it is probably better in this instance to be less strict, and let Wikipedians decide/learn by visiting linked articles. We know that the various regions of the Americas may not have strict 'boundaries' per se. Remember, Central America also has a physiographic definition which differs from the geopolitical one, which may explain issues regarding it. Even someone recently at Northern America keeps adding that Baja is part of it; this does make sense, but there's no source for it. Anyhow, I will source Mexico's mid-latitudinal ___location and this should remain, even though this line of argumentation (despite the prior lengthy debate and the neutral version to date) has been wholly frustrating and distracting. Corticopia 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that was precisely my point, Central America does have a geopolitical and a geographical definition (and a historical and cultural definition as well), whereas Middle America (except for Britannica, even though I have expressed my concerns and interpretations of their definition) is a geopolitical and cultural definition. If Middle America is defined first and foremost as the region in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, then no rewording is necessary neither here nor in the other article. But until then (that is, until a source is provided that defines MA as the region in the mid-latitudes of the Americas), I still propose that we rephrase so that the definition of Middle America be given by its constituent countries first which also happen to be in the mid-latitudes on the Americas, and not viceversa. If you think the argument is getting frustrating we can just take a break and continue tomorrow. I undestand your frustration, and I know that it is better if we debate peacefully and amicably, with the aim of improving these articles. --theDúnadan 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Let's resume tomorrow, but just to point out a few things:
Specific notions can be addressed on my talk page. Bye for now. Corticopia 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK. Let's resume tomorrow, just let me point out a few things as well:
  • (1) I don't propose that we discard the Britannica reference. I just propose that we interpret it and give it its due weight. If one source says "green" when a hundred say "blue", then we must not treat all definitions like if they are equally used. Like I've said in other articles, qualifiers such as "occasionally" or "rarely" are useful in these cases.
  • (2) Yes, AC's original discussion was not related to the "mid-latitudes". Like I said, the changes he proposed were minimal (though they deserve to be heard and discussed). It was me who was concerned, since the very beginning, about the way we were implicitly defining Middle America in this article. Like I said, it is quite obvious that Middle America is in the mid-latitudes (even if its latitudinal ___location did not generate the concept in the first place). But, like you had pointed out in a previous debate (regarding Mexico being bounded by which countries), since this concept is controversial, we must provide a source even if it seems (to us) obvious.
I look forward to our talk tomorrow. Cheers!
--theDúnadan 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
More notes:
  • (1) Britannica is a reliable source. Its description about Mexico being a isthmus is wierd (perhaps his OR), but the region of MA is well defined there.
The claim that any of this is OR is very objectionable, particularly with citations from reliable sources. If you can't comment judiciously, don't. Corticopia 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • (2) My second proposal was just that, a proposal. It doesn't have to be followed if nobody agrees. And, as you said, we are not defining MA, so nothing was agreed about it being a geopolitical region (which is not). After all, the discussion in Americas (terminology) still counts. MA is a region (as you said, just that, a region with no qualifiers) of the Americas. Politically it comprises Mexico, the countries of CA and the countries of the Caribbean. That doesn't mean it is a geopolitical region (no source indicate that).
Well, I am happy with this discussion, after all I think we're reaching a consensus. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If anything, the discussion over there and here may affirm the notion that MA is also a geopolitical region. You get what you take from this discussion, but any consensus in this respect is very premature, if not just malformed. Corticopia 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
False. Just read the discussion we had there. MA is not a geopolitical region in the sense as opossed to North America. NA geopolitically is opposed to CA, Caribbean and SA. However, I see what you're trying to do: claim false "agreements" and then you'd want to go to all the articles and add Mexico is "geopolitically part of MA", a statement not only ridiculous (since that geopolitical region doesn't exist), but also very OR. Most properly, MA is a region in the Americas, period. Oh and also a cultural region, according to you Dow reference. However, if you want to claim the opposite, then provide a reliable source that clearly and directly define Mexico as in the "geopolitical region of MA". You need to see the difference between present-day geopolitical regions and the fact that, anybody can select a group of countries from a geografical area and make a geopolitical study. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, you're (continuously) false. I am not denying anything: Dow (and Britannica, upon rereading) refers to MA as a cultural region, the latter definitely delineates it physiographically, other sources say nothing about it (merely indicating it's a region), and more research/information is needed. The article below already treats MA in a geopolitical context, which you are in denial regarding. You may want to jump to conclusions with insufficient information, but we know what that results in ... and that fork was deleted already. And, given everything here and elsewhere, who knows what you're trying to do. Further inappropriate commentary will be ignored. Corticopia 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can't you read? Any researcher can set a group of countries in a determinated geographical area and conduct a geopolitical analysis (politics, economy even military). I can select Palestine, Israel and Lebanon and conduct a geopolitical analysis and call the "region" whatever I want. However, they simply don't make a real geopolitical region, simply because their political/economical not to mention military relations are simply non existen. The countries of MA don't share politics interests, nor economic interest between them. Such interactions and economic interdependency are present within the CA nations, and also are present within the Caribbean nations, but doesn't exist between Mex, CA and the Caribbean. They simply don't make a geopolitical region. MA is not a geopolitical region. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I can read fine, but you seem to have difficulties reading and writing. Actually, I believe Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon are considered parts of the Levant -- and arguably comprise a regional unit for analysis, just a smaller one within the Middle East: even that article indicates this is sometimes the case. If you wish to disbelieve that those entities and the ones of this discussion (which should take place/resume there) have any commonalities/linkages in terms of human/political geography, then attitude is not the only thing that needs adjustment. And more information is required before jumping on any forks. Corticopia 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Two notes: MA is arguably already given due weight (not in intro, after other notations per prior discussion), and we are not defining MA -- a host of other sources have been provided that already do so. A bientôt. :) Corticopia 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, so now you want to give less weight to the fact MA is a cultural region? You did the opposite when debating in Americas terminology and in Mesoamerica... AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
No: what I am saying is that MA may be any number of regions -- geographic, geophysical, geopolitical, cultural... We cannot qualify it as one or the other when other sources have been provided or do not differentiate. For all I know: MA is primarily physiographic/geophysical because it is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas -- that does make sense. I also advocate for this in Americas (terminology). Corticopia 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dúnadan, would you please suggest a rewording? If we are going to mention Mexico is part of the (cultural) region of Middle America, Latin America should be mentioned too. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latin America is mentioned in the introduction. Corticopia 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
North America is also mentioned in the intro. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, yet Middle America is not. Corticopia 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Dúnadan. Remember our debate on Talk:Americas (terminology)? Middle America is for sure not a geopolitical region. It is a cultural (perhaps linguistical) region of North America (that of course, can be described in geographical terms, but it doesn't seem it was the primary base for the contruct of the term). It seems to me it was created to provide contrast with Northern America, another cultural area in the NA continent. NA as a continent is divided in Northern and Middle. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Given the above, nothing is for sure. MA may be in contrast to Northern America (usage of which dates back to 1755). I have tried to research the etymology of MA, but (given editing herein) haven't had the time as of yet. Also note, though, that the article regarding Middle America being a shatterbelt lends credence to it being a geopolitical region, too. Corticopia 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just finished reading that article. It divides the Americas in three groups: North (Mex, Can, US, and directly note this), Middle America (CA and the Caribbean, it mentions Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba...) and South America. In their explanations of the "shatterbelts" they never mention Mexico in the "Middle American shatterbelts". In fact, they do mention Mexico in the "North American shatterbelts". So, the article doesn't support the idea of Middle America being a "geopolitical region". The article never says that. At least, if anything, it elaborates a geopolitical historical study about Middle America, a region clearly defined as CA and the Caribbean, within the article. Anyways, good night Corticopia, I gonna take off. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
That is not the point: you deny that MA is a region for geopolitical analysis, when it is clearly used in that context in that article. The fact that the article may exclude Mexico from MA is immaterial, since (as we know) most sources do not and yet other sources also exclude Mexico from the 'region' of NA. This, coupled with your misunderstanding of the terms at play and disbelief or ignorance of the fact that (for example) the countries of the Levant are not geopolitically connected somehow should raise the brow of anyone involved in this discussion. Good night! Corticopia 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Anybody can select a certain group of countries and start a geopolitical study, as is done in the article you provided. Geopolitical regions are defined in a different way, as we discussed in Americas terminology. I can select, for example, US, Mex, Guatemala and Belize and study their politics, economical and militar relations. However, it will be hard to see any geopolitical integration between them, so they are not referred as a geopolitical region. Middle America is a geographical and also a cultural term, used to subdivide North America. Also, note that the article you provided treats North America as Canada, US and Mexico. We're not asking to not use the term MA, jus for a different wording in order to accurately indicate what each term is.AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, you are both advocating for slightly different things in this discussion. A read of that article clearly indicates that MA is one such region for geopolitical analysis -- i.e., a shatterbelt subject to strife, a field of contestaton by major powers, constituents accepting alliances nationally/externally. Yes, it may also treat those three countries in NA as a continent -- this is not in dispute and already dealt with in the NA article; furthermore, they appear to group the three countries together (and not inappropriately) to conveniently address contention over Texas/southern US. Corticopia 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposals

Given the above discussion, I have another rewording proposal. No qualifiers for the regions and noting NA as a continent.

Mexico is situated in the south portion of the North American continent. Its territory lies in the regions of Middle America and North America. Physiographically, the lands east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec including the Yucatán Peninsula (which together comprise around 12% of the country's area) lie within the region of Central America. Geologically, the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt delimits the region on the north.[9] Geopolitically, however, Mexico is generally not considered a Central American country and its southern border with Belize and Guatemala delimits the region.

AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not support this: the first line was largely to accommodate for the fact that it is in the Americas above all and in its mid-portion (general to specific). Your prior proposals are more palatable. And, if this holds, the prior poll and consensus -- not to mention the time investment -- meant absolutely nothing. Again, this is wholly disconcerting. Bye for now. Corticopia 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, this source (chapter of an e-book) published by Vincent Malmstrom, professor emeritus at Dartmouth College indicates the following:

  • Mexico's rugged topography and its low-latitude ___location combine to produce a wide diversity of climates ... Lying between the parallels of 15 and 33 degrees north latitude ...

referring to its ___location in the low northerly latitudes of North America or, alternatively, the mid-latitudes of the Americas (which is particularly apt if one maintains that Mexico is a part of America). As well:

  • Mexico's isthmian ___location between the landmasses of North and South America makes it a frontier [between two ecozones] ...

Anyhow, more later ... Corticopia 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you didn't get it. Above, I said it was just a proposal and that I did understand both yours and Dúnadan comments, in regard that this debate was not about the elimination of the line "Mexico is located in the mid-latitudes..." Ok? I did get it. That line is gonna be kept. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I completely 'got it' ... and stated as much above about 'slight differences' between the two of you in discussion points. Here, I merely consolidated my comments because (1) the one reference dealt with other points too (e.g., the (sic) 'wierd' isthmus assertion) and (2) latitude. :) More later ...Corticopia 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

After the break

I hope you guys enjoyed your Saturday. Welcome back. Concerning the concept of Middle America,

  • I understood the definition of MA to be geopolitical in that it was defined by political borders and not by geophysical features. However, the concept of political geography or geopolitics, besides studying political borders, it also studies political, governmental and economical analysis, nationalism, voting,[2], ethnic conflicts, [3], and political preference[4]. So I understand Alex's opposition to considering MA a geopolitical concept. After all, just as geopolitics is concerned with the integration of countries in the European Union and its expansion, it is concerned about the development of the North American bloc (considering it goes beyond NAFTA after the Security and Prosperity Parternship, and, though remote, the possible creation of a NA community, as proposed by some politicians of the three countries). In this case, Middle America is not a geopolitical concept, but simply a cultural one in opposition to Anglo-America.
  • Since Middle America could be considered a geopolitical term (if defined exclusively by borders) or simply as a cultural term (in that it cannot be extended to other aspects of political geography), I propose that we define MA as it is most commonly done: as a region in the Americas integrated by such and such countries. Other definitions, like Britannica, can also be included as occasional alternative geographical definitions.

Now, getting back to our main concern, which is the rewording of that sentence. I still believe we should not imply that Middle America is defined as the "mid-latitudes of the Americas" because I haven't found a reference to support that claim. I would leave the sentence as Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America. And add the sentence about Mexico being in Middle America at the end of the paragraph.

--theDúnadan 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I kinda knew that you were using the term that way, no in the strict sense of what geopolitics are really about. As you said, let's get back to the main debate.AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments. Well, I do disagree somewhat with the above, D., and believe the argument that it's unsourced to be somewhat troublesome. I am still trying to source it (related source above), but that doesn't deny the fact of the matter -- which is not in dispute? -- that Middle America is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (apt given its north-south 'length' and juxtaposed with 'North' and South America) and that the entry was an attempt to equitably incorporate all points of view. It is distressing that editors herein may first advocate for noting a solitary American continent here and elsewhere, and then challenge language and expansion which properly addresses it. It is analogous to defining and differentiating any region - e.g., Central America is a central region of {the )America(s), Central/Middle Africa the same (but each not the same), Eastern Europe is the eastern region or portion of Europe, etc. (as well many, of those regional articles are spartan and remain unsourced or lacking detail). In its essence, Middle America is the/a middle (or central) region of the Americas; in lieu of the current challenge solely by D. (which can't be anything but), I would advocate for that sort of rewording in the lead of that article and nothing less. Herein, I maintain the content does not need to be changed and -- perhaps in retrospect, the original proposals are looking more palatable and I'd choose #2 if any, then #1: after all, it's about what Mexico is, not what it isn't. In any event, I remain exasperated by this continual line of discourse for what may be not what. Corticopia 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


I am sorry that you remain exasperated. Honestly, I do too, in that we seem not to be able to understand each other, and we find ourselves (or at least I find myself) repeating the arguments over and over, thinking that the other party did not understand our point.
Please, indulge me, in that I have to repeat an argument once again. I fully agree with you in that Middle America is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas. My concern is that MA is not defined as such even if it happens to be located there. AC has said that MA is a cultural region before a geographical region, and I agree. And even the old distinction between Eastern and Western Europe was first political (democracy vs. communism) and then geographical. Now things have changed, new countries have been born, and things get blurry now that EU has been expanded.
Middle America is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas: I fully agree with you. But no source defines it as such. We cannot say that we must include MA as being located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas to preserve NPOV or to include all POVs, because if no source has been found to corroborate the claim, then there is no POV to be incorporated, but our own opinion.
Given your history of referenced and solid contributions, I assume you found a source that defined MA as being located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas before you wrote the article. If that is the case, then simply add it, and this discussion is all over. Like you said before, we must add references even to that which seems obvious to us.
Also, I have a small petition. I have been mistaken before thinking that you were referring to me or talking to me when you weren't, and that confusion may cause unnecessary animosity. Could you please refer to the editors at all times by names (instead of "editors herein" and the sort), so that we might continue to discuss amicably? I would most ceraintly appreciate that endeavor.
--theDúnadan 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments (will ref editors hereafter). I understand you fine; I believe the jury is still out on whether Middle America is primarily a geopolitical, geophysical, cultural, and/or some other region. You will note that I have maintained it to be a cultural region (read Dow), but do not dispute nor discard other interpretations. However, when both Britannica and the CIA World fact book provide a physical description alone to note its ___location (the later explicitly stating MA), it must mean that it is also a geographic/geophysical region (also see recent Coney ref added at MA regarding physiographic development of MA). As well, I will continue to investigate but (again) the lead of MA was written to accommodate the various points of view regarding the Americas -- which is also corroborated by Merriam-Webster's definition for the region (Mexico, countries of Central America, often West Indies, sometimes Colombia and Venezuela) ... which would make it a region of political geography too.
I believe the issues here are two-fold:
  • AC has taken issue with noting MA without a qualifier or other punctuation, while being copasetic with its mid-latitudinal ___location
  • D has since taken issue with descriptions of Mexico and Middle America being in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, and that MA may be defined as that, despite parallelism elsewhere (e.g., Central America, Middle/Central Africa, Southeast Asia) and an equitable definition there that is (not?) contraversial
this seems somewhat intractable, since the alternates may yield an article that is partial in content regarding its ___location.
As for etymology: take a glance at Talk:Middle America (Americas)#Usage -- this is premature, but it may be that Middle America is a precursor term to (yes) Mesoamerica as I initially suspected. More information (to follow) is necessary before jumping to any conclusions ... Corticopia 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I fully understand Dúnadan's concerns about the lack of sources indicating the latitudinal ___location of Middle America. Corticopia, I am not opposed of saying Mexico is in the mid latitudes of the Americas, and I have never been opposed to it. I have to agree with Dúnadan's proposal, that the best solution is to write the line in a way it doesn't get confused with the first line about the Americas. And also I agree with adding no qualifiers to the term and simply add it as the references describe it: "A region of the Americas". AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As above, again, one can argue that the definition (specifically, the lead) for Middle America needn't any extraneous source since it is rather descriptive -- middle region of America -- or (in MA) can simply be rendered a (re)iteration of the article title per the manual of style. And, I'm sorry to say: this discussion with all parties has mushroomed into a circular, frustrating, argumentative farce and apparently foregos the impartial framing arrived at and (in retrospect) the frankly useless poll conducted weeks ago and lengthy discussions throughout. Editors promote neutrality and then cast it off when it doesn't appear to suit them. Congratulations.
I maintain the current leads here and there are sufficient, with attempts to tweak it without discussion beforehand (surreptitiously, I might add) part of an overall campaign to insinuate a point of view regardless of source and perhaps to disrupt ... resulting in this. Anyhow, added research/sourcing notwithstanding, I will want the entire intro paragraph for the Geography section placed here for review and discussed before any changes are made, and any changes for MA discussed and proposed over there beforehand. If the changes here and there are not agreeable, they will not stand. And that's all I have to say regarding this. Corticopia 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
OMG, I cannot believe what you said. It is obvious that you want to disrupt the dabate because it does not fit your expectations.AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you changed your own comment while I was editing. I must say your previous (deleted) sentence in which you accused me (literally you said "you both", though now you revert back to what I asked you not to do, to refer to the ambigious "editors") of "promoting neutrality and then discarding it when it doesn't suit me" as well as that of just having an "argumentative farce", and doing things "surreptitiously", and I am not campaigning against a specific point of view. All of that was not only uncalled for, but extremely inappropriate.

In a previous argument you demanded sources for the logical, and now you disregard our petitions for sources for the logical. I, therefore, maintain that the current leads here and there are not sufficient, simply because the statement is unsourced. And I request sources to be added, or the statement to be deleted. I am not attempting to tweak anything without discussion (I haven't edited the section at all). If you are not willing to debate amicably, I wish to discuss no further. --theDúnadan 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I mean what I said: you both promote neutrality, and then cast it off when it suits you. Be this due to nationalism, denial, or some other reason, I cannot say. And arguably you, D., have taken sides given your stance in the AfD to support the fork, whose contents were consensually merged elsewhere and deleted. You probably would've done better to have remained ambivalent, as you've maintained throughout much of this discussion.
To clarify, D., while you have not edited anything, the other editor involved in this discussion has, precipitating everything.
Anyhow, I will continue to research and source worthwhile content when able, but any changes that are not consensual nor agreeable regarding the above points will NOT stand. And I am ending this tortuous discussion. (Other notions can hereafter be addressed on my talk page, if needed.) Corticopia 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did not support the fork, but I did not support the decision of the administrator either since a full consensus was not achieved. I had rather extended the discussion before a final decision was taken. Please review the log to see my concerns, before bringing up your accusations. I didn't vote, but just commented on that. Given your personal attacks (nationalism, denial, and the sort), I wish to discuss no discuss no further with you. It seems you are also hypocritical in your own arguments demanding sources for the obvious, but unwilling to provide them when they don't suit you; you promote neutrality, except when we challenge your definition. I insist, either you present a source that clearly defines MA the way you want to, or the statements WILL be deleted because they cannot be sustained with sources or references, by policy of Wikipedia. And that is all I have to say. --theDúnadan 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but a spade is a spade: You clearly opted to overturn the AfD, for reasons later discounted. I have indicated I will research and source the assertion -- which was perhaps lost in my verbiage -- but its premature removal would clearly highlight duality regarding facts that are supposedly not controversial. I will also retract any pointed statements, D., misconstrued as personal attacks. But really, these lengthy chats -- particularly over what essentially is an inappropriate comma -- are quite exasperating and seem to be rather counter-productive. Perhaps another break is in order? Corticopia 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess if Corticopia wants to exclude himself from the debate, then let it be. We can always continue to debate, as we were. As Dúnadan said, you are the one that always ask for "reliable sources" here and there (as in South America where you erased my edits), so the same rule applies to you. Your threats about what is going to be kept or not, are just not welcome here. I guess we'll just have to wait for your sources, because you're entitled to add them, it's your right to sustain your edits or proposed edits. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No comment. Corticopia 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Continuation

Dúnadan, can we please resume this debate? I have implemented a contention solution (just separating the "mid-latitudes" line from the "Middle America" line with a period. However, it has been recentrly edited again, and again, it portrays the region of "Middle America" as equally used as just the NA continent. I think it is time to resume this and edit the paragraph. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Uh, what are you talking about? The recent edits to the second sentence were intended to address your concerns about its commonality. This is ludicrous. Corticopia 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
First of all, we are still discussing it here, the debate has not ended yet. Secondly, your recent edit to the second line readed:
"Its territory comprises much of southern North America, within a region sometimes referred to as Middle America."
It doesn't address the concern of the the commonality of "MA". This particular edit makes one think, if the region is sometimes called MA, then, what is the name of the region Mexico is within when not called that? Also, the line only mentions one possible geographical region, MA, what about North America? Since it is not the only geographical model that could be applied. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
What are you talking about again? You first edit the statement without discussion and start everything off, then you assert it doesn't reflect an equitable state of affairs; you then complain when equitable edits are attempted. Again, this is rather senseless and going nowhere. Read the statement again: the first sentence clearly places Mexico in the Americas, the second in southern North America (whatever that may be) which also corresponds to what is (sometimes) called Middle America. What is the problem here? As for what the name of the region Mexico is within when not called MA is for the reader to decide or not, but that is not an implication or intention of the statement. We can always replace "a region sometimes referred to as Middle America" with simply "within (the region of) Middle America" or just "in Middle America". Please let's get on with it. Corticopia 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My edits

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

ok then, I'll mention my edits here, though I think it's very silly because people make edits all the time without mentioning them on the talk page (dividing the history section in two sections for example, the one I rolled back):

History and Etymology should be two different sections, because it are two different subjects. The "Pre-Columbian Civilizations and Origin of the Name" is not about Pre-Columbian civilizations at all, but only about etymology while "European Colonization and Independence" deals with the entire history instead of just the European colonization and independence. Also the article "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire" is not the main article about that subject, but only about a part of it (apart from that it's a non-functioning redirect).

Finally the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is simply not important enough to mention on the history section of this article. Out of all the things that happened during the Fox administration the SPPNA is really not one of the most important facts. Better mention it in the History of Mexico article, which needs to be revamped anyway. Mixcoatl 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your edits. Thanks. --theDúnadan 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with all your edits, but the deletion of the SPP of NA. I think it is a political agreement that will play an increasingly important role in nowadays and future politics of the North American region. Perhaps it can be relocated, let me read the whole article again. For now, I added it back. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Biodiversity picture

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Having a picture of a lepisosteus (pejelagarto) in the biodiversity section, just before the politics sections, is controversial at best. 1) there are other species that are endemic to Mexico 2) This particular species makes reference to another particular politician (el pejelagarto, Lopez Obrador) 3) The nearness of the picture with the politics section may lead some readers to believe that the article supports a particular political point of view. Because of the above, I would prefer if the picture of the lepisosteus was replaced. Furthermore, since the biodiversity subsection is so small, I don't really see it needs a picture. I have, therefore, removed it. Hari Seldon 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The image doesn't reference any politician. This makes your objection problematic ... WilyD 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is an implicit reference. I would still prefer a more widely known and less controversial picture. Hari Seldon 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you'd like to provide more context and information, some reference that this seemingly innocuous image could be seen as contraversial, if you hope to establish a consensus that it should be removed/replaced. As it stands your whole argument consists of I don't like it which few editors are likely to find compelling. WilyD 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The picture is that of a "pejelagarto". "Pejelagarto" is also the nickname of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the controversial politican who lost the highly contested 2006 Presidential Election. This same picture, or one similar to it, has also been featured at different points in time in the wikipedia article about Lopez Obrador (though I don't think it is featured anymore). The fact that the biodiversity section is placed just before the politics section also contributes to the controversial placement. What I am saying is that this picture may draw more attention to a current political controversy than to the biodiversity of Mexico. A better picture can easily be found, and said picture need not have the political content involved. The picture can be interpreted as "spineless, fish-like, politicans are part of the biodiversity" or a message from Lopez Obrador supporters saying "we cannot be ignored, we are here". Either way, it is controversial and may be interpreted as saying more than it intends. Because of these reasons, I don't think it is prudent to include this particular picture. Hari Seldon 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Can you suggest a replacement image? An endemic Mexican species would probably be preferable. I'm not sure the issue is much of a problem, but good is always better than okay. WilyD 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I apologize for having deleted the pic without reading the talk page first; indeed you had provided a reason. I don't fully agree with you, but you still provided a reason.
I don't really link the image of a well-known endemic species in Mexico with López Obrador. When I added it, about a month ago [because it was me who added it on the biodiversity section, even if it had been used long before in a different section and then deleted], I wasn't really thinking about politics or surreptitious messages of the supporters. Since the article doesn't even mention Obrador's nickname, I don't think an external non-Mexican reader will make that connection. But I do understand your concern, and if a better image can be found, which will portray no political connotations, then that's better. I support the replacement of the image. --theDúnadan 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't think an external non-Mexican reader will make that connection - I certainly didn't. WilyD 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Probably not, but there are plenty of Mexican readers here, and, i would really prefer to have this article as non-controversial as possible. We all know how it can get when little things create big fights and/or edit wars. Hari Seldon 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm a Mexican, and I know who López Obrador is (I study political sciences). However, I didn't make that connection, simply because I didn't know the formal name of the specie nicknamed "pejelagarto". I doubt any non-Mexican would make the connection between the image and AMLO. In fact, I liked the image because it was very colorful and look so professional. The new one is just OK. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I still maintain my opinion, but since general consensus seems to be against me, then thats just the way it is. I find the current picture acceptable, but if you wish to put in the other picture, I guess that would be ok too, since I am the only one with reservations against it. Hari Seldon 01:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

2000: the first time the opposition defeated the PRI?

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In a recent edition, the first paragraph was changed. That change implied that the 2000 presidential election was the first time [ever] that an opossition party defeated the "ruling party" (PRI). That is totally wrong. The PAN and the PRD have already defeated the PRI in municipal and state elections before 2000. This year was the first time the PRI was defeated in a presidential race. That's all. Please, see the changes [5]. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, user FateClub let this message in my user talk:

[..]please realize that the article says "first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) at the national presidential race". It implies that in 1929 the PRI was the ruling party and it was defeated, neither is correct.[...] --FateClub 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't get his point. Or maybe it is that I haven't slept in 34 hours. Well, I just paste it here so other people can comment. The current introduction seems fine to me. Comments! AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would be better to say that 2000 was the first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the ruling party in a presidential election. That would be more accurate. Hari Seldon 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

To say that PRI ruled Mexico since 1929 is incorrect because it wasn't founded until 1946, and even if for non-specialist people the difference seems vain, actually PNR, PRM and PRI had particular features that made each stage of the develpment of the party very different from the others.I think the article must be corrected. --201.141.98.254 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Semi-Protection

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Why was semi-protection removed? Vandalism to this article has increased. Please semi-protect this article again! Hari Seldon 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Articles like this should probably be left semi-protected, just like United States. It is wearing, tiresome and frustrating to be reverting vandalism all day long, and it discourages honest and hard-working editors from improving or even participating in Wikipedia. --the Dúnadan 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reply: I agree as well. Keep the Semi-protection on. --Ramírez 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Just take a look at the history of this article and you'll see it has been protected so many times. It should be permanently semi protected. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, as soon as it was left unprotected I had two revert two edits within minutes. --FateClub 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Vandalism has increased today, since the article got unprotected. Can somebody tell me if it is already listed in the Request protection page? AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh man, what we gonna do with this people, huh, Mexico is probably the second most hated country in the world after the USA, as you might have seen the vandals came from both North America and South America, this s..t simply proves my theory that US Citizens hate Mexico because of the illegal immigration issue and the wrong idea that they have about the country, and South Americans hate Mexico as well because they know that we're better than them in many aspects, oh.. What a situation we got ourselves into, isn't it? Supaman89 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Motivation for vandalism aside, how do we semi-protect the article again? Hari Seldon 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
We just need to talk to an administrador and explain him the problem. Supaman89 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok now I'm back. I'll just request protection for the article in the appropiate page, I was so tired in the morning that I couldn't do it. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just finished asking semi-protection. Next time you want to do it, go here. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Man, I can't believe they keep vandalising the page, even though have their user names. Supaman89 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mexican parties templates

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In order to provide a fast way of showing the correct link to each political party article, and to show its initials and colors, I have created the following templates. Originally, the actual official logo was going to be used, but those logos were uploaded with a "fair use" license, and Wikipedia explicitly forbbids the use of such images in templates. So I created generic symbols, with the party initials and colors, as done in the Mexican press and media. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 08:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What to type Result
{{PAN party}} Template:PAN party
{{PRI party}} Template:PRI party
{{PRD party}} Template:PRD party
{{PT party}} Template:PT party
{{PVEM party}} Template:PVEM party
{{CON party}} Template:CON party
{{PASC party}} Template:PASC party
{{PNA party}} Template:PNA party

Congratulations! Excellent work! Your contributions will not only improve Mexico-related articles here, but in other wikipedias as well. --the Dúnadan 16:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Finally somebody reliped! Thanks Dúnadan, I hope people start using them. AlexCov     ( Let's talk! ) 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sup guys, look at my new template

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey, guys I just wanted to show you the new template that I just made for all users from Mexico, if anyone wants to use it, please feel free to do so, now we have two choices instead of just one. Supaman89 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's the old one.

 This user comes from Mexico.




Here's the one I just made.

 This user comes from the
United Mexican States.
And they're proudly Mexican.




Man, I almost forgot to show you this one: Supaman89 16:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

es-
mx		Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel vernacular del español que se habla en México.




Photographic database (external link)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello members of the discussion board. I'd like to submit for consideration adding an external link to [www.esmexico.com], which is an external website that contains a photographic database of all Mexico. The photos are do not comply with the GNU license, so I'm not able to just add them to Wiki images, but given the number of photos that it has (currently 11,000), it makes for an excelent visual database.
I'm a new member in the English version of Wikipedia, but have been a contributor to the Spanish version of Wikipedia on articles related to Mexico and its geography (user name is the same as here) for over a year. This external link was discussed and aproved in the Spanish language article of Mexico, and it's included as Base de Datos de Fotos de México on the External Links.
As a final note I'd like to add that it features 11,000 photos of geography and culture related images and historical (antique) pictures of Mexico. On top of these, we feature over 4,000 antique Mexican postcards. Altogether there are more than 15,000 images. More than any other website around, including goverment and tourism pages.--Esmexico 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who unprotected this page

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Did anyone request this page to be unprotected? This page gets constant vandalism everyday. Shouldn't it be permanently protected à la United States or George Bush?? --the Dúnadan 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. But nobody unprotected the article. Last time an admin semi-protected it, used a temporary SP, and he said it will get unprotected by this date. All we can do is request SP again and make clear this article need permanent SP. I'll fill the request. AlexCovarrubias     ( Let's talk! ) 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I reported and just minutes ago an admin granted indefinitely semi-protection. AlexCovarrubias     ( Let's talk! ) 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Very much needed Hari Seldon 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sources for Filipino Mexicans?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I recently deleted the sources for Filipino Mexicans and added them to the list with other Asian peoples in Mexico (Chinese, Korean, etc.) One source read as follows:

( Following the Third World War and the Mexican conquest of the United States territories to its north, the liberal Mexican government resettled Hispanophone Filipino refugees from their camps in the East Indian Commonwealth to the promising if underpopulated northwestern states of greater Mexico. More quickly than Korean-Mexicans, the Filipino immigrant communities of the California and Sonora are quickly mixing with their native-born Mexican neighbours, due to the Filipinos' knowledge of Spanish and their Catholicism. )

First of all, who in the world really acknowledges that there has been a third world war? And when were the U.S.'s territories ever 'conquered' by Mexico??? These are not very good sources...just read them. They say nothing about what these people are trying to back up.

Also, the Filipinos mixed in quicker than Koreans because of prior Spanish skills? Filipinos have virtually no knowledge of Spanish...let's find some real sources, besides what's wrong with adding them into the list with other Asians..why not show how many Chinese or Japanese immigrants there have been...Such a small group like Filipinos really have no consequence in Mexico anyway. signed Cali567 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reply: Do not be such an ignorant and have some common sense, Filipinos or East Timorese are a different oriental race compared to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc. Why are you comparing Filipinos to Chinese, Koreans, Japanese etc. when infact the Filipino mentality, language and culture do not matched up with other Asians. And also there are some Mexicans who are descendance of Filipino origin. Have some common sense the Philippines was part of the territory of New Spain during the colonial period. Filipinos, Spaniards or Mexicans have been travelling in the Manila-Acapulco Galleon between 1565-1815, assisting Spain's trade with Philippines and Mexico. There was some integration between the three groups in terms of population demography. I'm still researching on this article and gathering all the facts. It will expand soon, You have to have patients cali, Wikipedia is not a place for "Nuetral Point of Views", "Personal Attack" or "Racism", the next you make an attempt to racialy attack an ethnic group, "I will blocked you". I'm giving you one more chance.--Ramírez 10:17 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramírez, you might want to check your own language. Cali's comments are not racist, and you have attacked him by calling him "ignorant" and implicitly "racist". I think it is you who needs to be careful with the language and your choice of words. Besides, you are not administrator, so you cannot block anyone. Threatening to block other users is definitely a lack of etiquette; Cali has done nothing that would merit a block, but most importantly, you can't do it yourself. Wikipedia is the place of neutral point of views. Claims that cannot be sourced must be erased, especially if new sources contradict those claims. After you've done your research, then the information could be added to article. --the Dúnadan 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course the Philippines have always been present in Mexican history, as Mexico was the administrator of that territory, however, the 600,000 thousand figure comes from the worst source I've ever seen... I can go with the 200,000 that was in the other article but anyways, I think the number should be omitted (As per the number of different ancestries mexican have, it does not have such a relevance) and rewritten to say that there was this pihilippine immigration during the colonial period, that, I find relevant. and Ramirez72, you should check your english, maybe that's the reason you misunderstand your so-called "sources". And Cali, I'm no expert of the Mexico-Filipino relationship but, with some history, I want to believe that there was indeed some immigration of Filipinos to Mexico and that they blended the exact same way as spanish, or europeans (that nowadays we can only see the color of the skin but not certainly identify the origin). Really, Filipinos are a very similar to mexicans in religion, traditions, language (there's still a spanish creole spoken nowadays there). I believe they should have blended much better than other asians so today, we don't find enough relevance. Aldoman 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&oldid=126187788"