Talk:Mexico/Archive 8

Spanish IS NOT official in Mexico

Why you people are writing in the page to th Spanish is official language in Mexico?, Spanish is not official although is spoken by 98.5% of the Mexican is not constitutional official language is DE FACTO language, Mexico has not official language, is the same case with the United States, english is not official language of the country, you can check in the Spanish version of the article. In the field of official language you should write NON AT FEDERAL LEVEL, as I wrote and someone reversed. --User:Hpav7 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Spanish IS the official language of Mexico at the Federal level, according to the Presidency of the Republic of the Federal Government:

"The official language of Mexico is Spanish and it has over 66 Indian languages" [1]

This matter has already been extensively discussed in the past. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is! It has already been discussed but the website of the Presidency of Mexico is very clear about it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if you discussed about or not, in any article of the constitution says Spanish is official, even if the spanish is official for the federal government Mexico is a federal republic and in any of the 31 state constitutions recognize Spanish as the official language. I didn't know that discussing issues mean that things turns official. ENTIENDANLO el español no es oficial constitucionalmente, la pagina de la presidencia de la republica puede decir misa, yo soy Abogado y conozco la constitucion de pies a cabeza y les aseguro que el español no es oficial, por eso mismo en la pagina de Mexico en Español dice que es de facto. que terca gente.Hpav7 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Image cramming

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

This is 2010. You know people can't read long articles that aren't filled with pictures anymore. 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.132.36 (talk)

Motto

Someone should put the motto for mexico in. It is País, Libertad, Trabajo y Cultura (Country, Liberty, Work and Culture)

--74.114.172.120 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard that motto. If you can provide a source, we should definitely include it. But as far as I know, last time I checked there was no motto. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, i've never heard that motto and i'm mexican, please provide the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktoy (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the actual motto is "We do jobs that even the Blacks won't do!" 16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.132.36 (talk)

There is no official motto or constitutional, but the "de facto" motto is La Patria es Primero (Homeland is first) as written in golden letters in the Congress of the Union.Hpav7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

Global Peace Index info

Can someone please add Global Peace Index information to the Mexico article?

The info can be found here, Global Peace Index.

I was thinking it can be added to the information table on the right at the start of the article, right after the HDI info.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JavoMonster (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

H1N1

In the section on Health and Education, I wanted to add http://content.glin.gov/summary/218560 so researchers can see the gamut of legal measures taken as a response to the H1N1 virus.

I hope I don't catch Mexican AIDs.16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.132.36 (talk)

With all respect to American citizens, but the virus started in the United States of America (according with José Ángel Córdoba Villalobos, the first cases were from americans, and moths passed before the virus entered to the United Mexican States), and the one that answered to the situation and advertised the world about the situation were the United Mexican States, and authorities didn't stopped fighting against this situation (tourism, medicines, hospitals, etc.) --Ivylooy8540 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Energy section.

Hey guys... As far as remember, on Oct. 11 of 2009 CFE took over LyFC. I think the energy section needs to be rephrased stating the new events and mentioning that now all the states are managed by CFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwing76 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Supaman89 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Independence Recognized in 1836, not 1821!

The independence of Mexico was recognized on 28 December 1836. September 27, 1821 refers only to the Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire (this declaration is not to be confused with the Grito de Dolores or Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America). The Treaty of Córdoba of August 24, 1821, by which colonial Spanish representatives without authority recognized the independence of New Spain/Mexico, was never ratified by the Cortes Generales. When the document was sent by the representatives before the Cortes for it to be ratified, the Cortes refused.

See es:México (a featured article) and es:Guerras de independencia hispanoamericanas#Negociaciones de paz y reconciliación.--201.6.83.146 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Independence was finally conquered in 1821. After September 27th, 1821, the Spanish Cortes Generales stopped having authority in Mexico, so it is not that relevant when Spain acknowledge it and ratified the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.127.150 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EXTRA INFORMATION:

In 1821, the independence of the provinces and parties that used to conform the Viceroyalty of New Spain was granted by de viceroy Juan from O'Donojú, in the city of Córdoba, Veracruz; therefore, the document was called Treaty of Córdoba. But, before the provinces and parties were declared as such by the king Calos III because of the Borbonic Reforms, those territories were kingdoms,and those kingdoms were: Kingdom of Mexico, New Kingdom of Galicia, New Kingdom of Viscaya, New Kindom of León, New Kingdom of Santander, and the General Captaincy of Yucatán; and so, when Agustín from Iturbide was supposed to exercise the power in the new country, he decided to restablish the organization into Kingdoms, and that is why he declared himself Emperor, in other words, King of Kings. But the problem was that those ideals were against the ones most of the people fought for, so Iturbide was deposed and shot. Then, all the territory was organizated in a different way, almost the same way the United States of America were: divided into states and territories, a federal district, three powers (legislative, executive, and judicial), all of this declared in the 1824 constitution. --Ivylooy8540 (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Mexico need a welfare state?

The extremely high levels of corruption and violence, with thousands of people killed every year by criminal gangs perhaps mean Mexico needs a welfare state so citizens are not as much dependent on criminal groups. In its present form, with such a high level of violence, corruption, poverty and criminality Mexico cannot be considered a developed nation. The Government of Mexico is undertaking a titanic task trying to manage it but it still has a long road.--83.53.110.5 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, but I am sick of foreigners saying that the drug cartels kill "innocent or regular citizens". Almost all of the killings has to do with the criminals themselves. They kill rivals because they are trying to make their cartels the number 1 in whatever city. That's why the army sometimes just watch the shootings, because they are killing themselves. Of course some innocent citizens have been killed, mostly because sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Thinking that the cartels are killing innocent people would be terrorism, and thanks God Mexico is no way under that circumstances. Also not all of Mexico has this problem. Some cities continue to be really pacific and safe (most of the cities! especially the resort cities!), while others like Ciudad Juárez and Reynosa are very troubled (because they are in the border).

This is a very very naive comment. Please refrain from it, thinking that the thousands of persons killed somehow 'had it coming' because they were involved in illegal activities is extremely irresponsible. Cartels ARE killing people, and there is a high level of insecurity in Mexico. Kidnappings, carjackings, run-of-the-mill mugs and robs. That the authorities decide to just sit and watch when the cartels kill each other is partly true, but it is also direct evidence of the inability to stop it. No shootings should happen outside my home, no matter whether it is between drug dealers or not. It is also inexcusable that authorities decide not to prosecute or investigate murders because they classified them as "between 'narcos'". That is just avoiding their responsibility. If they don't want it, they should just quit and stop living from the people's money. Hugo cantu (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This section has an odd title (and is probably inappropriate-- this is not a forum for general talk about the topic-- ), but I do want to clarify the situation (since we're not on the main page:) When I was in Acapulco four months ago, there was medium arms fire in the night. The weekend before, five heads had been put on poles along the Avenida Costera. Small explosives went off in the night, as is common elsewhere in Mexico. Even President Calderon, has conceded that much of Mexico has fallen outside Federal control, while the conference of mayors puts that at over 50%. In short, no where is beyond the violence, not Mexico City, no where. And to approach these issues with racism or prejudice-- is at least, not appropriate on a Wikipedia talk page about the article representing Mexico. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nbyrdb, 8 May 2010: With regards to Maya rebels & the Maya Free State (1930s)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The Mexico article states that "Maya rebels, or Cruzob, maintained the Maya free state until the 1930s." This statement is inaccurate/misleading. As shown in the Wikipedia entry for Yucatan, the Republic of Yucatan was annexed to the United Mexican States in 1848. Small factions continued to reject Mexican rule but, officially, the states consisting of the Republic of Yucatan were no longer independent of the Mexican federal government.

Nbyrdb (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of that.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

done.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BRIEF: I don't believe this is accurate. It's too simplistic. Plenty of fully independent structures continue to exist within the Federal structure-- for instance, 3500 fully independent municipalities in Oaxaca-- you have to look far more closely, to substantiate the above (or, more likely, discover the actual situation). Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So-Called "Bad Translation"

Estados Unidos Mexicanos in english is MEXICAN UNITED STATES

United Mexican States = Estados Mexicanos Unidos | Mexican United States = Estados Unidos Mexicanos

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.106.98 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2010 May 29

United States of Mexico corresponds to the US-English usage, but would piss the USA because it gives Mexico equal and parallel status, right? ¿Es claro, no? KenThomas (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

United States of Mexico is not a proper translation, KenThomas. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

KenThomas... United States of Mexico would be Estados Unidos de México, which is a completely wrong translation. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex-- Please see below. Translation is rarely, simply literal. In the case of the representation of the name of a nation in another language, some care and close attention is required; you can't approach it as a "textbook" or "cookie cutter" exercise. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The current name (United Mexican States) should be the standard name used throughout the article and elsewhere. The CIA WorldBook calls it United Mexican States (Government > Country Name > Long Form). The United Nations calls it United Mexican States (UN). Why concoct something else? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The US, the US Central Intelligence Agency (a spy agency with a significant propaganda arm) and the UN declarations, are hardly neutral sources. Careful thought should be given to what the translation should be into an English-language context, and whether it properly represents Mexico to the reading audience, (add: per, exactly the POV and English-language-bias concerns which IANAS brings up below. 83.208.135.58 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

The USA is literally 'United States of America' and this, of course, is not without its controversies, as the 'Americas' extend beyond the borders of the political entity (nation-state) known as the USA.

In Mexican Spanish, as a result, the usage 'Estados Unidos de America' is hardly the clear, equivalent translation of 'United States of America,' just as 'Estadouniste' or the equivalent is likely a more popular or prevalent usage than 'Americano' (etc). In the end, with all respect to the US State Department, it is neither a neutral or fault-less authority (the use of 'reset' in the context of recent negotiations with the Russian Federation being only one example), and we have many example of the "Peking-Beijing" type, which reflect, well, in the end, colonial usages.

"United Mexican States," -- without looking over the history of how that translation came to be, it strikes me as more indicative of the 'Peking' side of colonialism and condescension towards Mexico, than the 'Beijing' side. It is odd, one stumbles over it a little, and it also has the rather odd function of making Chihuahua and Oaxaca "Mexican," in a way that the residents of the fully independent municipalities in those States, might find rather odd.

"Mexican United States" is more literally correct, in that the object of the adjective is the entire "Estados Unidos," but it is also awkward and may make it seem, to a US-English speaker, like it's like a Mexican attempt at being the United States.

"To my ear," as it were, "United States of Mexico" is the mejor, that is, better rendering into English. It has the advantage of representing the lands and institutions of Mexico as having a parallel and equal status as the US and other nations; of conveying that, currently and historically, Mexico is a political union of States, not a top-down or Federal imposition; and of-- though clarity "off-the-tongue" is not always a virtue in translation-- of, in this case, rolling off the tongue and not making Mexico seem like an odd, foreign and exotic place to the English reader.

The latter seems very important to me, today, given the political events. It's important to get it right and convey Mexico clearly and accurately, especially to the majority of English readers who will be in the US.

I will, however, certainly not re-edit the page title back to 'United States of Mexico' at this time. Yours, KenThomas (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as you understand that your position is a perfect example of what POV means, then there we have no problems at all. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, without you saying more, I'm not quite sure you have the point you think you have, and I might reply that there's no obvious way to escape a POV in this one :), which is exactly the "hard facts are rare" portion of POV refers to. Again: Peking or Beijing, in English? But please see the immediately below. Thanks again-- and specific thanks for bring up the POV issue and article. KenThomas (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead, after reviewing Afghanistan, Iraq, Belgium, France, Russia, Columbia and a few others, what I have done is adopt the general form used in each-- common name, followed by a statement of "official name." This would seem to a) have the advantage of approaching a standard for all WikiPedia articles about 'countries' and b) take what may be a politically or culturally contested term, out of the lede/focus, thus making the issue somewhat less important. KenThomas (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. I think there are discussions going on in the Edit Summaries here! Can we move those to the discussion page, please, so they're easy to track?

Sub-sections are too long

Most of the sub-sections are copy/pastes of divided articles. They need to be trimmed to summary size so that way whole page won't be too long and unreadable.--Cerian (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I noticed too :). I'll see what I can do, but please be patient, and if you can, make suggestions here as changes occur. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit War of a sorts, please bring discussion here.

I am attempting to clean up, expand and clarify the section currently under "20th Century," however, not only my section headings but detailed changes to text have been reverted (once or twice). I hope that we can have a discussion here.

First, this material, as the entire article, seems to me relatively weak.

"20th century" is an arbitrary category that does not particularly reflect any sort of change in Mexico nor a period in its history. I am roughly attempting to adopt the historical periods expressed by Enrique Krauze in Biographia del Poder and elsewhere, which are well-known ways of expressing the periods of Mexican history.

Are my period and section titles perfect? No, they're first attempts. Feel free to correct them, explore the underlying materials and have a discussion. Please do not revert changes outright, without thinking of the WikiPedia suggestions "be polite" and "assume goodwill," and without considering the value of coming to this page for a discussion.

Thanks to all reading this. KenThomas (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: notes on early 20th century and Madero/Revolution/US involvement: all of this is covered well by Krauze and several other historians of the period. I will work through, adding source footnotes and correcting/clarifying. KenThomas (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are idealizing and what you are doing are two different things. The way to work the History section is to start by sectionalizing the whole section, as it already existed, with headers that provide equal weight to -all- periods of Mexican history, starting with pre-historic times. Mexican history is one of the oldest in the world and, according to some authorities, the oldest in the Americas. To work on the 20th century alone, bypassing all other prior periods and, to exacerbate, to also drill down by creating subsections of the 20th-century era, even if well-intended, is undue weight. What you are idealizing, though, is achievable; we just need to be more impartial. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Monterrey is not a state

Monterrey is a capital city in the state of Nuevo León(New Lion) please change this error in Mexico#Science_and_technology

It is not "New Lion." It you want to put it in English, use "New León" or "New Leon." Leon is a province in Spain, so the name stays the same. We are not translating literally here. More info on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_León —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulisesr (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Music

Recent edits to the music section put much too much emphasis on recent and even up-and-coming Rock bands that are not known to the large majority of the general public. Currently alternative rock from 2000 onwards has a large paragraph while all other mexican music has two small paragraphs and doesn't mention any traditional genres such as the sones Huastecos, jarochos or jalicienses, any Classical musicians (e.g. Rolando Villazón) or composers (Manuel M. Ponce, Carlos Chavez), or any of the popular genres of tropical, cumbia, huaracha - indeed national popular musical icons like Jose Alfredo Jimenez, Javier Solís, Agustin Lara aren't mentioned at all. This seems like an immense amomount of undue weight on the bandsand genres preferred by a particular editors and gives a very ecclectic feeling to the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i want to add much more about traditional mexican music from around the country but don't really know much about them. If anyone has any thing to add it would be really great especially if somone could about traditional variations from different areas of the country. Rahlgd (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is the article is MUCH too long - there shouldn't be more about anything in any section only less. The solution is to remove the bands and musicians that are not highly notable. For example long lists of recent rock bands that are not widely known either inside or outside of Mexico.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the language issue, i was intent on stating the actual langues used, not just the greater language families, because there are no actual surviving languages known simplay as Nahuatl or Zapotec. Huaxcaleca Nahuatl called, Mǎsěvalätǒli/Māsēwallahtōlli is an actual surviving language and the one being refered to. However Huaxcaleca Nahuatl is not it's proper name, it was simply the name given to the language by the Jesuit preists. The name, pronounced "maʲseʲʋalɑtoʲli was commonly romanized as Māsēwallahtōlli until the 2003 textbooks in the language were made availabe in which the macron/umlaut diacritcs are used which romanize it as Mǎsěvalätǒli. Zoogocho Zapotec has used the Macron/Umlaut dicritic system for a long time and every time i have seen Zoogocho Zapotec written it has used this system including school books. The name for Zoogocho Zapotec is Dižaxon, pronounced "diʒaʐon". The SIL Zapotec-Spanish ditionary uses this name and phonetic system too. http://www.sil.org/mexico/zapoteca/zoogocho/S038b-Diccionario-zpq.pdf infact this is the only standardized system for the zoogocho zapotec that i have ever heard of. I don't understand why you are so against using it? Rahlgd (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't use native names for languages - we use english names. We don't write that the main language in Mexico is Castellano, we write that it is Spanish. This is because our readers are Enlgish readers and we need to give them information that they have a chance of understanding. The same goes for the Nahuatl variety that you are talking about. If it is important that it is Zoogocho Zapotec and Huaxcaleca Nahuatl then put in those names since that is how they are known in English. It isn't however important because it is not the case that "many Mexican rockbands occasionally sing in Zoogocho Zapotec or Huaxcaleca Nahuatl" - there is probably only one specific band using each specific language. The interesting issue is that some modern Mexican bands (not just Rock bands) are using different indigenous languages (Lila Downs for example sing in Mixtec, Nahuatl, Maya and P'urhépecha). You are including too much information about specific bands that are of your interest instead of thinking about the article as a whole.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if we state that some bands sing in amerindian languages without specifying which ones. I just wanted to put some examples up as proof cause a lot of amerindian stuff tends to get reverted away from this article. But yeah we dont need to say which ones. I just wanted to give a few definate examples and those were two that i knew. Rahlgd (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my views. I agree with you that the article could do with some more indigenous content, but now the article is already too long and things that are not important should be cut away in order to get it down to a manageable size. When it is reduced in size I think the history section needs to be expanded to include better information about precolumbian civilizations and their history.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Secretariat for Education

The infobox on the education section is wrong. Josefina Vazquez Mota is no longer Secretariat for Education! It is Alonso Lujambio since April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.127.251 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the History Section

Regarding the expansion of the history section, I think we should first organize which time periods we will be breaking the history section into i have a simple recommendation that the history section can work like that in the Russia article meaning having specific time periods broken into relevent eras. Here are som examples.:

Pre-Columbian civilizations -Broken into sections that explain the formation of the various groups that first ethnic groups that settled in mexico (not including the aztecs')

Aztec Empire and Mesoamerica -Explaination of the most recent and most advanced mesoamerican groups (the actual aztec, toltec, mayan territories that were divided along political lines)

Spanish Invasion -Detailing the spanish conquest of mexico and the immidiate times after.

Colonial Era as New Spain -Colonial Mexico

Independence and Empire -The war of independence and the first mexican republic and empire

Transition into democracy -The French intervention, The second mexican empire and the eventual return to democracy, benito Jaurez presidency,etc.

Porfirian Mexico and the Mexican revolution -The porfirian era and the mexican revolution

Mexico after the Revolution -Everything up till 2000

Modern Mexico -Mexico in the 21st century and the future

The Canada article seems to have a good way of doing it. It is short and to the pointMoxy (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The division of the pre-conquest time into "precolumbian peoples" and "Aztec mesoamerica" is wrong. Aztecs were precolumbian and Mesoamerica is the name of the culture area that was built up by all the cultures of that area from Olmec to Aztec. A better idea wouæd be to look at the division used for example in Languages_of_Mesoamerica#Linguistic_prehistory - but with the added division between Juárez, Porfiato, revolutionary and postrvolutionary and modern mexico. However the History section shouldn't be too detailed or too long so I doubt it would be a good idea to have subheaders for every period - it should be a single section with each period consisting of a paragraph or less. The details should be in the spinnout article History of Mexico.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy, the Canada history section is an excellent exapmle we could use. I think giving only a paragraph to each would be a oversimplifying it a bit too much but Canada seems to give each historical section enough room with subheaders with out going overboard on space. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree; however, I think we should write some special section about bicentennial. I mean, like projects and things that were created to celebrate this fete. Please I will aprecciate your answers ClaraBellazetin (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Race, Ethnicity and genetics: three separate things

The article and other articles about Mexico confuses and misuses the concepts of race, ethnicity and bio-genetic demographics. Ethnicity is a purely cultural concept which often includes the idea or myth of a shared heritage between its members, but which is not determined by any actual biological common heritage. "Race" is either a kind of social classification based on perceived phenotypical or socioeconomic characteristics, sometimes within a framework of biological heritage. In the US race is mostly based on phenotype and the idea of continental bio-geographic ancestry. In Brazil race is mostly socioeconomic. In Mexico I would think that the idea of race is a mixture of the two but in spite of searching in university libraries I have not found ANY books that treat race as a category in Mexico. This means that almost anything that can be written about race in a Mexican context is bound to be original research based on common language applications of these extremely complex sociological terms by editors. this is against our policies. I am not saying that there is no place for mentioning genetical studies of mexiccan populations, there may be, but NOT in the ethnicity section.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The basic division of the Mexican people in to supposedly genetically defined groups such as "white/mestizo/indigenous" is not supported by sources - and is in fact not relevant in a Mexican context. This article consists mainly of a section about racial categories that are no longer in use - Mexican society does not operate with a racial distinction of white, mestizo and indians as the colonial spanish casta system did - but cultural distinctions - being mestizo (this term itself is abandoned in Mexican social studies) does not mean to be of "mixed blood" it means to be of mixed culture, and indigenous does not mean to be descended purely from precolumbian inhabitants of Mexico - it means to have part in a culture that preserves many of its traditional aspects. This is what is the problem with this article it attempts to make it look like Mexican society is divided along bio-genetic lines when in fact it is not and has not been since the independence when the casta system was abolished. The sources used to make this fake biological race distinction look real is one genetic study that doesn't go anywhere towards showing that these genetic difference have any social reality in Mexico. They speak only about biological diversity - not about what that means in mexican society. The section on Mesitzos has no sources at all. This is particularly worrying since this category basically nolonger exists - mexicans donidentify as mestizos but as mexicans - the category is no longer used in government censuses. The section on indigenas correctly shows that this is a culturally not genetically defined concept - but the structure of the article belies this as the other categories are attempted to be biologically constructed ""indigenous is sandwiched inbetween the invented racial categories of white and mestizo. The section on white is based on the assumption that selfidentifying as criollo is the same as being white. In: short the entire build up of this article is based on an authors own assumptions about how best to understand the composition of the mexican people - not on any authoritative source that actually shows that this racial division is used to classify mexican people today. Each section has its own sources to show that there is a group called "white, criollo, indigena etc." - but there is no source that shows that this racial division is actually used to describe the mexican people today. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and the OR tag will need to be in place untill this is changed. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of including the 1921 census? Censuses are inaccurate now - only god knows how inaccurate they were 90 years ago. And what is the relevance to the section on ethnicity?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Article length

Before we go and start removing massive portions of the article I think we should take into consideration that many nation articles are quite a bit past the 100kb. The article of Russia is definately long (222kb) and is an excellent article (even used by the wiki community as an example of a good article) even though it has long subsections and many images. Length dosent mean that it's a poorly put together article. This article can work as a long article (and will probably need to in order to explain the complexity of mexico) as long as we provide information which provides accurate representative information. Additionally i believe that we should model the history section off of Russia's deviding it up into sections which were relevant historical times. And perhaps states more of specific elements unique to mexican culture the way the Russia article goes about this with there Folk culture and Modern culture sections. Thanks for the help guys, i just realized i've been working on the Mexico article for almost 3 years now! Happy almost 200th aniversery Mexico! Let's make sure the Mexico article trully represents Mexico by it's 200th birthday! Rahlgd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the length is the real problem - the length is in fact a symptom of bad organization with high levels of detail in certain areas that are not really that important (recent rock music and industry being examples of areas alotted much more space than they should) and other arguably more important areas (history, politics, indigenous cultures) alotted a lot less than is their due. As it is now I find the article to be an eclectic mess consisting mostly undue details within the particular topic areas of sopecialization of its main contributors. The Russia article was promoted to GA status in 2007 when requirements where much less strict - it has failed to FA reviews where excessive length and unbalanced content was exactly one of the problems mentioned repeatedly.Also Russia's portion of readable prose was 66kb when it failed GA - this articles portion is 128kb of readable prose - according to WP:SIZE downsizing is a simple necessity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rahlgd: Please stop adding bulks of new material to the article that is already MUCH TOO LONG. Especially the section on Economy is exaggeratedly long already. It does not need additional paragraphs of largely irrelevant details about transportation systems etc. I am going to have to start pruning the sections and moving excess material into spinnout article soon unless you begin to help limit the content to what is absolutely necessary. A longer article does not necessarily mean a better article. A good article is comprehensive, but not so large as to be confusing. This article is currently not very comprehensive but very confusing. Please read some GA's and FA's about countries to see how to write articles like these(Hint: Australia (144kb text), Belgium (122 kb txt), Belarus (99 kb text), Peru (52 kb text), Turkey (105 kb text)). This article is not currently close to GA status and with every new paragraph you write without attention to coherence and overall impression it moves further away form that goal. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Spacealex, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the acronimn AEXA from the Mexican Space Agency, since this is not the official acronimn and is already registered as a trademark. The law that creates the Mexican Space Agency establishes only the official name and no acronimn.

Thank you! Regards

Spacealex (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: AEXA is clearly associated with the Mexican Space Agency, regardless of its officialness or how other people are using that acronym. Do you have a source which claims that AEXA is not associated with them? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I still can't edit this article and I don't know why but AEXA is the acronym of the agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlakuache (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pruning begun

I have begun to prune the article to get it down to a reasonable size. I have removed sections and paragraphs that go into excessive detal about different topics. The article for example doesn't need a comprehensive list of all alternative rock genres played in Mexico, or a list of all sports practiced in the country, or details about the development of science from the 17th century to now or details about the latests military investments. It also doesn't need a table that disrupts the flow of the article and doesn't give any information that is not already contained in the map of the states except for the names of their capitals - this can be incorporated into the prose or to the map. The article should be written in Summary style - giving only the information that is necessary and interesting to the average reader. Readers interested in details should be guided towards the subarticles by a prudent use of wikilinks. The article further more suffers from the use of peacock terms (very popular, impressive recovery etc.) that seem to be designed to create a positive image of Mexico or show of Mexican accomplishments to the world - this is not the purpose of an encyclopedic article - it is to inform. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'm worried about is, honestly, that you have showed in your recent edits in Mexico-related articles a somehow bad attitude towards Mexico. An attitude that you don't show towards other countries. However this is a group-effort encyclopedia and that's a good thing. Anything that is to improve is always welcomed. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is ludicrous and I am offended by your suggestion that i am somehow biased against Mexico merely because I don't think encylopedia articles should be written in the same genre as a tourist brochure. I have lived in Mexico for several, I specialize professionally in Mexican culture and history and I am married to a Mexican woman. I don't have a negative attitude towards mexico. I have a realistic attitude towards writing an encylopedia. The fact that I have a professional interest in Mexico make me critical of approaches that reproduce common misconceptions about Mexico that are not supported by the scholarly consensus and towards attempts to write about Mexico in a way that is designed to put Mexico in a particular light - positive or negative. I don't show this attitude towards other countries because I mostly edit Mexico related articles, because that is my area of professional specialization. Oh I forget, I have also been accused of portraying my own country of nationality - Denmark - in a negative light by Danish nationalist editors for the same reasons. Your own nationalist agenda is clearly publicized on your user page. That is more worrisome to me.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I just expressed my point of view regarding your recent edits in Mexico related articles. In other words, the impression your edits give. That's all! You're wrong about calling me a "nationalist" in a negative, pejorative sense. I'm not an editor who discard text just because it reads "bad for my country". My user page clearly indicates that what I cannot stand is prejudice, unreferenced additions or deliberatedly misguided conceptions that unbalance the article.

You should ask user Rahgld how many times I've deleted/edited his additions, which (sadly) frequently I consider exaggerations and too lenghty. And with all due respect to him, sometimes he seems more like a "nationalist" in the way you intented to use the term :P I was about to ask you to trim down the tourism and architechture sections. They were lenghted by Rahgld and I think it is too much. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note. I also consider the article too lenghty, especially the last additions about 1 month ago to this date. I was just lazy to trim it down and somehow I've been postponing it, but I'm glad you decided to take action. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, we are on the same page then. Lets get to work on the article and speculate about eachother's ulterior motives in private.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

why I cannot edit the article?

I tried to edit this article without registering an account and I was unable to do it. Then I created this account and I still can't edit. What's the point in asking to be a registered user? I still can edit other articles but why not this? I am from Mexico and I am interested in editing this article :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlakuache (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously why I can't edit this article? Do you have to ask permission of something like that? I just registered because it wouldn't let me edit without being registered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlakuache (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See this, that's why. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I read that and a lot of wikipedia rules and stuff about how it works and an administrator helped me a lot too. Tlakuache (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To all the trolls, please stop editing this page as it shows you have a low level of intellect, make your common reasonable sense show.

Thank-you.

Ultraman X77 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the negative editing towards this country.

If you do not have anything educational or positive please do not edit, I am sick of some uneducated people editing this article just for the "fun" of it, it's not funny, rather sad, so if it isn't something that society can learn from, please stay away from making any edits.

Ultraman X77 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which edits you consider negative and who you it is you are referring to as uneducated people?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments about the photos

1) The Sonoran Desert photo was not even taken in Mexico. When I clicked on it, it says Sonoran Desert, Scottsdale, Arizona. Can anyone upload a photo of the Sonoran Desert that belongs to Mexico? We have plenty of Sonoran Desert in Mexico to have a photo of it.

2) The Diversity photo (kids in a school in Monterrey). Most of these kids look from the upper class (usually Caucasians), which does not look too diverse to me (if you want to keep the photo, re-label it). Can anyone upload a more common school photo with more mestizos? Also if you zoom into that photo, the kids' shirts/uniform states the college name, which is "American ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulisesr (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 3)I never knew tht these people from WikipediA WERE such NERDS!i But i still love Mexico :D ♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRee!i XD (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree very much with the sentiment about the photos.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Transportation

I believe that SCT is no longer building a high-speed rail train from Guadalajara to Mexico City. The references are very outdated and I have find news -in spanish- that say that the project was cancel. I hope somebody can check that.

By 4815162342_hacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4815162342 hacks (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mexico's Population is now 112,332,757

According to INEGI, Mexico's Population is now 112,332,757

"La población de México asciende a 112 millones 322 mil 757 habitantes. De este total, 57 millones 464 mil 459 son mujeres y 54 millones 858 mil 298 hombres, informó el presidente del INEGI, Eduardo Sojo" EmperorJM (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups template

• Ethnicity and race are two distinct things. (read the two articles if youi have doubts.)
• the distinction between europeans (whites), amerindians, and mestizos is a racial distinction not an ethnic distinction. There is no "amerindian ethnic group"
• being "indigena" in mexico has nothing to do with phenotypical traits - it has to do with beloning to a cultural group. Censuses are based on linguistic criteria - a person is counted as indigenas if they speak and amerindian language. How they look is irrelevant.
• Being mestizo also has nothing to do with phenotypical traits - being mestizo is simply a Mexican person who does not identify with any particular indigenous group or with a particular non-mexican heritage.
• "Middle eastern" is neither a racial or an ethnic group it is a geographical group. Middleeastern is not comparable to either the racial or ethnic categories with which it is compared.
• Others - afro-mexican and asoan mexican are also racial groups - not ethnic ones.
• Mexico is a multi ethnic country: it recognizes 62 ethnic groups (etnias) - they are all racially "amerindian".
• The template is simply factually incorrect - and it is also OR since there is no source given that describes the ethnic composition of Mexico as being divided into "mestizo, amerindian, eurpean, middle eastern and other" - this classification has been invented by some editor.

It is not that it isn't 100% accurate it is that it is not even wrong. The table simply doesnt understand what ethnicity is. Ethnicity is not race. The distinction between amerindian, European and Mestizo is racial not ethnic. Middle eastern is a geographic group neither a racial or an ethnic group. Membership of the mestizo or amerindian racial categories is not based on "looks" (i.e. racial phenotype) but on cultural affiliation and socioeconomic status. In short the table is a completely misconstrual of racial and ethnic relations in Mexico and in general. There is no way it can be included in the article in its current form - no matter how aesthetically pleasing you find it. I am also quite sure that the template format goes against WP:MOS and I don't find it aesthetically pleasing at all but rather find that it breaks up the reading flow. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and the already written text basically stated what you just explained. As such, the table isnt really adding any thing. Unfortunately ethnicity is based on income and perception of ones societal prominence in Mexico IE "Money lightens one's skin". The table dosent contribute anything. Rahlgd (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lightening has nothing to do with ethnicity sinceethnicity isn't about skin colour but about culture - not income. Class is a bout income and correlates fairly well with race in Mexico, but that is a nother story that would fit in a parapgraph about social inequality.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Population

according microsoft encarta 2009 the mexican population 2009 is 109.955.400, could you change please?

Don't believe anything Microsoft says, kid.16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.132.36 (talk)

Hmm. This is hard to calculate, especially given the number of Mexican citizens living on foreign soil either temporarily or semi-permanently. 109M is common but may be a little higher than the official government figures; I'll look for other sources; and of course, the US is deporting at the rate of 1K/day or so, which alters the number once again. 83.208.135.58 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And you know what else, under the "immigration" part it says "28 million Americans list their ancestry as mexican". Last time I checked the 10 million mexican illegals in this country aren't Americans, and neither are their anchor baby children. Please change this to reflect that a great many mexicans in the united states are foreigners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.33.223 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be an immigrant from Mexico to be an American with Mexican ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarianicola (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And "anchor babies" are indeed American citizens, as per the 14th amendment.Wschart (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear capability

Does not merit an entire section. There is already an overweight on military and police issues which I realize is a special interest of Rahlgd (talk · contribs). Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) this isn't Rahlgd's personal blog so we would have to discuss how and whether to include this information - and what to remove if we decide that it is pertinent to include, as this article is already much too big.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The military and police sections were already sizable before i started editing. Mexico's military play's a decent sized role in the country so but i'm up for shortening it. I can cut a lot out without getting rid of the pertinent information. I'll start first thing tomorrow, i would right now, but i'm meeting someone to go get food. Rahlgd (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support Rahgld (yeah, as odd as that may seem hehe) and I do believe it is worth mentioning in the military section. I just think that we should trim the paragraph, something shorter. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Nominal GDP seems out of date. Should be 1.041 Trillion and rank should be 14. Also, per-capita nominal gdp should be 9,243 and rank should be 61.

Why do people keep undoing my change? Mexico is in North America, not South America, so saying it was not affected by the South American economic crisis is completely irrelevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malejotm (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Minimum wage figures cited incorrectly
The minimum wage figures given in this section are described as "hourly", when in fact they are DAILY amounts. This can be verified by following the "Resolución" link on the referred Servicio de Administración Tributaria webpage: http://www.sat.gob.mx/sitio_Internet/asistencia_contribuyente/informacion_frecuente/salarios_minimos/
Please edit accordingly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.187.78 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC) YES THIS IS LONG AND IS ANYONE ACTUALLY READING THIS JUNK...I THINK NOT!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.77.26 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Minimum wages in Mexico are Daily (and a joke, but that's my own opinion). I also request for this to be changed. Thanks 189.204.37.131 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This salary level needs to be edited, as it is grossly overstated. Although it does not specify on the SAT link provided whether the salary is daily or hourly, if you do the calculations of a normal work week (8 hrs x 5 days/wk= 40 hrs/wk x ~50 pesos/hr as suggested ~ approx. 2000 pesos/week~ approx. 8000 pesos/month) There are plenty of legitimate company jobs that pay only 700 pesos a week. Other jobs pay even less. So it only makes sense that the ~50 peso amount is minimum daily, although I cannot prove this, I have been told this anecdotally by most Mexicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarianicola (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another agreement here: via word doc linked on aformentioned Mexican Government web page: "Los salarios mínimos generales que tendrán vigencia a partir del 1 de enero de 2010 en las áreas geográficas a que se refiere el punto resolutorio anterior, como cantidad mínima que deben recibir en efectivo los trabajadores por jornada ordinaria diaria de trabajo, serán los que se señalan a continuación:" followed by the amounts listed in the article. "Jornada ordinaria" is a normal working day, not an hour. Jeremiah (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

GDP growth appears as 7.6%, but this is true just for the second quarter, the yearly growth is estimated to be around 5.5% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfc.mx (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

world heritage ranking

In this article Mexico is listed as number 5 on the list of world heritage countries---a link in the article itself, which I clicked on--the resulting page listed Mexico as number 6. What gives? Should this be changed, one or the other or neither? Or am I wrong? 24.145.252.136 (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cold!!!

This last week, (feb 1-5 2011) low temperatures in mexico reached -20 Celsius in certain parts of chihuahua (-25 with wind chill) and other places in northern mexico. I think this should appear in the climate section because it is quite cold to not notice it. Yo could also add that there were scattered flurries these same days. This'd mean that mexico has a range of temperature from -20 to 50 degrees!!! (I dont know how much is that in F degrees) btw, that same weed, edmonton canada (very cold city) was at 8 above 0 lol!! most of the links are in spanish, but you can read different numbers and the phrase "bajo cero" (below zero) in the headings.

http://www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2011/268226/6/se-registran-temperaturas-de-18-grados-bajo-cero-en-ciudad-juarez.htm http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/742316.html http://www.provincia.com.mx/05-02-2011/128732 http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/45325/mexico-cold-wave-chills-popula.asp http://eleconomista.com.mx/estados/2011/02/05/registran-durango-temperatura-195-grados-bajo-cero

Danielfc.mx (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC) danielfc.mx

This wouldn't have encyclopedic value unless the temperatures you pointed out were historic extremes. Mercy11 (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Law Enforcement

I am astounded that there is nothing in the section about police corruption. It is common knowledge that Mexico has some of the dirtiest policemen ever. There is awful cases that I have seen of what they have done and it is a major problem. I think this issue merits at least three sentences if not a paragraph. I would do it myself but am having trouble learning how to cite websites. If anyone feels like doing this, some links are: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/7251246.html ; http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0112/Halting-drug-war-corruption-What-Mexico-can-learn-from-Colombia --Jacksoncw (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

State flags

I bring this issue up here because this is the main article about Mexico and because the states' articles are rarely visited or edited. First, in Mexico, states and municipalities have no official flags and no federal or state law regulates them. Unofficially, coats of arms are placed on a white background to create a flag, and these have been used by state and municipal governments. In some exceptional cases, some state and local governments have used certain colors instead of a white background, but in lack of a state or federal law to explicitly and detailedly regulate its design (as is the case with Mexico's flag), these tend to change once the governorship or mayoralty is renewed (every six and three years respectively). One such case is that of the flag of Jalisco, whose pattern has varied from three/two vertical/horizontal blue and yellow sections over the last few years.

Wikipedia has been plagued by numerous "proposals" for state flags, some of them which are real proposals (i.e. in consideration by state governments, but not yet official, that is, no regulatory state law has been approved either by the federal or state legislatures) or proposals presented by Wikipedians themselves. The most recent changes are that of the flag of Chihuahua. A user has replaced the current flag (with the white background) with another design without coat of arms. I researched extensively to see if this new design was official, and the only thing that I could find was a You Tube video in which the flag appears with the coat of arms and is presented as a proposal in consideration, to be approved in 2010. The state's web portal has no information on it, and only shows the coat of arms.

I prefer the Spanish Wikipedia approach that got rid of the flags altogether (all of them being unofficial even if the white background is commonly used). If other countries have flags for their states, that is great, but that doesn't mean Mexico should, unless the people, through their political representatives chose to do so officially. But, if any flag should be used, I strongly suggest that we do not use any unofficial proposals and only use the white background unless there is strong evidence of its de facto "official" use by state and local authorities that transcend a single three-year mayoralty or six-year governorships.

-- the Dúnadan : let's talk 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.183.70.143, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} No source for many claims of the Economy article and some information is plainly erroneous. Here a selection :

"By 2007 Mexico surpassed South Korea and China as the largest manufacturer of televisions, and in 2008 Mexico surpassed China, South Korea and Taiwan to become the largest producer of smartphones in the world.

"More aircraft companies have operations in Mexico than any other country with a record breaking 214 full process aircraft corporations established in Mexico and Since 1990 Mexico has been the largest destination for foreign companies to design, manufacture, and service aircraft."

189.183.70.143 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" tag to both claims. If references are not added within a reasonable amount of time, they may be removed.--LK (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is way too long

16313 words long exactly. This compares with 7121 words for Brazil, 9207 for China and 9906 for the US. The economy section alone is 4215 words long, so it's either merely replicating the Economy of Mexico article for most of its length, or it's an egregious case of content forking. As should be expected, the quality and reliability of the article is suffering from this massive amount of words: the 6415 words-long India currently includes 227 references, an average of one every 28 words, compared to 57 for Mexico, which indicates that this article has, proportionally, many more unreferenced claims.--LK (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that the article includes 20 (twenty) dead links, and that most of them have been sitting there for months. I have accordingly decided to act boldly and make a first attempt to drastically reduce the size of this article while maintaining largely the same number of references.--LK (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope no important information will be lost, any excess data should be moved to special articles. I see that the economy section has been significantly shortened, what's been removed from it?--RoadTrain (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Large parts of the economy section were indeed excised from the current version, but this occurred with a minimal loss of references (35 compared to 30 for the current revision). I contemplated moving parts of the article to Economy of Mexico but I found it unnecessary as most of the section had been copied and pasted from the very same article (including the same pictures and even an infobox) not long ago.--LK (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has been shortened to the extent of gorss oversimplification! Granted certain parts of the article were too long, but the economy section has been shortened way to much and the architecture section has simply dissapeared completely. Many of the pictures have been replaaced wiith poor quality images as well. I think the economics section did good with the infobox and the most of the info about the electronics industry has been reduced, while the auto industry is kept large which is a bit odd considering that high tech industrial production represents about 24% of all Mexican goods. I hope a bit more depth can be added to some of the sections as this used to be a very good article and for the most part still is, it's just a bit to simplified. If you want a shortened version why not just read the version on Simple English wiki? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.90.195.66, 31 March 2011

The mexican wife usually listens to old mcdonald had a farm before slapping he husband everyday before breakfast

24.90.195.66 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

None done. Not a request. The Interior (Talk) 01:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Desert Explanation Nonsense

"Northern Mexico is characterized by desert because it is located in a latitude where all deserts around the globe are formed."

This is clearly nonsense: there are deserts far south of this latitude in Chile and the Kalahari, and far north of it in Oregon, amongst others. GeneCallahan (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Y Done AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not entirely wrong, though. From Hadley cell:

Having lost most of its water vapor to condensation and rain in the upward branch of the circulation, the descending air is dry. Low relative humidities are produced as the air is adiabatically warmed due to compression as it descends into a region of higher pressure. The subtropics are relatively free of the convection, or thunderstorms, that are common in the equatorial belt of rising motion. Many of the world's deserts are located in these subtropical latitudes.

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maxico DF

No one in the world could think that Mexico City Metropolitan Area has 40.000.000 inhabitants. The population is about 21,163,226, no more.--79.22.226.251 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)  Done, the problem was here. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

population of Mexico City

111 million?  Really??
 There are entire nations that do not have such a high population.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.196.251 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 

Why cannot edit this article? It's been more than 3 days

Hello. I forgot the password of my account and then I realized you can't edit this article if you're a new user. But then I was told that I needed to be at least a 3 days old user. I have been around for more days and I still can't edit. Do I need to register another account in case I can't recover my old account? Michael 50.22.201.93 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SunTzuMan, 24 May 2011

Under Demographics in the article about Mexico, please add the following text -

However the sample size used in the previous study did not include individuals from lower socio-economic status, who represented the vast majority of Mexicans. A study performed by the National Institute of Genetic Medicine (INMEGEN) in Mexico and supported by the government in the country showed that the Mestizo population in Mexico were on average 55% of indigenous ancestry followed by 41.8 % of European, 1.8% of African, and 1.2% of East Asian ancestry. The sample size used for this research involved 300 Mestizos who were picked from various states in Mexico including Guerrero, Sonora, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas, and Guanajuato. Whereas Mestizo individuals from the state of Guerrero showed on average 66% of indigenous ancestry, those from the state of Sonora displayed about 61.6% European ancestry. There was a clear increase in indigenous ancestry as went traveled towards the Center and Southern states in Mexico, while the indigenous ancestry declined (albeit slightly) as one travelled to the Northern states in the country, such as Sonora. The name of this paper was titled "Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo populations to develop genomic medicine in Mexico" by researchers such as Irma Silva-Zolezzi1, et al.

SunTzuMan (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need to give us the full details on the source; also, we probably won't include the first sentence, because that's your opinion/synthesis. If you have the source, please post it here and changed "answered=yes" to "answered=no". Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Policia Federal Tijuana.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Policia Federal Tijuana.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Collagemty.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Collagemty.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Casinos and gambling - legal or not?

I did see a few casinos in Mexico but I thought gambling is illegal.Clarksmom (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not. If it were illegal, PlayCity would not exist. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dating historic artifacts

The article states, "...chips of stone tools found near campfire remains in the Valley of Mexico and radiocarbon-dated to ca. 21,000 BCE.[40]"

Chips of stone cannot be radiocarbon dates. Only organic materials can be dated by radiocarbon techniques. There must be some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the source material.

BartBee (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating in general is crap. It is completely innacurate and unreliable. I read an article in the newspaper of a man who buried a vase in his back yard for a week. He had it carbon dated and the date said it was over 6 million years old when he had just bought it.--207.65.23.66 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Must have been a poor newspaper article: radiocarbon dating extends back only to around 50-60,000 years or so, and is used to date organic materials (more accurately, materials that can at point of deposition reflect the fraction of 14C present). PeterReid (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mexico's automotive industry

There is a mistake to said Mexico is the largest assembler car production in North America, it's the second after USA and before Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A380b747a340b777 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibeta (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Transportation

The article states that the SCT (Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes) is "currently" building a high speed train between Mexico City and Guadalajara. The project was killed in 2006 (See: http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/230675.cancela-sct-el-tren-bala-mexico-guadalajara.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.67.237 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicallly diverse

Yes, Mexico is ethnically diverse. There are for example 68 separate ethnic groups that are recognized by the state, and many more that aren't recognized. Being "Mexican" is not an ethnic identity but a national identity, as the provided source (Wimmer) clearly states. There is however no source for Mexico being "racially diverse" - probably because that claim makes no sense (since races are not natural kinds of which there can be more or less within a country). It might make sense to say that Mexico is highly racially stratified - there are sources for this claim (E.g. Nutini & Isaac 2009) - but somehow I don't think that is what Fenirm meant.... ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fenirm again editwars without discussion apart from flat contradictions in edit summaries. Ethnicity is a cultural concept inspite of the fact that many (primarily Americans) believe ethnicity to be the same as race. The different indigenous ethnic groups are what makes mexico multi-ethnic. Mexican identity is a national identity not an ethnicity as the Wimmer source plainly states. There are not a lot of racial diversity in Mexico (there are only three main racial groups). There is a lot of genetic diversity - but this is true for most of the worlds countries - and including a statement about that would require a source. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mexico's 62 Indian languages share equal validity with Spanish

I have gathered several references and statements from the archieve which prove so

National languages are the "official recognition" of all 63 languages (Spanish included). Read the 2001 Law of Linguistic Rights (link provided in the Languages of Mexico article). All of them have the same validity not only in their recognition but people have the right to education and to request all public and official documentation in their languages [in other countries that is called "official"]. All 63 languages have the same "status". The "title" official is not used but that doesn't mean the "national" title is less official. It is a legal declaration. Moreover it is a constitutional mandate (second article) for the State (Nation) and the states (constituencies) to promote the development of these languages. --Alonso 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the constitution of Spain but like the constitution of the United States, there is no article in the Mexican constitution that declares Spanish, or any other language is the "official language", not even in the section of "Individual Rights" or Garantías Individuales.[2]. In 2003, the Mexican Congress approved a bill called "Law of Linguistic Rights for the Indigenous Peoples". The fourth article of that law states that the "indigenous languages, alongside the Spanish language, are national languages" [3] (italics mine)

--the Dúnadan 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• the Mexican Constitution clearly defines the "pluricultural" composition of the Nation as having its foundation in the indigenous peoples (second article). In other words, the indigenous peoples are not only part of the Mexican culture but its very foundation; the richness of the Mexican culture is found in its indigenous multicultural structure;
• there is no de-jure official language in Mexico; no language has ever been labeled "official", however, Spanish and the 62 indigenous language in the country have the same status and validity as "national languages" under the Law of Linguistic Rights approved in 2001; indigenous languages have the same de-jure validity in all territories in which they are spoken, and anyone has the right to request public services and documentation in their languages; whether this law is being actually enforced in all communities or not, that is another issue;
• it would be naïve to think that in practice (i.e. "technically") indigenous peoples are not part of the Mexican culture; ever since the Mexican Revolution the "Indigenous Sentiment" (loose translation of Sentimiento Indigenista) has impregnated all artistic expressions in Mexico: arts, literature, music and public TV, and public education, the manifestations of culture itself, in spite of the trend of private TV and media to ignore them;
• indigenous peoples are not only found in Chiapas and Oaxaca, but according to the CDI (former Instituto Nacional Indigenista) they constitute absolute majority in Yucatán, and a very significant proportion in Guerrero, Hidalgo, Cuernavaca, Puebla, San Luis Potosí and Veracruz. Veracruz happens to be the second most populated state in the country, while Puebla is the fourth. While the indigenous culture is very much alive in these states, it is not in the northern and northwestern states, where indigenous peoples are a very small minority; yet these states happen to be amongst the least-populated of the country;
• even in the great conurbations of the center and center-south, it is not uncommon to find someone speaking an indigenous language (notably in Puebla, Guadalajara and Mexico City); while many of the "national languages" are indeed in peril of extinction, 16 of them have more than 100,000 speakers. Nahuatl itself is spoken by 1.5 million while Yucatec maya is spoken by 800.000. These two figures, even though they represent a small percentage of the total population (1.5% and 0.8%) are in fact sizable populations if compared to some European languages.

--Alonso 05:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

These arguments clearly demonstrate my point. I doubt we can find a citation considered more authoritive than the Mexican constitution or the Law of Linguistic rights of 2001 which all come to the same conclusion. That (1) Mexico has no official language (2) Mexico has only national languages (3) Mexico has 63 national languages, they are Spanish and 62 Indian languages (4) Spanish while the most spoken of the national languages is not the official language. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. User Dúnadan even recognized Spanish is the only official language of Mexico following a much more recent debate dating 6 March 2010[4], which you failed to find because I guess it didn't fit your POV. However, what a user says is not a valid reference, it's merely a POV. The law of indigenous languages do not call any of the indigenous languages "official" (I dare you to show any inline citation). In fact, it is clear when stating that:

the indigenous languages that are recognized in the terms of this Law, and the Spanish [language] are national languages due to their historical origin, and have the same validity in their territory, location and the context in which they are spoken" (art. 4).

Which basically recognizes the indian languages as equally valid as Spanish (to avoid discrimination) in some regions where they are used. This law do not say they are official, and most importantly the law do not make them official in all the federation. Trying to push the idea that they are official is merely original research, so is interpreting the law.

But there are reliable sources such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Presidency of Mexico Website and Encyclopaedia Britannica that clearly state Spanish IS the official language of Mexico. I can list more reliable sources, there are plenty! That why I find it odd that you want to revive this old non-sense since you are well aware this was already discussed a year ago. I'll just report you for block evassion since you're User:Rahlgd an indefinitely blocked user. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem we have here is a problem of conflicting citations. The Law of Linguistic Rights does not say that the Amerindian languages are "official languages" but that they "have equal validity where spoken" however, the Mexican government has no zoning laws stating where specific languages are considered to be equal to Spanish and a person that does not speak Spanish currently can ask for government services in heir native languages no matter where they are in the country as of currently meaning that in function these languages are accepted nationally. The embassy website and the Encyclopedia website are not more authoritive then actual Federal Law, meaning the constitution and the Law of Linguistic rights, and I have yet to see a legislatively approved and signed document stating that Spanish is the sole official document. If you could provide this then i see no problem with having Spanish as the official language. My argument is that there are signed legal sources stating that there is no sole official languge however there are zero signed legal government document stating the Spanish is the official language. And the 62 Amerindian languages are not only recognized but it is constitutional policy that these languages be advanced, which is more than simply recognition. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I already provided a citation from the Law of Indigenous Languages (article 4) from the previous discussion where we concluded that Spanish is official and that indian languages are regional national languages. The Law does not say they are official nor federally accepted. It clearly says they are equally valid as Spanish in the territory, location and the context in which they are spoken. Meanwhile we've found reliable sources such as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and of course Encylopaedia Britannica, where they say Spanish is official. You need to provide a reliable source to sustain that the indigenous languages are "official". I have proved Spanish is official. We proved it one year ago in a previous discussion. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong - the law specifically states that all the languages are official in the Federal District as well as in their local regions. The law also clearly calls them national languages with equal validity to Spanish in the regions (+ DF), contexts and situations where they are spoken - not just in the geographic area. You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the law·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ley de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas, Article 4. " Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio,

localización y contexto en que se hablen." (note that Spanish also is only recognized in the territory, localization and context in which it is spoken - the limitations applies to both Spanish and the indigenous languages - they are in other words equivalent in legal status - all are National languages - not official or regional languages)

Article 7. ". Las lenguas indígenas serán válidas, al igual que el español, para cualquier asunto o trámite de carácter público, así como para acceder plenamente a la gestión, servicios e información pública. Al Estado corresponde garantizar el ejercicio de los derechos previstos en este artículo, conforme a lo siguiente:

a).- En el Distrito Federal y las demás entidades federativas con municipios o comunidades que hablen lenguas indígenas, los Gobiernos correspondientes, en consulta con las comunidades indígenas originarias y migrantes, determinarán cuáles de sus dependencias administrativas adoptarán e instrumentarán las medidas para que las instancias requeridas puedan atender y resolver los asuntos que se les planteen en lenguas indígenas.

b).- En los municipios con comunidades que hablen lenguas indígenas, se adoptarán e instrumentarán las medidas a que se refiere el párrafo anterior, en todas sus instancias."

Indigenous languages are recognized as valid for any and all public functions - that is pretty much the definition of an official language. It is furthermore stipulated that the federal and local government will decide how to implement the measures to give services in indigenous languages - in consultation with the indigenous groups. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. First of all you need to paste a link to a reliable website where we can read this law. We can't trust a simple copy-paste. The law doesn't say Spanish is valid only in the territories or locations were spoken, that's your personal interpretation. It only says that directly about indigenous languages. Secondly, several reliable sources including official ones such as the Presidency of Mexico and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs do mention Spanish as official. There's no single source indicating indigenous languages are official. Even this law never gives them official status. Thirdly, I don't know how good your Spanish is but the law clearly states that those languages are equally valid than Spanish in the places where spoken (municipalities, states or the federal district the only three administrative divisions of Mexico), localities (towns, colonias, settlements) and in the context which they are spoken (this is obscure but I guess they mean weather the context is formal or informal). This law was passed so that a person from a minority indigenous group wouldn't be requiered to speak Spanish (impossed to speak Spanish) in their communities or when requering certain services from the government if they can't speak Spanish, so the wording and spirit of the law makes perfect sense. I insist in the obvious, it doesn't say those languages are official, not even co-official. Congressmen could have easily used that term, but instead used national languages "due to their historical origin" (sound like they're avoiding the use of the term official) and later in other articles defining where they are valid and in what cases. I dare anybody to find a reliable source saying these languages are official. Other way, any other interpretation is purely original research.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia and a link to the foreign relations webpage are not enough to override federal law. I have read the law of linguistic rights which states that indigenous languages share equal validity where they are spoken and they are currently spoken all over the country. There is not a single legal document which states that Spanish is the "offcial" language. There are only documents stating that it is a national language. The Amerindian languages are national languages with just as much validity. The secretary of exterior ralations statements do not trump federal law. I do not understand why you do not comprehend this. Manaus has also given this fact but you ket reverting his edits. I tried saying this before and all you did was spew a bunch of hate speech about me having an indigenous agenda. I have looked through you're history and there are clear examples of you having bias and inflating various statistics about white Mexicans and minimalizing indian Mexicans so if anyone has a racilaist agenda then it is you and I suggest you remember that everything you leave on wikipedia can be backtraced and you cannot talk your way out of that. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Indeed, Spanish is the official language by a Real Cedula extended in 1770, which is still in vigor: it was part of the pre-independence legislation which vigor was recognized under the rule of mexican Constitution of 1857, and today, since then. So, the current status of the indigenous languages is that of "national languages", avoiding any further reference or statement to rise them to "official" languages, in which case every document of the State should be extended in each one of them all. Although it is seldom noticed, it is good and an improvement, because it shift the sign of linguistic intolerance to tolerance, and recognizes juridically the multilingualism in Mexico. So, Spanish is the official language, and the indigenous languages are national languages. There is no racialist agenda in state the officialdom of Spanish, and the refuting of that does not meant that the refuter has not a racialist agenda. Vid. also for details: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/es/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:M%C3%A9xico#Ficha_del_pa.C3.ADs:_El_problema_de_la_lengua_oficial.2C_y_de_designar_Castellano_Mexicano_en_lugar_de_Espa.C3.B1ol --Rhurtadon (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 October 2011

mexico is a place were you can eat ten tacos and not get fat

make that 100 68.215.39.116 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done - no specific edit requested. The Interior (Talk) 20:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Education

"According to the OCED, compared to students from the worlds thirty most developed nations, Mexican students came in fourth in problem solving, third in science and technology and eighth in mathematics." I found this statment fishy, i have been loking for this information in PISA webpage and i didnt find anything. Is this statement false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.2.83 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No one answered my question... is that part of the text A LIE?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.2.83 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 

Metropolitan Areas of Mexico

I noticed that the metropolitan areas of border cities are not included in the section in this article. And, they are a lot more populated than most of the cities in Mexico. For example, the transnational conurbation area of El Paso–Juárez is about 2.3, which should technically be placed on the graph. What do you all think? Should the international metropolitan areas be included in the Demographics section? ComputerJA (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A Presetation of Mexico

• To include a presentation of Mexico: Presentation of México — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.114.66 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

I would like to be able to edit Wiki posts.

216.56.13.82 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You can edit most articles on wikipedia. This particular article however, is locked for editing only by registered users - because it has been frequently vandalized by anonymous users. So basically you can alread edit many many thousand wikipedia articles - and if you register and get a username you'll be able to edit this one two. Getting a username is free, anonymous and very easy. It is definitely worth it!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical populations Year Pop. ±% 1895 12,632,427 —

1900 13,607,272 +7.7% 1910 15,160,369 +11.4% 1921 14,334,780 −5.4% 1930 16,552,722 +15.5% 1940 19,653,552 +18.7% 1950 25,791,017 +31.2% 1960 34,923,129 +35.4% 1970 48,225,238 +38.1% 1980 66,846,833 +38.6% 1990 81,249,645 +21.5% 1995 91,158,290 +12.2% 2000 97,483,412 +6.9% 2005 103,263,388 +5.9% 2010 112,336,538 +8.8% Source: INEGI

The recently-conducted 2010 Census[179] showed a population of 112,336,538, making it the most — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.187.229 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mexico's Economic Comparisons

This line needs to be removed: "According to a 2008 UN report the average income in a typical urbanized area of Mexico was $26,654, a rate higher than advanced nations like South Korea or Taiwan, while the average income in rural areas just miles away was only $8,403, a rate comparable to developing countries such as Russia or Turkey.[121]"

Not only is it incorrect, it is disingenuous to compare Mexico's urban and rural income with the income of entire countries, like South Korea, Taiwan, Russia and Turkey. To make accurate comparisons you would need to compare urban incomes with their counterparts in other countries, as well as the same with rural incomes. This statement is misleading, denigrating to these countries, and most importantly of all, LACKS CITATION. The link provided is dead, and if the study really existed should link to the 2008 UN report mentioned itself, which I am unable to find anywhere. Deft erudite (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

The Ethnic group percentages add up to a bit more than I would like away from 100% (~96%). It seems especially odd to be that far off when decimal accuracy is shown with one of the percentages. Should maybe the "other" category be increased or another source be found? Or maybe there is a reason for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.61.29 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Income Distribution Pie Chart

I removed this chart as it seems to have no real sources and the mean income suggested by it is significantly higher than any official (or unofficial) source has ever claimed.

• 
  Annual income of Mexican citizens in U.S. dollars.

Income per head in RUSSIA is higher than in Mexico, so it doesn´t make sense in "Economy" saying that the "rural areas have a similar income as Russia..." That is ridiculous because average per capita income in Russia is 10% higher than in Mexico. Also in Moscow income per head is much higher than in "rural areas".--83.63.216.95 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request

This sentence does not make sense:

"The post-independence period was characterized by economic instability, the Mexican-American War and territorial cession to the United States, a civil war, two empires and a domestic dictatorship. The latter led to the Mexican Revolution in 1910, which culminated with the promulgation of the 1917 Constitution and the emergence of the country's current political system."

You can't use the superlative latter when there's more than one thing listed in the previous list. It's not apparent whether this should be replaced by "second", "third" or "last"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.24.249 (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

'latter' is not a superlative. It is a pronoun meaning 'the last mentioned'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.190.26.77 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Mexico's other challenge: to burnish its brand "Can Mexico help the world see past its escalating drug war, and showcase all that it offers?" by Clayton Collins, Weekly Edition Editor of Csmonitor.com December 3, 2011

99.190.86.5 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming improvements

This article is in the top 300 viewed article in wikipedia - and it is one of the Vital articles. It should be good - but is not currently in a stage where it is feasible to go for FA status. I would like to start slowly moving towards that goal though. I have started improving the layout and removing some of the superfluous trivia - mostly about how fantastic Mexico's technology industry is. Other sections require more information rather than less and a better structure. For example the history section need serious imporvements including a better description of the precolumbian history, conquest and colonial era. And the territorial and political development in the independence era needs to be more coherently presented, the description and importance of the Revolution should be emphasized more and the political developments during the PRI and post-PRI eras should also be consolidated. Also the section on Administrative divisions could be expanded, with information about substate divisions, and the basic historic process leading to current divisions. In the Demography section information about social issues are lacking - Mexico is among the countries in the world with the highest degree of wealth disparity - this should be presented somehow - instead of the very artificial inclusion of cherry picked data showing that Mexico apparently has unusually high gender equality and that equality is in favor[!] of women. These statistics contradict most published research on gender relations in Mexico. Better information on human rights in Mexico and on freedom of press will also have to be included. I will keep working over the next few days, and will appreciate help - especially in cleaning up sections for unimportant trivia and boosterism, and with making prose flow coherent. The article should be a cohesive text, not a list of disconnected facts. It should also not be an advertisement for Mexico, but should include all notable facts both pleasant and unpleasant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone cares to provide "alt-text" captions to images to make them readable on screen readers for the visually impaired that would be excellent to. Having Alt text is necessary for FA status and will eventually have to be done if we want to promote the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I find your goal a good one, but the way you're requesting help is terrible at least. In few words, you're trying to say this article is wrong and plagued with boosterism which is not true. Even if I don't agree with the very large and detailed economy section, I wouldn't dare to call it "unimportant trivia", because that's just uncivil and kinda agressive to the editors that worked in that section. All the facts in that section were backed with references. Did it need to be pruned? Yeah. I personally will try to help and also to check if the "improvements" are not actually a tide of negative facts disguised as "balanced" text. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was plagued with trivia and boosterism - largely inserted by a certain now blocked user with whom we are both acquainted - although you haven't exactly counteracted that development yourself. This has been a long recognized and longstanding problem. It is even in the to-do list where I didn't put it. I am under no obligation to maintain a civil tone regarding content - I do not think that the deleted material is hurt by my calling it trivia. Not all cited information is relevant especially not in a top-tier general article like this. I expect nothing less from you than "keeping an eye out for a tide of negative facts"" since I know you are allergic to those. I will make sure to advertise for assistance from other editors as well. Sincerely yours: ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't visited this article in a long time, and I am surprised not to find important sections (whose content had been edited by consensus) such as the one on "Security". IMHO the article would need a lot of [unbiased] work to be a GA (and much more to be a FA). -- dúnadan : let's talk 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, give a hand please?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Demographics"

I'm completely against using steretypical wording and pictures that only help mantain ignorance about any topic or subject. This is the case of the selection of pictures included in the section "demographics". Two pictures depicting indigenous peoples in rural areas, even if the vast majority of Mexicans are mestizo. Indigenous and 100% "whites" groupings represent almost the same percentage of the population so... why to include not one, but two pictures of indigenous peoples? This is obviously stereotypical. The same problem happened when a picture of Mexico's vast forests was deleted in favor of a desertical picture.

In the past, it was decided not to include pictures in this section, and I agree with that. I personally think that if we cannot follow and represent accurately the demographic information we have about Mexico (70% mestizo, 15% "white" and 9.8% or 11% [as some say] indigenous), then it's not worth it including pictures.

If your problem is with having pictures of minority people in the demographics section then instead I will create a separate section on indigenous peoples where such pictures can go. They are not "stereotypical" - they are fully representative of the large rural indigenous population of Mexico - although I don't expect you to know about that sitting in safety up in moneterrey where everything is nice and white. Just like Mexico has both forests and deserts. The demographics section is currently the only place to show the country's ethnic diversity. There are no other pictures of indigenos people in the article (unless we count Benito Juarez) But htere are tonnes of pictures of Criollos, and rich people (who make up a very small percentage of the population).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to chime in and offer my own opinion here. I agree with Alex that the images are in fact stereotypical and the text included is very generalized and I would even dare to say mildly offensive to indigenous Mexicans. Showing a poor sustenance farmer using a donkey is not only stereotypical towards Indigenous Mexicans but Mexicans as a whole. It is undue weight to have two picture of indigenous Mexicans but no image of people from the Mestizo majority or white population and if there should be a picture of an indigenous Mexican it should be an important indigenous person who people would recognize such as Francisco Luna Kan, Moteuczomah, Benito Juarez, Armando Manzanero or Emiliano Zapata.

Its quite generalizing to say that indigenous Mexicans can be characterized by living in rural areas as there are a great deal of urbanized Indigenous Mexicans especially in the Yucatan, Quitana Roo, Mexico City and Puebla. This article seems to only point out the problems indigenous people face as their only difference from general Mexican society which is not the case. Rates of crime and corruption are much lower amongst the indigenous for example while these two things are pervasive much of the rest of Mexico and indigenous areas and the states they are in are much safer. The section also completely fails to provide any cultural or historical information about indigenous Mexicans which is much more important as it is what differentiates them from other Mexicans.

While many indigenous Mexicans live worse of then the national average by a full 1/3rd margin, many still do fine but reading this text one would get the impression that all indigenous live in abysmal poverty in rural zones. Even the included statistics point out that about half of the indigenous live just as modernly as the rest of Mexican society. Indigenous sectors and the south in general have been modernizing significantly in the past decade due to educational, health and infrastructure improvements and government support and investment. It would be incorrect to say that the majority live in undeveloped parts of the country as these states have the highest concentrations of Indigenous people but are highly developed and rank as High on the Human Development index.

• Yucatan, 59% indigenous, HDI 0.821
  
• Quitana Roo, 39% indigenous, HDI 0.854
  
• Campeche, 27% indigenous, 0.825
  

And there also are a great deal of white Mexicans so I believe they should be worth at least a picture and section of text within the greater demographics section other wise an entire section dedicated to indigenous people is undue weight. While genetically indigenous people may constitute 30%~40% of the Mexican population depending on estimates, these people are not adherents to indigenous culture which is a requirement to count as indigenous via Mexican census policy. In fact, some genetically indigenous majority Mexicans can even be considered white and vice a versa due to INEGI census practices depending on which cultural or linguistic norms they adhere to as in Mexico race has much more to due with culture than genetics. Therefore this should be kept in mind during this writing and there should be an explanation of this. Just my 2 cents. V.S.Gonzalez (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• In regard to the discussions above:

1. Is the article "plagued with technology boostering" etc, ? Maybe, maybe not: Perhaps we should consider that some editors are not exactly great writers, and what is perceived by one editor as trivia and boosterism may simply have been a good faith attempt by another editor to add info that was perceived as missing. Perhaps there is some truth to both sides, and the real truth lies somewhere in between. Perphaps what we need to say is that Mexico's technology has increased considerably (by XXX%?) in the last YYY years, according to source ZZZ.
2. While an approach such as "slowly moving towards that goal" is certainly commendable, terminalistic statements such as "Other sections require more information rather than less", for an obvious question is "Why?". Also, when stating "the history section need serious imporvements including a better description of the precolumbian history, conquest and colonial era", the question becomes "according to who?". And if we are going to state "the territorial and political development in the independence era needs to be more coherently presented," some one could argue "What's so incoherent about it?" Who are we to say that, without some WP:RS to back it up, "the description and importance of the Revolution should be emphasized more"?? Have we considered that the statement "the political developments during the PRI and post-PRI eras should also be consolidated" might require consensus? And, what is the basis to establish that "the section on Administrative divisions could be expanded with information about substate divisions, and the basic historic process leading to current divisions"? If Mexico is among the countries in the world with the highest degree of wealth disparity, then let's just be WP:BOLD and add it. If the article states that Mexico has unusually high gender equality in favor of women, is that wrong in its own right? Have we stopped to consider that, like habits, long-established impressions die hard? Maybe the statistics presented do contradict most published research on gender relations in Mexico, but how reliable is such research? Perhaps the alleged research comes from reliable SOURCES but, does it depict recent trends or the current situation? Another statement made is, "better information on human rights in Mexico and on freedom of press will also have to be included" but, again, why? Can we prove that the information currently in the article is not current? What I am saying is that the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Was Alex too aggresive in his own response that "the way you're requesting help is terrible AT LEAST"? Probably; but without judgment, one thing is certain: That was HIS perception of Maunus' comments. As V.S.Gonzalez stated above, I too have a concern that the wrong use of steretypical wording and pictures may be used to perpetuate (conscientiously or not) ignorance about a topic.
3. At times we may be tempted to use the blocked-user argument, especially if it helps our cause. I tend to view this with a good amount of distrust for two reasons: blocked users and banned users are not the same thing, and 2, it is almost never perceived as genuine when someone seeks to exalt his own honor by pointing out someone else's disgrace. While it is Wikipedia policy that "Not all cited information is [necessarily] relevant" (WP:DUE), statements such as "I am under no obligation to maintain a civil tone regarding content" (Not a Wikipedia policy anywhere), may be conductive to WWIII but are certainly not conductive to improving an article in a communal fashion. Of course, claimimg that a label like "unimportant trivia" is "uncivil and aggressive" to others, may be blowing things out of proportions as well, which is why I am saying the truth may lie somewhere in between.
4. There was some chatter going back and forth above on the issue of pictures in the "Demographics" section and pictures in general. While it is true that some people (indigenous or not) may be offended by the inclusion of certain pictures, it is also true that some people view them with pride. In the end, pictures help explain a topic. It may be argued that if a country is 70% mestizo why include a picture depicting people from a segment of the population that accounts for only 10% the population? This is not undue weight, as a picture of the majority would not help explain the issue of the existing minorities. We should not seek to present anyone "in a bad light" but should not seek to bad-mouth them either in subtles ways (WP:WEASEL). Inflamatory and presumptouos statements made by one editor to another, such as "I don't expect you to know about that sitting in safety up in moneterrey where everything is nice and white", are not characteristic of a community spirit and in the end will generally be viewed as unconstructive. The same can be said of a phrase such as "If your problem is with having pictures of" when the less aggressive "If the objection regards having pictures of minority people" conveys the message but doesn't leave a sour taste of dealing with a tyrant. Maunus' alternative to create another section for pictures could alternatively be accomplished via a (balanced) Gallery of pictures at the end of the article. On the other hand, the suggestion from Gonzalez that "if there should be a picture of an indigenous Mexican it should be an important indigenous person who people would recognize such as Francisco Luna Kan, Moteuczomah, Benito Juarez, Armando Manzanero or Emiliano Zapata" is a valid one to keep a balanced perspective of the indigenous contribution to the Mexican heritage. In general, we should attempt to maintain an encyclopedic, neutral, tone in the text as well as the pictures included. Gonzalez's statement that "this article seems to only point out the problems indigenous people face" is an important one: an encyclopedia is not the place to point out perceived problems of minority people (WP:POV), especially if the section is about the demographics of a country. The same goes for his well-backed point that "Its quite generalizing to say that indigenous Mexicans can be characterized by living in rural areas as there are a great deal of urbanized Indigenous Mexicans especially in the Yucatan, Quitana Roo, Mexico City and Puebla." Such misconceptions should be removed from the article to avoid WP:OR, WP:POV and the like. Pictures may be aiding to perpetuate such misconceptions. We should strive to present the country of Mexico (and any other country) in its best light but without using superlatives (WP:PEACOCK) that inflate reality.
5. The word "criollo" is used only once in the article, and I avoid it in any discussion of demograhics (in the article and this discussion page) for it has considerably more to do with social status and virtually nothing with ethnicity. As such it can only lead to confusion and I recommend not to use it here either. In any event, is it really irrelevant to point out that "there are tonnes of pictures of Criollos, and rich people (who make up a very small percentage of the population)." If such people together with the rich and the famous represent the heart and soul of today's Mexico, if they are the means by which the economy moves and if they set the fashion trends and establish their cultural values, if they are at the forefront of science and technology there, then it is appropriate to include them, regardless of whether or not they make up a small percentage of the population. That's not undue weight. Gonzalez also states that "cultural or historical information about indigenous Mexicans is much more important [than] what differentiates them from other Mexicans. While I would consider them both important, but with culture and history probably more (but not necessarily MUCH more) important than diferences, the article should point out the differences (poverty/crime/etc) between them and the population at large only when these differences are notorious.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Perhaps a new subsection in the culture section about indigenous Mexicans and their influence and abbreviated history, both historical and modern can be added while at the same time some of the more generalized statements currently in the demographics section can be ommitted while more pertinent ones can be either kept in a rewrite of the indigenous section of the demographics or can be integrated into this new indigenous sub-section of the culture section. Or alternatively, relevant statistics regarding the indigenous can be put into the general demographics section, while the indigenous section of the demographics can be deleted entirely while the indigenous subsection in the culture section can focus mainly on the indigenous Mexicans themselves and their history/influences/importance etc. V.S.Gonzalez (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the ethnic groups information in the top information box may be incorrect. It states Mexico is 70% Mestizo, 15% White, 9.8% Indigenous and 1% other. There are a few problems with this. This uses two conflicting citations for different ethnic group even though each categorizes them all. This does not equal 100% because different statistics from different citations are used. It looks like someone tried to make the indigenous population appear smaller by using a different citation for them but now the total only comes out to 95.8%.

Additionally I think the information may be obsolete to begin with. This edit is using the obsolete way of reporting ethnicity in Mexico, meaning based on language and culture. The government now uses genetic studies to determine Mexico's ethnic structure using INMEGEN data. Genetically Mexicans are 70% Mestizo, 30% Amerindian, 9% White and 1% other. I spent 3 harrowing hours on and off on hold with different people at INEGI and they all gave me the same answer and Mexican government websites display the same information. http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271

We should now decide whether we should use the genetic studies that the Mexican government uses to determine the proportions of ethnicity in Mexico or the social/linguistics based determinations used in citation 7 made by the University of Morelos. My vote is for the genetic government studies as they were actually determined by scientific process by a government institution and have the backing and faith of the Mexican federal government. However the other ethnicity study carries some weight as well because in Mexican society social norms unfortunately are used to determine ethnicity but this study is not supported by scientific data nor is used by the Mexican government. Either way we should remove the current interdependency that cite 7 introduces immediately and use only cite 6 as it currently does not make mathematical sense with citation randomly inserted. I'd like to hear you're opinions on which one to use though as they both provide relevant information. Or perhaps we can include information from both noting that one is genetic and one is determined by social interpretation. V.S.Gonzalez (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Mexican government does emphatically not use genetic studies to determine who is indigenous. The inmegen data does not purport to show who is indigenous, but only the ratios of indigenous genetic material. The mexican government through INEGI determines who is indigenous based on cultural factors and selfidentification (basically whether someone lives in a household where an indigenous language is spoken). The population genetics material is not about ethnicity but about genetics - and it is not used for policy purposes by the government. Maunus (talk · contribs).

I'm confused then. The Mexican government states that Mexico is 30% indigenous http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271 . I talked to people at INEGI who also said Mexico is 30% indigenous and said the 9% statistic only counts indigenous language speakers. V.S.Gonzalez (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing two meanings indigenous one is used to mean "having genes from a precolonial population", that is what INMEGEN counts. The other meaning of indigenous as used by UN, by anthropology and in internaitonal political organizations such as ILO is about pre-colonial ethnic minorities "indigenous peoples" which has nothing to do with genes therefore having genetic material from amerindian sources does not make a person "indigenous". INEGI official data uses an operational definition of the second kind when it defines "indigena" as someone who speaks an indigenous language or lives in a household where it is spoken. In short being "indigenous" in Mexico and in most other places (not US) has something to do with your ethno-linguistic and cultural identity - not with biological-genetic identity (which is usually understood to relate to race - not ethnicity or indigenousness). Also CDI and INALI are the two branches of the mexican governement that have to do with indigenous peoples - and they use the second definition. You can not get assistance from CDI or INALI because of your genes, but because your a member of a cultural minority. Also being indigenous is actually defined in Mexican law and the law makes it quite clear that it does not count genes as having any thing to do with being indigenous - only culture and language. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article is being misquoted currently: http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/03/30/inegi-cada-vez-mas-mexicanos-hablan-una-lengua-indigena. The text of the wikipedia indigenous section states that the Indigenous Mexican population is shrinking. This is not true. The CNN article clearly states that the indigenous population is growing. However the general Mexican population is growing faster therefore as a percentage of the total Mexican population, the Indigenous population is shrinking. I advocate that this information be introduced to the article. What are your opinions? V.S.Gonzalez (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the text in the article. It says: "The absolute indigenous population is growing, but at a slower rate than the rest of the population so that the percentage of indigenous peoples is nonetheless falling." which is exactly what you are saying - absolute numbers grow relative numbers fall. I think the article should mention that Mexico is in fact the home to the largest indigenous population in Latin America in absolute numbers - ahead of Guatemala and Bolivia with indigenous majorities but much smaller total populations. Maunus (talk · contribs).

Picture of Mexico.

I think it would be a good idea to put the next image of Mexico in the article, ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Earth_western_hemisphere_from_Suomi_NPP.jpg ), maybe in the geography section that would be great. --Alex gnpi (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

Clearly this needs updating, it doesn't add up to 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.140.112 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality of article

Some articles are good and some are not so good. This article is very bad. 24.146.214.85 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should try and improve this article. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ComputerJA (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Poverty?

In the Economy section it reports poverty in general population at under 20%. Yet in the Wikipedia article "Poverty in Mexico" it reports according to the 2010 census over 44% living under poverty line! Can we resolve this? 38.117.214.70 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This article used a cherry picked article showing that poverty declined in the early 2000s, but not noting that it rose dramatically after 2004. I have added data from the january 2012 OECD report on Mexico based on the newest data from CONEVAL.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Official language... YES or NO?

I think there needs to be some research done and, afterwards, a decision taken into whether Spanish is Mexico's official language de facto or de jure. Some time ago, this article used to say that Spanish was only official de facto, like in Argentina. But now, it says that it's the official language. YET, there are a bunch of other wikipedia pages that say that Mexico has no de jure official language and that Spanish is only de facto official. An example? Languages of Mexico and... OH, this article contradicts itself right here... So, which one is true? This needs fixing. We can't really have an article about a country that contains such a big contradiction! Cancerbero 8 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is de facto official. There is no de jure official language. The info box says official spanish because of the very strong de facto status.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a RS citation that supports your edit that Mexico's official Spanish language is not a de jure official language. The citations provided do not say that Mexico's official Spanish "is not de jure". Meanwhile I have reverted the article to the version that can be supported by the citations provided. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Which citation says that Spanish is an official language at all?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources for Mexican legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Article four in the mexican law of Linguistic rights says: "ARTÍCULO 4. Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio,

localización y contexto en que se hablen." Showing that Spanish is a National language with the same legal status as the indigenous languages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a welldocumented political movement to make Spanish the oficial language of Mexico. Would that be the case if it already was? [5] [6][7][8][9]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this thoroughly per provided channels, before engaging in WP:BOLD unilateral changes based on WP:OR. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Nonsense, we have discussed this a hundred times on this page and it has been always been the consensus to include Spnaish only as a de facto oficial language because it has no legal oficial status. Someone came along and changed that old cosensus using unreliable sources. That was a bold unilateral changed and it will be reverted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maunus, according to this wikipedia policy WP:CCC your argument above is a non-argument. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Geographical Position

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone knows for certain, with evidence, whether Mexico is considered part of Central or North America by most of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviathanPMS (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on politics mostly. Americans who like to distance themselves from Mexico will say that its Central America and so do those Mexicans who like to distance themselves from the Anglosphere and look towards partnerships with other latin american countries. Mexicans who like to see themselves as closely tied to the US prefer to say North America. This even draws over into the ways in which different hispanic gangs in the US see themselves as sureños or norteños base don how tied they feel to the US or to Mexico. There is no information with evidence about what most of the world things about anything.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

i would like to put up an anthem box

t would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes Philpm930 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What?

The piramyids of the sun and the moon ar not in mexico city, bot teotihuacan--189.228.64.250 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is about forty five minutes north of the center of Mexico city. And about ten minutes outside of the city limits.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, being in mexico, I think nobody here would think it is in Mexico City. Close? OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.228.64.250 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Its specifically mentioned as part of the attraction of Mexico city as a tourist destination - which it is. Locations in Morelos or the Toluca area might also be considered part of Mexico City as a tourist destination, since they are within day-trip distance.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but it sort of makes the wrong inpression that it is in mexico city. What about rewording it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.228.69.238 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You may go ahead and do so at any time. :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)