Talk:Mexico/Archive 5

Mexican Space Agency
A little bit of research on the topic tells me this is still very speculative in nature. I don't think it has a place in an encyclopedia. Would edit it myself but the article is protected. Thanks 129.67.158.143 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a very small amount of coverage; not much. I understand that to some people in Mexico, this project is very important. Hopefully, there will soon be more concrete news  about the Agency.
 * There is a very small amount of coverage; not much. I understand that to some people in Mexico, this project is very important. Hopefully, there will soon be more concrete news  about the Agency.


 * Does that make any sense? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No76.88.38.93 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)monoRgesus

Mexican Spanish?
Shouldn't Mexican Spanish—a slightly different yet notable and important variant of Spain's Spanish—be noted somewhere in this article, like in the language section? I mean American English is considered to be a different language than British by almost everyone, and you find just about as many differences between American and British English as you do between Mexican and Spain's Spanish. Maybe Mexican Spanish is worth being mentioned in this article. Perhaps reading the Wikipedian article will give you some idea of a few major differences. -Crazypersonbb (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't venture to say that American English is a different language than British English, nor that Mexican Spanish is a different language than Spaniard or Peninsular Spanish, but rather that they are all different dialects. However, yes I guess a link to the article should be included in the languages section or the culture section. After all, Mexican Spanish is the variety or dialect spoken in Mexico and it has its own article. -- the D únadan 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Limes in Mexican Cuisine
I am a bit surprised that "limes" are not in this list "chocolate, maize, tomato, vanilla, avocado, papaya, pineapple, chile pepper, beans, squash, sweet potato, peanut and turkey". My impression based on limited experience, they are a distinctive feature. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pork rinds also come to mind, as in frijoles charros or chicharrón en salsa (roja o verde), or quesadillas. If you make a list, you may make it endless. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.--- Louie 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have an inflated sense of the role of limes in Mexico cuisine. Can I please get some feedback about this?   Wanderer57 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * did you mean lemons? Limón as is know here in México, is a very important seasoning which is almost used in any kind of ours food... of course there are peoples that disagree, but is widely use on everything, salted or sweet...--kiddo 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Limes indeed, not lemons. What in Mexico is known as limón is elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world as lima, and in English as lime (the bright green fruit). Lima in Mexico is what elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world is limón and in English lemon (the larger yellow fruit). Indeed quite confusing, but it is the lime (limón in Mexican Spanish) the type of citric used as seasoning in almost any kind of food. -- the D únadan 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. My spouse and my spouse's family are from Central America, and we have friends from other parts in Central America and they all call the limes "limones" - the green ones -, so it's not only a peculiarity of Mexican Spanish.Hugo cantu (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hugo. I'm from Mexico and I know that lemons or limes are known for everybody as "limones". Maybe Dúnadan is right about all he wrote, but in Mexico we say "limones", it doesn't matter if they're limes or lemons. Besides, here we don't use so much the limes, so it's commoner to find lemons. -- the G erd27  06:30, 20 December 2007 (COA)
 * Interesting, I remember an ex-hacienda in Puebla (near Atlixco) that used to grow limas (in the Mexican sense, that is "lemons"; the big, sweeter yellow fruit), and they called them limas, whereas the limones (that is, the "lime"), were the smaller sour bright green fruit. Is that a local nomenclature of central Mexico? As far as I could tell, it was the same thing in other central and northern states. -- the D únadan 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your responses to my question. The answers are more complicated and interesting than I expected.


 * Are there differences between different parts of Mexico in the use of limes and lemons, or in the names used for them? Where in Mexico are limes grown?  (Also lemons.)  In Canada (which is where I am, shivering) the limes we usually get are grown in Mexico.  Wanderer57 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't fully understand your question. Mexican cuisine is very diverse, and while the use of limes (limones) is ubiquitous, it would be hard not to say that, for example, that in Nayarit they use limes in different dishes. Now, in terms of terminology (pardon the redundancy), yes, limones refer to limes in all states in Mexico. Where are they grown? Good question. While they can be grown pretty much anywhere, I think mass production is concentrated in central-southern states at low altitudes. You might like to check the agriculture section at http://www.economia.gob.mx or the Censo Agropecuario of http://www.inegi.gob.mx. -- the D únadan 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Long
I don't think the article is too long. But if it needs to be reduced, I would recommend reducing a bit of History, Military and Education. -- the D únadan 16:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is not too long, actually I'd say this is a little short. Besides I disagree about reducing it, in fact I think it needs to   be extended, and under no circumstances it must be reduced on his parts of History, Military and Education, I think all of them are important.

environment
Most of the wikipedia countries have a paragraph about the environment - why not mexico? Is her environmental record that bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingforever (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wanderer
Thank you, it seems like you're taking good care of this article, I've been kinda busy with other stuff and I haven't really checked this article as much as I would like to, but still I think you're doing a pretty good job, gracias. Supaman89 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

United Mexican States
Good job on the article. My question is regarding the official name at the beginning of the first paragraph. Is this a common translation of the name? I always thought that the appropriate translation of the official name was "Mexican United States"?. Hugo cantu (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this a while ago, HERE, you may check it if you want so you can see what was said, I hope that helps you. Supaman89 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Supaman. I understand now and even though I still don't think that it is the correct translation I agree with the resolution. The term used then is the commonly used in other sources. If it is incorrect, it should be debated first in the appropriate forums and this page should only reflect the consensus of those debates. Sorry to bring this up when it had already been debated. Hugo cantu (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (Soccer) in Mexico
I think that the Football paragraph in the Sports section can be improved. It has incorrections (it's missing Estadio Olimpico), also the list of greatest soccer stars can be improved, or it could use a published list. In general it has no references and I think it is poorly written. Anybody has objections to an attempt to improve it? Hugo cantu (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, why don't you propose a new paragraph. Supaman89 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my first attempt.


 * Mexico’s most popular sport is football (soccer). It is commonly believed that football was introduced in Mexico by English miners at the end of the 19th century. By 1902 a 5 team league emerged still with a strong English influence. [1][2]. Football became a professional sport in 1943. Since the “Era Profesional” started, Mexico’s top teams have been Guadalajara with 11 championships, America (10), Toluca (8) and Cruz Azul (8). [3] Although many players have been raised to the level of legend in Mexican Football two of them have received international recognition above others, Antonio Carbajal, first player to appear in 5 World Cups, and Hugo Sanchez, named best CONCACAF player of the 20th Century by IFFHS. Mexican’s biggest stadiums are Estadio Azteca, Estadio Olimpico Universitario and Estadio Jalisco.

'':::1. http://www.femexfut.org.mx/portalv2/(hjfqs545niz5yh55yipntw55)/default.aspx?s=135
 * 2. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexhist.html
 * 3. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexchamp.html''
 * Let me know what you think. Hugo cantu (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexico´s President
The current president of Mexico is NOT Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, it is Felipe Calderon Hinojosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.218.194 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed back. Green Giant (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current president of Mexico is NOT Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, it is Felipe Calderon Hinojosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.218.194 (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexican crime and corruption
Neither the article nor the talk page even bring up the topic of crime and corruption in Mexico.

How can this be? Have the editors ever visited the place? I have been shaken down by Mexican "law enforcement" on several of my visits. The cities are essentially governed by violent drug cartels. It is a notoriously unsafe place and the entry should document this fact.

Why is the article semi-protected without the courtesy of an explanation on the talk page?

--Levi18:22 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Levi: Have you references to support your points about crime? Wikipedia tries very hard not to base articles on personal opinions, no matter how strongly held.   Wanderer57 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Several articles are semi-protected due to constant and reiterated vandalism (like United States). After it had been semi-protected for that reason, this article was unprotected for a week, and it experienced hundreds of edits by vandals. Several users requested its permanent semi-protection. -- the D únadan 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On November 3, 2007 I added one sentence on crime and linked it to a properly researched and well-sourced article crime in Mexico. As soon as on November 5 a user named Supaman89 undid my edit, stating that: "The crime comment was unnecessary, not encyclopaedically correct and unsourced." Don't you find it shocking? I am now adding the info and anyone who tries to remove THE FACT better think about a better reason. This is encyclopaedia, not a nationalistic self portait. Dawidbernard (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dawidbernard: I'm sorry I didn't see what you added in November so I was not aware of the Crime in Mexico article.  I have read it now.  If it is accurate, I agree with you the crime problem should be mentioned in the Mexico article. Have you other sources or personal knowledge re crime in Mexico?


 * I have some concerns re where you put your sentence. I.e., added on to a paragraph on a different topic. Also, since the lead is an "overview" of the rest of the article, there should be more in the body to support the mention in the lead.  I've made one change as an interim step.  Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that the Crime in Mexico article was not mentioned anywhere in the Mexico article till Dawidbernard added it. Is the Crime in Mexico article reasonably accurate? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(It has Vicente Fox as President, a sign it is not up-to-date.) Wanderer57 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal experience with crime in Mexico, just what I read and hear. Just now a user Dúnadan removed the sentence claiming it's "absolutely unencyclopedic". Well, if anything is "unencyclopedic", it is this kind of behaviour. I agree there should be something more in the body of the article. I'll try and work on that. Dawidbernard (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is. We can work on the way it's located and written, but I do hope no one removes it claiming it's allegedly "unencyclopedic". If this does happen, I'd call it vandalism.. Dawidbernard (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do some people respond with offense towards a user when s/he calls into question an edit? "Behavior" is neither encyclopedic nor unencyclopedic, content is, and for the most part, as an editor in Wikipedia, you should be ready to receive constructive (and other types) of criticism of the content you publish here. That is the very nature of this project, a community project. Whenever a user comments on your edits, try arguing or defending your edits instead of resorting to ad hominem arguments (i.e. "that behavior"). My behavior does not prove my argument wrong, and my "behavior" (by calling into question an edit) was not inappropriate.
 * The sentence was by far unencyclopedic for three reasons: style, location and lack of references. A one-sentence paragraph in an introduction with qualifications such as "stubbornly high" are at best unencyclopedical, at worse WP:POVPUSH, not to mention that all controversial statements without a reference violate WP:Verifiability, one of the three pillars of this project. Moreover, this issue had been extensively discussed in the past (please review the archives), and the editors opted for emulating other articles of countries which do not have a section on crime, and therefore removed the section; because of that and in accordance to WP:Consensus, that the topic had to be discussed first and a new consensus had to be reached.
 * Your newest edit, by including a section, is far better than the previous one. It is sourced (although the reference tag should probably follow every statement that could be contested, not only at the end of the paragraph), and given that you are citing verbatim what the CIA Factbook says, style could be argued to be appropriate.
 * Given that most of the users that agreed on the removal of the section are either on vacation or have reduced their interventions at Wikipedia, I think that there is enough consensus now (considering Wanderer's opinion as "supporting" your proposal, correct me if I am wrong), to include this new section, I think it should stay in the article. But do not be surprised if in the future the long-standing editors who participated in the previous debates challenge your new proposal.
 * -- the D únadan 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My firm stance on the "behaviour" stems from the fact that my previous edits were dismissed on the grounds that they were allegedly "absolutely unencyclopedic" despite the fact that, as it now appears, at least the contents they conveyed was encyclopedic. Moreover, the sentence contained a link to the article Crime in Mexico that I used as a source before writing it. My understanding is that the editors who removed my edits acted hastily and did not put even the slightest effort in trying to resolve the issue successfully. Tagging something "unencyclopedic" and removing it without raising the issue in the discussion page is the easiest thing to do. This isn't what I'd call "calling into question an edit" and "constructive criticism". In fact, "constructive criticism" is what you are doing NOW, not what you did earlier nor what Supaman89 did on Nov 5. I am willing to admit my words here were too harsh and I'm sorry if someone felt offended; can you admit that your handling of the situation could be better as well? Despite our differences, I am satisfied that we have reached a common ground. Dawidbernard (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed some of the points above:
 * your original sentence was not encyclopedic. The new section is. Do not mix the two in order to say that your first edit was "allegedly" uneyclopedic, but now it appears that it wasn't. Your two edits were vastly different. I think I explained the difference between the first sentence and the new section quite clearly in my comment above.
 * Per WP:Consensus (and since there was a consensus before in which several users agreed not to include such a section for the reasons therein explained ), the removal of the first unreferenced sentence was compliant with Wikipedia policies. Again, I say, don't be surprised if the users that participated in that debate oppose the inclusion of the new section.
 * -- the D únadan 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went looking for the wording that Dúnadan removed, and came back to find his edit. Just for the record, I also thought the original wording "unencyclopedic". (I could explain why I think that if somebody wants to know.) But it is time to move on here, I believe.  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Hi, doing a project on mexico, and I see that in the first paragraph it states that the population is 109 million, but under demographics it is listed at 103 million, just wondering which is the more updated version on that?

-Dean 6th January 11:24pm GMT -5

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.91.229 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We should use only one figure. The official figure of the 2005 Census is 103 million. I don't know where the 109 comes from, I assume it comes from the CIA Factbook which is an estimation. Even in 2005, the CIA Factbook had overestimated the population at 108 million. I would use the latest official figure available, which is 103 in 2005. -- the D únadan 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it states in the article that "close to 65% of its imports come from these countries". That is refering to the US and Canada, the other countries in NAFTA. However, in the table directly to its right it states that 68.4% of imports are from the US and 2.5% are from Canada, adding up to approximately 70% (exactly 70.9%). I would like to have this changed to reflect more consistency. 68.190.33.139 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl pronunciation of "Mexico"
What is the Nahuatl pronunciation of "Mexico"? (See also possible responses on | Nahuatl talk page --Espoo (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"political alternation"
I have wrestled with this sentence. I think it is confusing and awkward, even after I know what it is trying to say. (I mentioned archive 4 in an edit note because the sentence was discussed there, not because I think that is the last word on the subject.)


 * It might be better to use two sentences; I think there is too much packed into one sentence.


 * Is the point about 'political alternation' important enough to be in the lead?


 * How about something like: ' after XX years of single-party rule by the --- party at the federal level, Mexico became a multi-party democracy in  with the election of ---"  ????  Wanderer57 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well,like I mentioned in the archive too, political alternation is a term used in political science. I don't fully understand why it is you wrestle with it. Now, answering your concerns:
 * Splitting the sentence into two sentences is not a bad idea.
 * Good point, I don't think it is important enough to include political alternation in the lead, even though the CIA Factbook somewhat mentions it in the Introduction of the country's profile. We can discuss the pertinence of doing so here at Wikiepdia.
 * I don't like your sentence proposal as it will open a Pandora box for subjective interpretations. When did Mexico become a multi-party democracy, in the 1940's when the first non-PRI mayor was elected? in the 1950s where a couple of FPP deputies were selected? in the 1970s when several non-PRI PR deputies were selected? in 1989 when the first non-PRI governor was elected? in 1990 when the IFE was created? in 1992 when non-PRI parties had obtained almost 50% of the Chamber of Deputies? in 1997 when no single party obtained a majority in the Chamber of Deputies? in 2000 when the first non-PRI president was elected since 1929? Moreover, when is democracy achieved, when the rules of the game are made more democratic or when a different party [i.e. political alternation] is elected through the rules of the game approved several years (or even decades) before? What is the threshold for multi-party democracy, 20% of the Chamber of Deputies being non-PRI? You see, there are no easy answers, and as the books being cited in the political section and at Politics of Mexico suggest, the case of Mexico was rather complicated in that there was no dictatorship (i.e. abolishment of the constitutional rule), but rather electoral authoritarianism. So, deposing a dictator may be the landmark of democracy in Argentina in 1983, but there is no such landmark in Mexico, and the process to "democratize" the electoral system was slow. To imply that the defeat of PRI implies democracy is not correct. The 1994 elections -evaluated by international observers- were considered free and clean, and yet the people voted for a PRI candidate. And even today, there are almost as many PRI state governors as there are PAN and PRD put together... and all elected democratically. See what I mean? So, in just a few words, multi-party democracy was not achieved -in my opinion- with the election of someone at the federal executive power, but rather when the change in rules allowed for a greater and fairer representation of the opposition in all government levels. This was achieved probably in the late 80s and early 90s. The process of alternation (i.e. change of party in power), culminated when a non-PRI  candidate was elected for the highest executive post in the country.
 * -- the D únadan 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth
The movie "Pan's Labyrinth" should be removed from the list of movies under "Mexican cinema" because it is a Spanish, not Mexican film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.106.13 (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC) pan's labyrinth was a production between mexico and spanish so half credit goes for us and the other half for spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.142.240.106 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion
"The last census reported, by self-ascription, that 95% of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics are 89%[93] of the total population". It specifies 2000 census as source. Please compare this with articles Christianity by country (2001) and Irreligion (2006). 77.115.130.71 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion re Crime
Don't think the crime reference added in the latest edit belongs in the introduction, if at all.Rudynoname (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion HERE Wanderer57 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No consensus was ever reached. (And there were discussions prior to the one you are citing). I would say that a link to that article is appropriate, but the text "Crime is stubbornly high" in the introduction without references looks more like POV and unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong to the introduction. If there is consensus (and please Wanderer do review previous discussions related to "crime" in the archive), and most users agree to the inclusion of that phrase, I suggest creating a paragraph, in a more appropriate section, much more encyclopedic, NPOV and fully referenced? " -- the D únadan 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that a consensus was not reached in the earlier discussion but it is still relevant. I am pasting it in here for reference rather than jumping back and forth.  Wanderer57
 * Click here to jump to earlier discussion
 * [Editing to provide a link instead of duplicating discussions. Moreover, more comments were added to that section that were not copied-pasted here for some reason, and more could be added. With this link at least the full conversation of all users can be read. Feel free to revert if you think necessary]. -- the D únadan  17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Crime in Mexico article was not mentioned anywhere in the Mexico article till Dawidbernard added it. If the Crime in Mexico article is reasonably accurate, the problem sounds serious enough to be included in this article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Mexico/Archive_2, which as the previous consensus. That is why, per WP:Consensus, Dawidberard should have obtained a new consensus amongst the editors before editing, something he doesn't have. Yet, like I explained above, I didn't erase the section in that there seems to be a somewhat "tacit" new consensus, even though I won't be surprised if the editors who participated in that consensus object. -- the D únadan 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think that for significant changes to the article, prior discussion here is a very good idea.


 * I don't think it is reasonable to expect editors to have studied the archives before making edits. (Though, if you have time, it can be very informative.)


 * Also, in this and other articles, a consensus can fall apart very quickly. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UNAM
Hey guys!, the UNAM is now ranked in the position 59, You can read about this here: http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=344960 Comments? Mexxxicano 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the university really have over 269,000 students? Wanderer57 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are more students you can read the stats here: http://www.planeacion.unam.mx/agenda/2006/index.html?op=poblac Mexxxicano 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexican State Abbreviations
I was wondering if they're eventually going to network with the American and Canadian administrative divisions, by getting their own 2-letter abbreviations. I saw the section of it on this page, and some states have abbreviations that are already taken by the US and Canada. For example, Michoacán, is abbreviated as MI, but this is already taken by Michigan in tghe United States. I think Michoacán should be something like MC. Coahuila should be CU, Colima CL, and Chihuahua CH.

i could go on about this, but I think it would be a good idea. --141.210.9.36 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose; it violates Wikipedia's policies: Please read: WP:OR. -- the D únadan 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what are you opposing to: of course we can't make up abbreviations in the WP, so if two-letter abbreviations are used, they should follow some public standard (like an ISO specification); but if the Mexican authorities agree to set non-duplicates of State abbreviations for Northern America, that would be acceptable. Perhaps the misguided idea is to propose such a scheme here in WP, but I doubt that's what the OP was trying to do.-- Louie (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * British Columbia and Baja California, the abbreviation of both entities is BC, as we can see in the car licenses of Baja California. JC 14:57, 11 February 2008 (PST)
 * I don't undestand what is being discussed here. There are no official or unofficial two-letter state abbreviations in Mexico. If and when Mexican authorities decide to discuss and implement such a scheme, then we can change the content of the article. Btw, ISO codes for Mexican states are three-letter abbreviations. -- the D únadan 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Crime and OECD
I reverted the two most recent edits regading the crime section and Mexico's membership in the OECD as the "only developing nation": -- the D únadan 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the several discussions regarding the crime section, the proponent should discuss the possibility of including such a section in the article first. If at all, and if the community agrees to include that section, I would much rather vote for the previous proposal which is fully referenced (not just the last assessment) less tendentious and more encyclopedic in style and content.
 * Mexico is not the only developing nation member of the OECD. Turkey is also a member, and a developing country, and South Korea's status is still disputed, even though the majority of the sources do classify it as a developed country. Other countries currently not classified as developed which are also members of OECD are: Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. All of these counties, Mexico included, are classified as "advanced emerging" (see developed country and OECD).


 * I've restored the crime section to the article. I don't understand why this article doesn't cite anything regarding crime, one of the most serious problems Mexico is facing today. I don't understand why this article is disputed, if you just google the words "crime"and "Mexico" you'll see lots of outputs. For these reasons, I restored the crime section and added more references, which was not dificult to do.--Mhsb (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding references. A number of editors have said recently that the article should talk about crime in Mexico, so I'm inclined to believe that.


 * However, I don't trust the "google test". The results of the google test are that "crime Mexico" gives 3.7 million results, "crime canada" gives 6.5 million, "crime new york" gives 11 million, "crime america gives 90 million".  If the google test is relevant, crime is much less of a problem in Mexico than in Canada, New York, and the USA.


 * Is Lonely Planet a reliable source? For example, the New York City Overview does not mention crime.  Wanderer57 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mhsb, I have already explained to you that this issue has been extensively discussed before. Therefore, please present your arguments here (besides the Google test) and await for the consensus of the editors. Many editors oppose that section in as much as they oppose it in any other country. While I, personally, do not oppose a section on crime, I particularly dislike your wording and the way it is presented, and much rather prefer the previous proposal (though rejected by the community) that gave the [crude] assessment of the CIA. Reasons why I dislike your proposal:
 * Use of personal appreciations or qualifications versus WP:FACTS.
 * Partial use of references to support claims or lack of serious reputable references in compliance with WP:CITE in some sentences (the advisory of the State Department is a valid reference, though):
 * Your text: "Victims, who are almost always unaccompanied, have been raped, robbed of personal property, or abducted and then held while their credit cards were used at various businesses and Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). Mexican citizens and tourists are sometimes accosted on the street and forced to withdraw money from their accounts using their ATM cards."
 * Neither of the two references provided speak of "rape"; in fact the second reference is a forum, hardly a valid reference for Wikipedia. Compare the language of your text with the wording use by the first of the references provided, which is an advisory note for travelers:.
 * Your text: "Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates", your reference:.


 * Unreferenced claims with extensive use of weasel wording:
 * "have occurred in almost all the large cities in Mexico and appear to target not only the wealthy, but also the middle class."
 * "Criminal assaults occur on highways throughoutMexico; Armed street crime is a serious problem in all of the major cities."


 * Concluding that the sharp social class distinction is the root of crime in Mexico:
 * Your text:"Mexico is characterized by sharp class and social divisions. A small upper class controls much of the country’s property and wealth while the majority of Mexicans live in poverty. These social problems are one of the pillars of the increased levels of urban crime in the country."
 * What the source (Encarta) says: "Poor economic conditions, however, have significantly increased the levels of urban crime in the country, especially in Mexico City."

Given that this issue has been extensively discussed, I ask you again, to make a proposal here, let us discuss it, and then create a more encyclopedic and less tendentious section. If you insist that this is relevant to the article, let us open a poll. -- the D únadan 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why do you insist to remove the crime section from the article. What country are you trying to depict here? Please, don't try to create an image of a Mexico without any problems, a Mexico where crime does not exist and a Mexico that looks like Scandinavia? You are the one who is being tedentious here. My research is based on fact with lots of references from very reliable sources. What facts do you have for not including the crime section? Please, think about that and try to travel more overseas, go ahead and know some other countries and then come back here and make your oint of view. Read more news papers too! Mexican newspapers, you need them! You are living in another world kid!--Mhsb (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please moderate your comments, you are bordering on a clear violation of WP:Etiquette, and I will not continue with a discussion that is personal and unacceptable, but I will focus on the section you are proposing. Again, you seem not to understand my concerns, so I will outline my comments in a very, very simple way:
 * This issue has been extensively discussed in the past. Given that Mexico was the only article of a country in Wikipedia where such a section was being pushed, the editors on two separate occasions agreed to remove that section. Per WP:Consensus, it is recommended that you first obtain the consensus of the editors involved in the previous [two] consensus[es] before unilaterally reinserting what was voted to be removed.
 * I, personally, and despite your very personal and unfortunate comment, do not oppose the inclusion of a section on crime. But I would much rather include a non-OR section that is less tendentious and more serious in content like the one proposed before, which cited the assessment on Crime and Security by the CIA.
 * I would rather that you answer my concerns, especially those explicitly outlined in my previous comment in which I cited your work, instead of resorting to personal comments. And please, do not call me kid.
 * -- the D únadan 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I wrote the following while Dunadan was writing his message above. If you see any similarities, it is not because I copied his ideas.  Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mhsb: I can understand that you are a bit frustrated.  I think the main problem now is that what you put in reads too much like a slam at Mexico, and not enough like an encyclopedia.  If your material is pasted in here and reviewed, it is much more likely to be turned into something usable, through cooperation, than is your own solo work.


 * You may wonder why it is not obvious to everyone that you are right. Several answers:


 * Your mention of google raises questions. As I noted above, by the google test crime is much worse in Canada, USA, and New York than in Mexico. The Canada and New York state articles don't have crime sections -- why should the Mexico one?  (I'm not saying it should or should not.  My point is that it is not obvious that it should.)


 * As Dunadan mentioned, if the reference does not talk about a particular crime, should the article? Generally speaking it should not.


 * It is common that people in the USA and Canada have misconceptions about Mexico. The Wikipedia article should not be alarmist and fuel misconceptions.


 * I will paste in your contribution in a new section below for reference and comment. Please accept that a better product can result. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed section on Crime - proposed by Mhsb
(this text is brought here for discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Crime in Mexico is high, and it is often violent, especially in Mexico City, Tijuana , Ciudad Juarez , Nuevo Laredo , Monterrey , Acapulco , and the state of Sinaloa. Other metropolitan areas have lower, but still serious, levels of crime. Low apprehension and conviction rates of criminals contribute to the high crime rate.

There are a significant number of pickpocket, purse snatching, and hotel-room theft incidents. Public transportation is a particularly popular place for pickpockets.

Victims, who are almost always unaccompanied, have been raped, robbed of personal property, or abducted and then held while their credit cards were used at various businesses and Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). Mexican citizens and tourists are sometimes accosted on the street and forced to withdraw money from their accounts using their ATM cards.

Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates. So-called express kidnappings, an attempt to get quick cash in exchange for the release of an individual, have occurred in almost all the large cities in Mexico and appear to target not only the wealthy, but also the middle class.

Criminal assaults occur on highways throughout Mexico; Armed street crime is a serious problem in all of the major cities. Some bars and nightclubs, especially in resort cities such as Cancun, Cabo San Lucas, Mazatlan, Acapulco, and Tijuana, can be havens for drug dealers and petty criminals. Some establishments may contaminate or drug drinks to gain control over the patron.

It is increasingly common for extortionists to call prospective victims on the telephone, often posing as law enforcement or other officials, and demand payments in return for the release of an arrested family member, or to forestall a kidnapping. Prison inmates using smuggled cellular phones often place these calls. Persons receiving such calls should be extremely skeptical since most such demands or threats are baseless.

Mexico is characterized by sharp class and social divisions. A small upper class controls much of the country’s property and wealth while the majority of Mexicans live in poverty. These social problems are one of the pillars of the increased levels of urban crime in the country.

(added here to discuss) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 7 on "class and social". I think this paragraph goes into issues well beyond the scope of this article.  How about putting this in the "Crime in Mexico" article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First, given that refuses to discuss, but rather to revert, WP:POVPUSH, and resort to personal attacks to other users (like calling someone VANAL [in caps] because we challenge the content of the edits), I sternly request the assistance of an administrator to block the article from further editing, until Mhsb agrees to discuss, and a true consensus is obtained. Secondly, I do not like Wanderer's proposal for the same reason exposed above. Several statements lack a true reliable reference, and newspaper columns, the lonely planet and forums are not acceptable as valid sources. I insist, the I rather have the previous less tendentious proposal of the CIA. It seems that Mhsb is on a crusade and not truly concerned on quality and veracity. -- the D únadan 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the matter with this concept? You dislike it? I think that a poor mexican citzen, the one who lives in one of the several shanty towns, would disagree with you. But don't worry, it's very unlikely that this poor citzen would have broadband Internet connection, even more unlikely, this folk would know how to post a comment here or add a section about crime. I accept reviewing the section but removing it and editing it with tedentious and personal view, as if crime were not a major issue in Mexico, that's unacceptable for a project who aims to gather information.--Mhsb (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I repea: There is nothing wrong with the concept, but with the tendentious style you propose. I repeat, I would rather have the previous proposal than yours. Moreover, you are violating WP:Consensus: on two occasions it was decided not to have this section. Please stop reverting, please stop calling other people vandals, and please review WP:Etiquette.
 * It should be covered, but must not give it undue weight. Which means this section should not dominate the article. Many programs I see in the local San Diego/Tijuana news is about the violence in the border region and this is a discussion brought up on a constant basis. But if it is decided to not have this section here, there needs to be a link in see also. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see why this section about crime in Mexico doesn't exist. There is a consesus among the current users to get rid of this section. Why do you try to paint Mexico as a copy of United States? With regards to WP:POVPUSH, this is really relative, I may classify as WP:POVPUSH your persistance in reverting the article as it was, if everyone kept the article the way it is, withou improvements or expansion, the article would never have the contents it has today. As I said, as the author of the section, that surprisingly didn't exist, I am completely open to discussions, but do not take out the section just because it bothers you all.--Mhsb (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreed with the last change made by Wanderer57 but I restored the image of the shanty town. There is no reason to take it off just because it's filthy.--Mhsb (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to make a priori assumptions of motivations instead of dealing with the concerns already explained? No, we don't want to make this article a copy of the US; no we don't want to hide crime in Mexico; no we don't want to make it look like Scandinavia;we don't want to remove the picture because it is "filthy": those are assumptions that you cannot make in an argumentation. The section doesn't "bother me" per se: the content is tendentious and unencyclopedic, more akin to a tourist guide, a crime advisory page or a forum, not an encyclopedia. You have not been willing to discuss: I outlined several concerns with your so-called "referenced" proposal, and you resorted to personal disqualifications.
 * No, I am not WP:POVPUSHing, because I am restoring the consensus agreed by five different authors. There is no relativity; given your history of contributions here and in Brazil, it seems you rather have an agenda.
 * -- the D únadan 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mhsb: It may be better not to have a section than to have a section that says the wrong things.


 * If you are familiar with the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, it says in effect, if in doubt, take it out. In other words if something "maybe" should not be in an article, it is better to leave it out while it is discussed than it is to leave it in.  I think this applies to some things other than BLP.


 * In particular, I have removed this sentence from the article: "Persons receiving such calls should be extremely skeptical since most such demands or threats are baseless."  DO NOT reinsert it. It amounts  to giving advice in extremely dangerous circumstances.


 * I also removed the last paragraph re "class and social causes of crime", for the reason mentioned above.


 * I removed the image because, based on the caption, it relates directly to the last paragraph, which was also removed.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Wanderer. I added cn templates in the many unreferenced statements. A thorough rewording to avoid WP:WEASEL words and to present a more neutral point of view is needed. Both Wanderer and myself have expressed our concerns with the section (not to mention that Mhsb is ignoring the previous consensus by inserting it). For the sake of avoiding an unnecessary edit-war, I will not remove it, but I will call into attention the several deficiencies in neutrality and style, and ask Mhsb to answer the many concerned expressed in this and the previous section regarding this proposal. -- the D únadan 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quite surprised by the size of the text in the discussion of that section about crime. If you put that energy in editing my text instead of attacking it or deleting it, it would be more productive. For instance, if a text is not of common sense, why don't you re-edit instead of removing the whle picture? There are no shanty towns in Mexico? With regards to weasel words, I kindly ask you to look that up in the dictionary the definition of that word. Yes, I do have an agenda here and it's to contribute to wikipedia. If I write more about a topic than other, that's because I have more knowledge, more experience and more study on those topics. You will notice on my history of contributions several other topics but for now, I am more interested in Latin America. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to answer our concerns or not? Who said there are no shanty towns in Mexico? Can you show me where I said it? Please look at WP:WEASEL, it seems you are not understanding what I am trying to say. -- the D únadan 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunadan, this very section has been discussed previously as you can see in up in this page. You were one the users who objected the insertion of a section about crime. It has generated lots of discussion as well and at the end, the article didn't contemplate a section about crime. You had the chance to create one but you did prefer to cover that up. You are now using same wording to express you protest against this section. The article has good things about Mexico and just this section highlights its problems.--Mhsb (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you read other people's comments or not? Why do you continue to ascribe "conspiracy theories" of me "covering things up". I repeat, maybe in bold you will read it this time: We have outlined and expressed our concerns very detailedly. Please answer our concerns. Stop resorting to personal comments and disqualifications and assigning a priori judgmental values to our actions. I repeat, again, I do not oppose the section about crime. , I didn't in the past, perhaps you should read the previous discussions in more detail. I oppose your tendentious proposal full of WP:WEASEL words. Please answer our concerns. I would be happy to re-outline them for you. -- the D únadan  22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's time to say that this discussion is degenerating. I know from previous experience that Dunadan is committed to maintaining and improving this article.  I'm willing to assume the same about Mhsb, unless I see much evidence to the contrary.


 * Mhsb - please stop making accusations and imputing motives.


 * Dunadan - the bold face doesn't help. I know; I've tried it.


 * Any article that is at all controversial uses far more disk space for discussions than it does to store the resulting article.


 * Maybe a break from this discussion would be a good idea for all concerned. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Space Agency
A little bit of research on the topic tells me this is still very speculative in nature. I don't think it has a place in an encyclopedia. Would edit it myself but the article is protected. Thanks 129.67.158.143 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a very small amount of coverage; not much. I understand that to some people in Mexico, this project is very important. Hopefully, there will soon be more concrete news  about the Agency.
 * There is a very small amount of coverage; not much. I understand that to some people in Mexico, this project is very important. Hopefully, there will soon be more concrete news  about the Agency.


 * Does that make any sense? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No76.88.38.93 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)monoRgesus

Mexican Spanish?
Shouldn't Mexican Spanish—a slightly different yet notable and important variant of Spain's Spanish—be noted somewhere in this article, like in the language section? I mean American English is considered to be a different language than British by almost everyone, and you find just about as many differences between American and British English as you do between Mexican and Spain's Spanish. Maybe Mexican Spanish is worth being mentioned in this article. Perhaps reading the Wikipedian article will give you some idea of a few major differences. -Crazypersonbb (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't venture to say that American English is a different language than British English, nor that Mexican Spanish is a different language than Spaniard or Peninsular Spanish, but rather that they are all different dialects. However, yes I guess a link to the article should be included in the languages section or the culture section. After all, Mexican Spanish is the variety or dialect spoken in Mexico and it has its own article. -- the D únadan 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Limes in Mexican Cuisine
I am a bit surprised that "limes" are not in this list "chocolate, maize, tomato, vanilla, avocado, papaya, pineapple, chile pepper, beans, squash, sweet potato, peanut and turkey". My impression based on limited experience, they are a distinctive feature. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pork rinds also come to mind, as in frijoles charros or chicharrón en salsa (roja o verde), or quesadillas. If you make a list, you may make it endless. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.--- Louie 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have an inflated sense of the role of limes in Mexico cuisine. Can I please get some feedback about this?   Wanderer57 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * did you mean lemons? Limón as is know here in México, is a very important seasoning which is almost used in any kind of ours food... of course there are peoples that disagree, but is widely use on everything, salted or sweet...--kiddo 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Limes indeed, not lemons. What in Mexico is known as limón is elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world as lima, and in English as lime (the bright green fruit). Lima in Mexico is what elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world is limón and in English lemon (the larger yellow fruit). Indeed quite confusing, but it is the lime (limón in Mexican Spanish) the type of citric used as seasoning in almost any kind of food. -- the D únadan 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. My spouse and my spouse's family are from Central America, and we have friends from other parts in Central America and they all call the limes "limones" - the green ones -, so it's not only a peculiarity of Mexican Spanish.Hugo cantu (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hugo. I'm from Mexico and I know that lemons or limes are known for everybody as "limones". Maybe Dúnadan is right about all he wrote, but in Mexico we say "limones", it doesn't matter if they're limes or lemons. Besides, here we don't use so much the limes, so it's commoner to find lemons. -- the G erd27  06:30, 20 December 2007 (COA)
 * Interesting, I remember an ex-hacienda in Puebla (near Atlixco) that used to grow limas (in the Mexican sense, that is "lemons"; the big, sweeter yellow fruit), and they called them limas, whereas the limones (that is, the "lime"), were the smaller sour bright green fruit. Is that a local nomenclature of central Mexico? As far as I could tell, it was the same thing in other central and northern states. -- the D únadan 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your responses to my question. The answers are more complicated and interesting than I expected.


 * Are there differences between different parts of Mexico in the use of limes and lemons, or in the names used for them? Where in Mexico are limes grown?  (Also lemons.)  In Canada (which is where I am, shivering) the limes we usually get are grown in Mexico.  Wanderer57 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't fully understand your question. Mexican cuisine is very diverse, and while the use of limes (limones) is ubiquitous, it would be hard not to say that, for example, that in Nayarit they use limes in different dishes. Now, in terms of terminology (pardon the redundancy), yes, limones refer to limes in all states in Mexico. Where are they grown? Good question. While they can be grown pretty much anywhere, I think mass production is concentrated in central-southern states at low altitudes. You might like to check the agriculture section at http://www.economia.gob.mx or the Censo Agropecuario of http://www.inegi.gob.mx. -- the D únadan 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Long
I don't think the article is too long. But if it needs to be reduced, I would recommend reducing a bit of History, Military and Education. -- the D únadan 16:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is not too long, actually I'd say this is a little short. Besides I disagree about reducing it, in fact I think it needs to   be extended, and under no circumstances it must be reduced on his parts of History, Military and Education, I think all of them are important.

environment
Most of the wikipedia countries have a paragraph about the environment - why not mexico? Is her environmental record that bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingforever (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wanderer
Thank you, it seems like you're taking good care of this article, I've been kinda busy with other stuff and I haven't really checked this article as much as I would like to, but still I think you're doing a pretty good job, gracias. Supaman89 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

United Mexican States
Good job on the article. My question is regarding the official name at the beginning of the first paragraph. Is this a common translation of the name? I always thought that the appropriate translation of the official name was "Mexican United States"?. Hugo cantu (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this a while ago, HERE, you may check it if you want so you can see what was said, I hope that helps you. Supaman89 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Supaman. I understand now and even though I still don't think that it is the correct translation I agree with the resolution. The term used then is the commonly used in other sources. If it is incorrect, it should be debated first in the appropriate forums and this page should only reflect the consensus of those debates. Sorry to bring this up when it had already been debated. Hugo cantu (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (Soccer) in Mexico
I think that the Football paragraph in the Sports section can be improved. It has incorrections (it's missing Estadio Olimpico), also the list of greatest soccer stars can be improved, or it could use a published list. In general it has no references and I think it is poorly written. Anybody has objections to an attempt to improve it? Hugo cantu (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, why don't you propose a new paragraph. Supaman89 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my first attempt.


 * Mexico’s most popular sport is football (soccer). It is commonly believed that football was introduced in Mexico by English miners at the end of the 19th century. By 1902 a 5 team league emerged still with a strong English influence. [1][2]. Football became a professional sport in 1943. Since the “Era Profesional” started, Mexico’s top teams have been Guadalajara with 11 championships, America (10), Toluca (8) and Cruz Azul (8). [3] Although many players have been raised to the level of legend in Mexican Football two of them have received international recognition above others, Antonio Carbajal, first player to appear in 5 World Cups, and Hugo Sanchez, named best CONCACAF player of the 20th Century by IFFHS. Mexican’s biggest stadiums are Estadio Azteca, Estadio Olimpico Universitario and Estadio Jalisco.

'':::1. http://www.femexfut.org.mx/portalv2/(hjfqs545niz5yh55yipntw55)/default.aspx?s=135
 * 2. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexhist.html
 * 3. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexchamp.html''
 * Let me know what you think. Hugo cantu (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexico´s President
The current president of Mexico is NOT Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, it is Felipe Calderon Hinojosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.218.194 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed back. Green Giant (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current president of Mexico is NOT Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, it is Felipe Calderon Hinojosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.218.194 (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexican crime and corruption
Neither the article nor the talk page even bring up the topic of crime and corruption in Mexico.

How can this be? Have the editors ever visited the place? I have been shaken down by Mexican "law enforcement" on several of my visits. The cities are essentially governed by violent drug cartels. It is a notoriously unsafe place and the entry should document this fact.

Why is the article semi-protected without the courtesy of an explanation on the talk page?

--Levi18:22 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Levi: Have you references to support your points about crime? Wikipedia tries very hard not to base articles on personal opinions, no matter how strongly held.   Wanderer57 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Several articles are semi-protected due to constant and reiterated vandalism (like United States). After it had been semi-protected for that reason, this article was unprotected for a week, and it experienced hundreds of edits by vandals. Several users requested its permanent semi-protection. -- the D únadan 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On November 3, 2007 I added one sentence on crime and linked it to a properly researched and well-sourced article crime in Mexico. As soon as on November 5 a user named Supaman89 undid my edit, stating that: "The crime comment was unnecessary, not encyclopaedically correct and unsourced." Don't you find it shocking? I am now adding the info and anyone who tries to remove THE FACT better think about a better reason. This is encyclopaedia, not a nationalistic self portait. Dawidbernard (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dawidbernard: I'm sorry I didn't see what you added in November so I was not aware of the Crime in Mexico article.  I have read it now.  If it is accurate, I agree with you the crime problem should be mentioned in the Mexico article. Have you other sources or personal knowledge re crime in Mexico?


 * I have some concerns re where you put your sentence. I.e., added on to a paragraph on a different topic. Also, since the lead is an "overview" of the rest of the article, there should be more in the body to support the mention in the lead.  I've made one change as an interim step.  Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that the Crime in Mexico article was not mentioned anywhere in the Mexico article till Dawidbernard added it. Is the Crime in Mexico article reasonably accurate? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(It has Vicente Fox as President, a sign it is not up-to-date.) Wanderer57 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal experience with crime in Mexico, just what I read and hear. Just now a user Dúnadan removed the sentence claiming it's "absolutely unencyclopedic". Well, if anything is "unencyclopedic", it is this kind of behaviour. I agree there should be something more in the body of the article. I'll try and work on that. Dawidbernard (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is. We can work on the way it's located and written, but I do hope no one removes it claiming it's allegedly "unencyclopedic". If this does happen, I'd call it vandalism.. Dawidbernard (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do some people respond with offense towards a user when s/he calls into question an edit? "Behavior" is neither encyclopedic nor unencyclopedic, content is, and for the most part, as an editor in Wikipedia, you should be ready to receive constructive (and other types) of criticism of the content you publish here. That is the very nature of this project, a community project. Whenever a user comments on your edits, try arguing or defending your edits instead of resorting to ad hominem arguments (i.e. "that behavior"). My behavior does not prove my argument wrong, and my "behavior" (by calling into question an edit) was not inappropriate.
 * The sentence was by far unencyclopedic for three reasons: style, location and lack of references. A one-sentence paragraph in an introduction with qualifications such as "stubbornly high" are at best unencyclopedical, at worse WP:POVPUSH, not to mention that all controversial statements without a reference violate WP:Verifiability, one of the three pillars of this project. Moreover, this issue had been extensively discussed in the past (please review the archives), and the editors opted for emulating other articles of countries which do not have a section on crime, and therefore removed the section; because of that and in accordance to WP:Consensus, that the topic had to be discussed first and a new consensus had to be reached.
 * Your newest edit, by including a section, is far better than the previous one. It is sourced (although the reference tag should probably follow every statement that could be contested, not only at the end of the paragraph), and given that you are citing verbatim what the CIA Factbook says, style could be argued to be appropriate.
 * Given that most of the users that agreed on the removal of the section are either on vacation or have reduced their interventions at Wikipedia, I think that there is enough consensus now (considering Wanderer's opinion as "supporting" your proposal, correct me if I am wrong), to include this new section, I think it should stay in the article. But do not be surprised if in the future the long-standing editors who participated in the previous debates challenge your new proposal.
 * -- the D únadan 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My firm stance on the "behaviour" stems from the fact that my previous edits were dismissed on the grounds that they were allegedly "absolutely unencyclopedic" despite the fact that, as it now appears, at least the contents they conveyed was encyclopedic. Moreover, the sentence contained a link to the article Crime in Mexico that I used as a source before writing it. My understanding is that the editors who removed my edits acted hastily and did not put even the slightest effort in trying to resolve the issue successfully. Tagging something "unencyclopedic" and removing it without raising the issue in the discussion page is the easiest thing to do. This isn't what I'd call "calling into question an edit" and "constructive criticism". In fact, "constructive criticism" is what you are doing NOW, not what you did earlier nor what Supaman89 did on Nov 5. I am willing to admit my words here were too harsh and I'm sorry if someone felt offended; can you admit that your handling of the situation could be better as well? Despite our differences, I am satisfied that we have reached a common ground. Dawidbernard (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed some of the points above:
 * your original sentence was not encyclopedic. The new section is. Do not mix the two in order to say that your first edit was "allegedly" uneyclopedic, but now it appears that it wasn't. Your two edits were vastly different. I think I explained the difference between the first sentence and the new section quite clearly in my comment above.
 * Per WP:Consensus (and since there was a consensus before in which several users agreed not to include such a section for the reasons therein explained ), the removal of the first unreferenced sentence was compliant with Wikipedia policies. Again, I say, don't be surprised if the users that participated in that debate oppose the inclusion of the new section.
 * -- the D únadan 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went looking for the wording that Dúnadan removed, and came back to find his edit. Just for the record, I also thought the original wording "unencyclopedic". (I could explain why I think that if somebody wants to know.) But it is time to move on here, I believe.  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Hi, doing a project on mexico, and I see that in the first paragraph it states that the population is 109 million, but under demographics it is listed at 103 million, just wondering which is the more updated version on that?

-Dean 6th January 11:24pm GMT -5

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.91.229 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We should use only one figure. The official figure of the 2005 Census is 103 million. I don't know where the 109 comes from, I assume it comes from the CIA Factbook which is an estimation. Even in 2005, the CIA Factbook had overestimated the population at 108 million. I would use the latest official figure available, which is 103 in 2005. -- the D únadan 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it states in the article that "close to 65% of its imports come from these countries". That is refering to the US and Canada, the other countries in NAFTA. However, in the table directly to its right it states that 68.4% of imports are from the US and 2.5% are from Canada, adding up to approximately 70% (exactly 70.9%). I would like to have this changed to reflect more consistency. 68.190.33.139 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl pronunciation of "Mexico"
What is the Nahuatl pronunciation of "Mexico"? (See also possible responses on | Nahuatl talk page --Espoo (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

speaking of inconsistencies...in the colonial era history portion, this article incorrectly mentions Iturbide as the "only emperor" in Mexico. Then later correctly refers to the brief French occupation and the rule of Emperor Maximiliano. There were two emperors in Mexico. And that's only since independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.1 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

spanish in mexico?
why do they speak spanish in mexico or for that matter why do they speak spanish in any country other than spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.128.130 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Spanish is spoken in Mexico because Spain invaded and conquered territories in the Americas. These territories later became Mexico and the rest of the Spanish-speaking countries in the continent. Spain held dominance over these colonies for more than 300 years. By the time independence was achieved by the colonies, the Spanish language was already established as the primary language of the new nations. Hugo cantu (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for the same reason that they speak English in the United States... 99.249.160.250 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What language should be spoken in Mexico, other than Spanish? It's a rather silly question. Hasn'tjeanne (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC) the person ever heard of Hernan Cortès?He was a Spaniard.


 * Let's not call other people's comments silly. For historical reasons, Spanish is the main language spoken in Mexico.  This is not the same thing as saying it should be.  There are quite a few other languages which one could argue "should" be spoken in Mexico.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

== Apart from Nahuatl,I cannot think of any other language other than Spanish that could be ever considered as the official language of Mexico.And I didn't mean to offend anybody.I'm sorry.It just seems that Spain's vast contribution to the exploration,settlement and cultural enrichment of the New World is being down-played due to PC thinking,which has the main intent on demonising Spain and Spaniards along with other Europeans.California, we are now being told, actuallyjeanne (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC) had very few Spaniards!!!!Oh?


 * Thank you. I wasn't talking about the "official" language of Mexico at all.  There's a conversation somewhere else on this page on that topic, which I think came to the conclusion there was no official language..
 * Of course Spanish is the chief language of Mexico. What bothered me was that the wording "should be spoken in Mexico" seemed to imply that a Natural Order mandates Spanish as the proper thing to speak there.
 * My mention of other languages was referring to other native laguages there. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But why does everything have to be so politically correct?Natural mandate? I never implied that.I merely said that as Spaniards conquered and settled Mexico it was obvious that Spanish would be quickly imposed as the chief language.By the way, which native languages could be used in any part of the New World,considering there are so many different Indian languages ?I'm sorry but I feel that as a European-American,anything which derives from Europe is to be regarded now as redundant such as language, culture,etc.jeanne (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"political alternation"
I have wrestled with this sentence. I think it is confusing and awkward, even after I know what it is trying to say. (I mentioned archive 4 in an edit note because the sentence was discussed there, not because I think that is the last word on the subject.)


 * It might be better to use two sentences; I think there is too much packed into one sentence.


 * Is the point about 'political alternation' important enough to be in the lead?


 * How about something like: ' after XX years of single-party rule by the --- party at the federal level, Mexico became a multi-party democracy in  with the election of ---"  ????  Wanderer57 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well,like I mentioned in the archive too, political alternation is a term used in political science. I don't fully understand why it is you wrestle with it. Now, answering your concerns:
 * Splitting the sentence into two sentences is not a bad idea.
 * Good point, I don't think it is important enough to include political alternation in the lead, even though the CIA Factbook somewhat mentions it in the Introduction of the country's profile. We can discuss the pertinence of doing so here at Wikiepdia.
 * I don't like your sentence proposal as it will open a Pandora box for subjective interpretations. When did Mexico become a multi-party democracy, in the 1940's when the first non-PRI mayor was elected? in the 1950s where a couple of FPP deputies were selected? in the 1970s when several non-PRI PR deputies were selected? in 1989 when the first non-PRI governor was elected? in 1990 when the IFE was created? in 1992 when non-PRI parties had obtained almost 50% of the Chamber of Deputies? in 1997 when no single party obtained a majority in the Chamber of Deputies? in 2000 when the first non-PRI president was elected since 1929? Moreover, when is democracy achieved, when the rules of the game are made more democratic or when a different party [i.e. political alternation] is elected through the rules of the game approved several years (or even decades) before? What is the threshold for multi-party democracy, 20% of the Chamber of Deputies being non-PRI? You see, there are no easy answers, and as the books being cited in the political section and at Politics of Mexico suggest, the case of Mexico was rather complicated in that there was no dictatorship (i.e. abolishment of the constitutional rule), but rather electoral authoritarianism. So, deposing a dictator may be the landmark of democracy in Argentina in 1983, but there is no such landmark in Mexico, and the process to "democratize" the electoral system was slow. To imply that the defeat of PRI implies democracy is not correct. The 1994 elections -evaluated by international observers- were considered free and clean, and yet the people voted for a PRI candidate. And even today, there are almost as many PRI state governors as there are PAN and PRD put together... and all elected democratically. See what I mean? So, in just a few words, multi-party democracy was not achieved -in my opinion- with the election of someone at the federal executive power, but rather when the change in rules allowed for a greater and fairer representation of the opposition in all government levels. This was achieved probably in the late 80s and early 90s. The process of alternation (i.e. change of party in power), culminated when a non-PRI  candidate was elected for the highest executive post in the country.
 * -- the D únadan 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth
The movie "Pan's Labyrinth" should be removed from the list of movies under "Mexican cinema" because it is a Spanish, not Mexican film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.106.13 (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion
"The last census reported, by self-ascription, that 95% of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics are 89%[93] of the total population". It specifies 2000 census as source. Please compare this with articles Christianity by country (2001) and Irreligion (2006). 77.115.130.71 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion re Crime
Don't think the crime reference added in the latest edit belongs in the introduction, if at all.Rudynoname (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion HERE Wanderer57 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No consensus was ever reached. (And there were discussions prior to the one you are citing). I would say that a link to that article is appropriate, but the text "Crime is stubbornly high" in the introduction without references looks more like POV and unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong to the introduction. If there is consensus (and please Wanderer do review previous discussions related to "crime" in the archive), and most users agree to the inclusion of that phrase, I suggest creating a paragraph, in a more appropriate section, much more encyclopedic, NPOV and fully referenced? " -- the D únadan 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that a consensus was not reached in the earlier discussion but it is still relevant. I am pasting it in here for reference rather than jumping back and forth.  Wanderer57
 * Click here to jump to earlier discussion
 * [Editing to provide a link instead of duplicating discussions. Moreover, more comments were added to that section that were not copied-pasted here for some reason, and more could be added. With this link at least the full conversation of all users can be read. Feel free to revert if you think necessary]. -- the D únadan  17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Crime in Mexico article was not mentioned anywhere in the Mexico article till Dawidbernard added it. If the Crime in Mexico article is reasonably accurate, the problem sounds serious enough to be included in this article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Mexico/Archive_2, which as the previous consensus. That is why, per WP:Consensus, Dawidberard should have obtained a new consensus amongst the editors before editing, something he doesn't have. Yet, like I explained above, I didn't erase the section in that there seems to be a somewhat "tacit" new consensus, even though I won't be surprised if the editors who participated in that consensus object. -- the D únadan 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think that for significant changes to the article, prior discussion here is a very good idea.


 * I don't think it is reasonable to expect editors to have studied the archives before making edits. (Though, if you have time, it can be very informative.)


 * Also, in this and other articles, a consensus can fall apart very quickly. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UNAM
Hey guys!, the UNAM is now ranked in the position 59, You can read about this here: http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=344960 Comments? Mexxxicano 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the university really have over 269,000 students? Wanderer57 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are more students you can read the stats here: http://www.planeacion.unam.mx/agenda/2006/index.html?op=poblac Mexxxicano 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexican State Abbreviations
I was wondering if they're eventually going to network with the American and Canadian administrative divisions, by getting their own 2-letter abbreviations. I saw the section of it on this page, and some states have abbreviations that are already taken by the US and Canada. For example, Michoacán, is abbreviated as MI, but this is already taken by Michigan in tghe United States. I think Michoacán should be something like MC. Coahuila should be CU, Colima CL, and Chihuahua CH.

i could go on about this, but I think it would be a good idea. --141.210.9.36 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose; it violates Wikipedia's policies: Please read: WP:OR. -- the D únadan 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what are you opposing to: of course we can't make up abbreviations in the WP, so if two-letter abbreviations are used, they should follow some public standard (like an ISO specification); but if the Mexican authorities agree to set non-duplicates of State abbreviations for Northern America, that would be acceptable. Perhaps the misguided idea is to propose such a scheme here in WP, but I doubt that's what the OP was trying to do.-- Louie (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * British Columbia and Baja California, the abbreviation of both entities is BC, as we can see in the car licenses of Baja California. JC 14:57, 11 February 2008 (PST)
 * I don't undestand what is being discussed here. There are no official or unofficial two-letter state abbreviations in Mexico. If and when Mexican authorities decide to discuss and implement such a scheme, then we can change the content of the article. Btw, ISO codes for Mexican states are three-letter abbreviations. -- the D únadan 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Crime and OECD
I reverted the two most recent edits regading the crime section and Mexico's membership in the OECD as the "only developing nation": -- the D únadan 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the several discussions regarding the crime section, the proponent should discuss the possibility of including such a section in the article first. If at all, and if the community agrees to include that section, I would much rather vote for the previous proposal which is fully referenced (not just the last assessment) less tendentious and more encyclopedic in style and content.
 * Mexico is not the only developing nation member of the OECD. Turkey is also a member, and a developing country, and South Korea's status is still disputed, even though the majority of the sources do classify it as a developed country. Other countries currently not classified as developed which are also members of OECD are: Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. All of these counties, Mexico included, are classified as "advanced emerging" (see developed country and OECD).


 * I've restored the crime section to the article. I don't understand why this article doesn't cite anything regarding crime, one of the most serious problems Mexico is facing today. I don't understand why this article is disputed, if you just google the words "crime"and "Mexico" you'll see lots of outputs. For these reasons, I restored the crime section and added more references, which was not dificult to do.--Mhsb (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding references. A number of editors have said recently that the article should talk about crime in Mexico, so I'm inclined to believe that.


 * However, I don't trust the "google test". The results of the google test are that "crime Mexico" gives 3.7 million results, "crime canada" gives 6.5 million, "crime new york" gives 11 million, "crime america gives 90 million".  If the google test is relevant, crime is much less of a problem in Mexico than in Canada, New York, and the USA.


 * Is Lonely Planet a reliable source? For example, the New York City Overview does not mention crime.  Wanderer57 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mhsb, I have already explained to you that this issue has been extensively discussed before. Therefore, please present your arguments here (besides the Google test) and await for the consensus of the editors. Many editors oppose that section in as much as they oppose it in any other country. While I, personally, do not oppose a section on crime, I particularly dislike your wording and the way it is presented, and much rather prefer the previous proposal (though rejected by the community) that gave the [crude] assessment of the CIA. Reasons why I dislike your proposal:
 * Use of personal appreciations or qualifications versus WP:FACTS.
 * Partial use of references to support claims or lack of serious reputable references in compliance with WP:CITE in some sentences (the advisory of the State Department is a valid reference, though):
 * Your text: "Victims, who are almost always unaccompanied, have been raped, robbed of personal property, or abducted and then held while their credit cards were used at various businesses and Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). Mexican citizens and tourists are sometimes accosted on the street and forced to withdraw money from their accounts using their ATM cards."
 * Neither of the two references provided speak of "rape"; in fact the second reference is a forum, hardly a valid reference for Wikipedia. Compare the language of your text with the wording use by the first of the references provided, which is an advisory note for travelers:.
 * Your text: "Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates", your reference:.


 * Unreferenced claims with extensive use of weasel wording:
 * "have occurred in almost all the large cities in Mexico and appear to target not only the wealthy, but also the middle class."
 * "Criminal assaults occur on highways throughoutMexico; Armed street crime is a serious problem in all of the major cities."


 * Concluding that the sharp social class distinction is the root of crime in Mexico:
 * Your text:"Mexico is characterized by sharp class and social divisions. A small upper class controls much of the country’s property and wealth while the majority of Mexicans live in poverty. These social problems are one of the pillars of the increased levels of urban crime in the country."
 * What the source (Encarta) says: "Poor economic conditions, however, have significantly increased the levels of urban crime in the country, especially in Mexico City."

Given that this issue has been extensively discussed, I ask you again, to make a proposal here, let us discuss it, and then create a more encyclopedic and less tendentious section. If you insist that this is relevant to the article, let us open a poll. -- the D únadan 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why do you insist to remove the crime section from the article. What country are you trying to depict here? Please, don't try to create an image of a Mexico without any problems, a Mexico where crime does not exist and a Mexico that looks like Scandinavia? You are the one who is being tedentious here. My research is based on fact with lots of references from very reliable sources. What facts do you have for not including the crime section? Please, think about that and try to travel more overseas, go ahead and know some other countries and then come back here and make your oint of view. Read more news papers too! Mexican newspapers, you need them! You are living in another world kid!--Mhsb (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please moderate your comments, you are bordering on a clear violation of WP:Etiquette, and I will not continue with a discussion that is personal and unacceptable, but I will focus on the section you are proposing. Again, you seem not to understand my concerns, so I will outline my comments in a very, very simple way:
 * This issue has been extensively discussed in the past. Given that Mexico was the only article of a country in Wikipedia where such a section was being pushed, the editors on two separate occasions agreed to remove that section. Per WP:Consensus, it is recommended that you first obtain the consensus of the editors involved in the previous [two] consensus[es] before unilaterally reinserting what was voted to be removed.
 * I, personally, and despite your very personal and unfortunate comment, do not oppose the inclusion of a section on crime. But I would much rather include a non-OR section that is less tendentious and more serious in content like the one proposed before, which cited the assessment on Crime and Security by the CIA.
 * I would rather that you answer my concerns, especially those explicitly outlined in my previous comment in which I cited your work, instead of resorting to personal comments. And please, do not call me kid.
 * -- the D únadan 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I wrote the following while Dunadan was writing his message above. If you see any similarities, it is not because I copied his ideas.  Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mhsb: I can understand that you are a bit frustrated.  I think the main problem now is that what you put in reads too much like a slam at Mexico, and not enough like an encyclopedia.  If your material is pasted in here and reviewed, it is much more likely to be turned into something usable, through cooperation, than is your own solo work.


 * You may wonder why it is not obvious to everyone that you are right. Several answers:


 * Your mention of google raises questions. As I noted above, by the google test crime is much worse in Canada, USA, and New York than in Mexico. The Canada and New York state articles don't have crime sections -- why should the Mexico one?  (I'm not saying it should or should not.  My point is that it is not obvious that it should.)


 * As Dunadan mentioned, if the reference does not talk about a particular crime, should the article? Generally speaking it should not.


 * It is common that people in the USA and Canada have misconceptions about Mexico. The Wikipedia article should not be alarmist and fuel misconceptions.


 * I will paste in your contribution in a new section below for reference and comment. Please accept that a better product can result. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed section on Crime - proposed by Mhsb
(this text is brought here for discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Crime in Mexico is high, and it is often violent, especially in Mexico City, Tijuana , Ciudad Juarez , Nuevo Laredo , Monterrey , Acapulco , and the state of Sinaloa. Other metropolitan areas have lower, but still serious, levels of crime. Low apprehension and conviction rates of criminals contribute to the high crime rate.

There are a significant number of pickpocket, purse snatching, and hotel-room theft incidents. Public transportation is a particularly popular place for pickpockets.

Victims, who are almost always unaccompanied, have been raped, robbed of personal property, or abducted and then held while their credit cards were used at various businesses and Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). Mexican citizens and tourists are sometimes accosted on the street and forced to withdraw money from their accounts using their ATM cards.

Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates. So-called express kidnappings, an attempt to get quick cash in exchange for the release of an individual, have occurred in almost all the large cities in Mexico and appear to target not only the wealthy, but also the middle class.

Criminal assaults occur on highways throughout Mexico; Armed street crime is a serious problem in all of the major cities. Some bars and nightclubs, especially in resort cities such as Cancun, Cabo San Lucas, Mazatlan, Acapulco, and Tijuana, can be havens for drug dealers and petty criminals. Some establishments may contaminate or drug drinks to gain control over the patron.

It is increasingly common for extortionists to call prospective victims on the telephone, often posing as law enforcement or other officials, and demand payments in return for the release of an arrested family member, or to forestall a kidnapping. Prison inmates using smuggled cellular phones often place these calls. Persons receiving such calls should be extremely skeptical since most such demands or threats are baseless.

Mexico is characterized by sharp class and social divisions. A small upper class controls much of the country’s property and wealth while the majority of Mexicans live in poverty. These social problems are one of the pillars of the increased levels of urban crime in the country.

(added here to discuss) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 7 on "class and social". I think this paragraph goes into issues well beyond the scope of this article.  How about putting this in the "Crime in Mexico" article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First, given that refuses to discuss, but rather to revert, WP:POVPUSH, and resort to personal attacks to other users (like calling someone VANAL [in caps] because we challenge the content of the edits), I sternly request the assistance of an administrator to block the article from further editing, until Mhsb agrees to discuss, and a true consensus is obtained. Secondly, I do not like Wanderer's proposal for the same reason exposed above. Several statements lack a true reliable reference, and newspaper columns, the lonely planet and forums are not acceptable as valid sources. I insist, the I rather have the previous less tendentious proposal of the CIA. It seems that Mhsb is on a crusade and not truly concerned on quality and veracity. -- the D únadan 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the matter with this concept? You dislike it? I think that a poor mexican citzen, the one who lives in one of the several shanty towns, would disagree with you. But don't worry, it's very unlikely that this poor citzen would have broadband Internet connection, even more unlikely, this folk would know how to post a comment here or add a section about crime. I accept reviewing the section but removing it and editing it with tedentious and personal view, as if crime were not a major issue in Mexico, that's unacceptable for a project who aims to gather information.--Mhsb (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I repea: There is nothing wrong with the concept, but with the tendentious style you propose. I repeat, I would rather have the previous proposal than yours. Moreover, you are violating WP:Consensus: on two occasions it was decided not to have this section. Please stop reverting, please stop calling other people vandals, and please review WP:Etiquette.
 * It should be covered, but must not give it undue weight. Which means this section should not dominate the article. Many programs I see in the local San Diego/Tijuana news is about the violence in the border region and this is a discussion brought up on a constant basis. But if it is decided to not have this section here, there needs to be a link in see also. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see why this section about crime in Mexico doesn't exist. There is a consesus among the current users to get rid of this section. Why do you try to paint Mexico as a copy of United States? With regards to WP:POVPUSH, this is really relative, I may classify as WP:POVPUSH your persistance in reverting the article as it was, if everyone kept the article the way it is, withou improvements or expansion, the article would never have the contents it has today. As I said, as the author of the section, that surprisingly didn't exist, I am completely open to discussions, but do not take out the section just because it bothers you all.--Mhsb (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreed with the last change made by Wanderer57 but I restored the image of the shanty town. There is no reason to take it off just because it's filthy.--Mhsb (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to make a priori assumptions of motivations instead of dealing with the concerns already explained? No, we don't want to make this article a copy of the US; no we don't want to hide crime in Mexico; no we don't want to make it look like Scandinavia;we don't want to remove the picture because it is "filthy": those are assumptions that you cannot make in an argumentation. The section doesn't "bother me" per se: the content is tendentious and unencyclopedic, more akin to a tourist guide, a crime advisory page or a forum, not an encyclopedia. You have not been willing to discuss: I outlined several concerns with your so-called "referenced" proposal, and you resorted to personal disqualifications.
 * No, I am not WP:POVPUSHing, because I am restoring the consensus agreed by five different authors. There is no relativity; given your history of contributions here and in Brazil, it seems you rather have an agenda.
 * -- the D únadan 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mhsb: It may be better not to have a section than to have a section that says the wrong things.


 * If you are familiar with the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, it says in effect, if in doubt, take it out. In other words if something "maybe" should not be in an article, it is better to leave it out while it is discussed than it is to leave it in.  I think this applies to some things other than BLP.


 * In particular, I have removed this sentence from the article: "Persons receiving such calls should be extremely skeptical since most such demands or threats are baseless."  DO NOT reinsert it. It amounts  to giving advice in extremely dangerous circumstances.


 * I also removed the last paragraph re "class and social causes of crime", for the reason mentioned above.


 * I removed the image because, based on the caption, it relates directly to the last paragraph, which was also removed.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Wanderer. I added cn templates in the many unreferenced statements. A thorough rewording to avoid WP:WEASEL words and to present a more neutral point of view is needed. Both Wanderer and myself have expressed our concerns with the section (not to mention that Mhsb is ignoring the previous consensus by inserting it). For the sake of avoiding an unnecessary edit-war, I will not remove it, but I will call into attention the several deficiencies in neutrality and style, and ask Mhsb to answer the many concerned expressed in this and the previous section regarding this proposal. -- the D únadan 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quite surprised by the size of the text in the discussion of that section about crime. If you put that energy in editing my text instead of attacking it or deleting it, it would be more productive. For instance, if a text is not of common sense, why don't you re-edit instead of removing the whle picture? There are no shanty towns in Mexico? With regards to weasel words, I kindly ask you to look that up in the dictionary the definition of that word. Yes, I do have an agenda here and it's to contribute to wikipedia. If I write more about a topic than other, that's because I have more knowledge, more experience and more study on those topics. You will notice on my history of contributions several other topics but for now, I am more interested in Latin America. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to answer our concerns or not? Who said there are no shanty towns in Mexico? Can you show me where I said it? Please look at WP:WEASEL, it seems you are not understanding what I am trying to say. -- the D únadan 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunadan, this very section has been discussed previously as you can see in up in this page. You were one the users who objected the insertion of a section about crime. It has generated lots of discussion as well and at the end, the article didn't contemplate a section about crime. You had the chance to create one but you did prefer to cover that up. You are now using same wording to express you protest against this section. The article has good things about Mexico and just this section highlights its problems.--Mhsb (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you read other people's comments or not? Why do you continue to ascribe "conspiracy theories" of me "covering things up". I repeat, maybe in bold you will read it this time: We have outlined and expressed our concerns very detailedly. Please answer our concerns. Stop resorting to personal comments and disqualifications and assigning a priori judgmental values to our actions. I repeat, again, I do not oppose the section about crime. , I didn't in the past, perhaps you should read the previous discussions in more detail. I oppose your tendentious proposal full of WP:WEASEL words. Please answer our concerns. I would be happy to re-outline them for you. -- the D únadan  22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let's start with the following sentence:

In spite of important economical achievements, many social issues still hamper development.

I copied this sentence from Brazil page and I think this applies to Mexico as well since Latin American countries face virtually similar problems. For this sentence I am not providing statistical information. To explain this sentence, if this is not clear for you, we would have to go through some lessons. 2006 data shows a GDP for Mexico of 840,012 millions USD and 8,066 per capita. This is 660 USD per month per each person. If you are a mexican, you probably will have broadband connection, speak english in order to discuss on that forum. With this net income, you can't afford basic needs of housing and food, you will never have broadband connection and learn english as a second language. On the other hand, Carlos Slim Helú is a mexican billionaire, the third richest people in the world with net worth of more than	US$49.0 billion. You see the big picture now? This is called social inequality, where few individuals possess the wealthy of the nation and this wealth is not equally distributed among the population. You will find countries in Scandinavia extreme low income inequality.--Mhsb (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehem... I do not deny income inequality. In fact, it is properly explained at Mexico when comparing municipalities in Guerrero (with IDH similar to Syria) and Garza-García. I did not need the lesson. However, you are making a categorical statement: "many social issues ("which, how many?) still hamper social development". If your reference is what you said before, then it is Original Reserach; even if true, it must be referenced. You are making conclusions yourself based on data (i.e. OR), instead of reporting facts and the conclusions of the experts. Many issues (political, social, economic) can [and do] hamper development. An assessment by the World Bank or the FMI is far more encyclopedic than an over-generalization based on personal appreciation. -- the D únadan 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, you don't want me to cite every word in the section right? You do want, then you should do the same for the other articles as well. By the way, if you are being so inquisitive, perhaps we should also discuss other wikipedia rules such as the MoS. This article as a whole violates MoS.--Mhsb (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No no no. Don't try to use the argument "if you don't like 'that', you have to fix all the other articles that have 'that' ".  Each editor works on what they can.  Wanderer57 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, every controversial edit that makes a categorical assessment must be referenced. (See WP:Verifiability). No, I am not being "inquisitive", but rather "meticulous", and would be more than happy to discuss WP:MOS. While your "over-generalization" that "the article as a whole violates MOS" is clearly wrong, there could be paragraphs of sections in violation of MOS. If you point them out, I would be more than happy to discuss them and figure out ways to correct them and to improve the article. -- the D únadan 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What about that reference?:

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/05/23/index.php?section=sociedad&article=044n1soc

Reads: Social inequality is the most serious problem of the country

--Mhsb (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about it? -- the D únadan 23:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It means that social inequality is a problem in Mexico. Look, I'll have a break for now to take care of my real life, but I'll be back soon to discuss this. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not denied the fact that there is social inequality. But you make conclusions about social inequality and make a link between economic disparity and violent crime. While possibly true, you must reference that assessment. The link to La Jornada does not make such an inference.

Secondly, the article does not "mean" anything nor "proves" anything, but reports the declaration of De la Fuente. The article reports that Ramón de la Fuente, former dean of the UNAM declared that "the most serious social problem, the ominous sign in Mexico, is social inequality and not poverty... ". Per WP:CITE, you can say that de la Fuente, dean or rector of UNAM, said so and cite La Joranda. But that article says nothing less and nothing more (well, it does speak about education, but not crime, and does not draw a parallel between crime and social inequality, in fact, it does not even say that "social inequality hampers development", though plausibly true). -- the D únadan 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys are joking, right? A section on crime, maybe.  An exploration of the root causes of crime, clearly beyond the scope of the article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. My point was that sources should be used for what they say, not for what we can "infer", not for making extrapolations and conclusions not directly derived or explicitly stated in there. -- the D únadan 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some facts:

This one traces one of the root causes according to a specialist in the field: http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/147766.alarma-en-mexico-alto-indice-de-criminalidad.html This one Presidente Vicente Fox (the Government itself) recognises high crime rates in Tijuana and Mexico City: http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/actividades/entrevistas/?contenido=8475 This one contains important statistics from ICESI: http://www.coparmex.org.mx/contenidos/publicaciones/Entorno/2002/oct02/a.htm
 * Crime in Mexico is high


 * Pckpocket and theft incidents


 * Kidnapping:

http://www.terra.com.mx/noticias/articulo/136761/ http://www.elmanana.com.mx/notas.asp?id=42146 This one is interesting: http://www.somosunoradio.org/?p=3629


 * Express kidnappings and ATM crime:

http://www.milenio.com/index.php/2007/10/22/137495/ http://www.exonline.com.mx/diario/noticia/comunidad/pulsocapitalino/taxis,_medio_preferido_para_secuestro_expres/130889 http://www.orizabaenred.com.mx/cgi-bin/web?b=VERNOTICIA&%7Bnum%7D=1725

http://www.milenio.com/index.php/2008/02/22/197761/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/01/04/index.php?section=capital&article=031n1cap http://www.multimedios.tv/noticias/2008/02/22/hallan-cuatro-ejecutados-con-arma-de-fuego-en-tijuana
 * Armed street crime

--Mhsb (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mhab, honestly, what do you want to prove? Then, what are your sources saying?
 * , says "Mexico is one of the ten countres [sic] with the greatest indices of criminality due to a crisis in its penitentiary system". No mention of "social inequality" whatsoever.
 * Here Former president Fox is asked : "At the federal level [...] crime is not that strong [sic] at the Federal District [i.e. Mexico City]... " His answer, ambiguous at best "In this moment, the case of Tijuana. In this moment the case of the Federal District. [sic]" Nothing really can be concluded from his answer, except a cantifleada.
 * The rest are instances of kidnappings or assaults. I could produce a similar [or longer] list of crimes and assaults in New York City. You provided a list, but my question is, what is your point? What do you want to prove? That there is delinquency in Mexico? Of course there is, no one has objected that fact. I insist, I do not oppose the fact that there is social inequality, crime or delinquency in Mexico. I oppose the tendentious way you are presenting these "facts" and the conclusions you are drawing without providing a reliable source to source your inferences. Your sources prove that there is crime; no one has objected. But your sources are, for the most part, instances of crimes, not social analyses with over-generalizations like the paragraph you are proposing. I repeat, we (or at least I) do not, and have not, denied the facts: we oppose the way you wish to present those facts, and the conclusions you draw of them. Again, I ask, you provided a list of instances, but no arguments. What are you trying to say, what are your arguments? -- the D únadan 06:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mhsb: I'm pretty open on the question of whether or not the article should have a section on crime. But as I tried to explain above, it may be better NOT to have a section than to have a section that says the wrong things.


 * Or it may be better NOT to have a section DURING THE DISCUSSION PERIOD, than to have a disputed section in place in the article during the discussion.


 * Since you made no response to my earlier points, I'm repeating them here.


 * I'm feeling a lot of sympathy with Dunadan's questions -- what are you setting out to prove, what are your arguments. Wanderer57 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's quite clear for me now that you guys don't want a section about crime in Mexico, even if this issue is one of the main problems the country is facing. What I bringing here, is more references to support my arguments, but even though you guys try bombard whatever reference I bring here. I repeat again, this is a public encyclopedia, everyone can participate, not just a group of 5 users thinking that own the article as a private property. You are violating the neutral point of view by rejecting a section just because you don't like it. Please, think about that. The last user to delete my edits, Supaman89, wrote that:

WTH We've already talked about this along time ago, should we also create the following sections Crime in the USA, Crime in Brazil, Crime in Russia, etc. I dont think so nor I think they'd let me doit

He is trying to justify the non-inclusion of the section without any further explanation, just because he "thinks" that other articles don't need this section, cleary violating the NPOV. --Mhsb (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC) -

Hi Mhsb: It seems to me that you bring inappropriate accusations of wrongdoing to this discussion.

I wrote, last night: "I'm pretty open on the question of whether or not the article should have a section on crime." Your response was: "It's quite clear for me now that you guys don't want a section about crime in Mexico,"    Are you suggesting I am lying to you? If so, please get it out in the open.

Before I saw your name in the Mexico edit history two days ago, we had had no interaction. I didn't approach your contribution with any negative mindset. I have just reviewed my edits over the last two days. I don't see anything I think I need apologize for.

I made some changes to what you put into the article. I explained all the changes I made. You did not argue with anything I said. (You did put back the image I removed. I thought my reason for removing it was a good one, but it's not a big deal to me.)

I made a number of points in discussion. You don't seem to me to respond to these. (Dunadan has mentioned the same problem.)

Can we please go ahead on a more positive basis? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wanderer. We have repeated ad nauseam to you that we do not oppose a section on crime, but that we do oppose your proposal. We have expressed our concerns and asked very specific questions. You simply provided links with no arguments, and repeated over and over, that we are violating Wikipedia's rules because we do not want a section in crime, in spite of what we actually do say. If you don't feel like expressing your arguments—arguments, not a list of links to instances of crime—but arguments that answer our concerns, then it is you who insist on WP:POVPUSH. -- the D únadan 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get it Mhsb, it seems pretty clear that nobody is opposing a discussion on a section on crime, and it's pretty clear that it would be a controversial section under every article. So why don't you think that discussing it here before adding it, rather that adding it before discussing it here is appropriate?  You seem to be the only person who's in favor of the section you wrote.  So what's the problem with discussing it here so we have a section we all feel does not inaccurately represent the situation?  Nobody is saying that there's no crime in Mexico, we know there is, however, it's worse to have some semiaccurate information (not saying that your section is semiaccurate, just that it could be) right now, than to have a solid section in a week or so, don't you think so? Solid Reign (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you want to talk about crime, let's talk about crime; I added a paragraph to the US article about crime in the United States, this one to be more precise: And guess what, it didn't last more than an hour until someone deleted it, I wonder how people in Detroit feel about that, oh wait, maybe there is a “conspiracy” from all the U.S. users, but since you like talking about crime so much I thought maybe you would like to help me introduce that paragraph to the article, what do you think? Supaman89 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The United States already has a section on Crime and Punishment. That section is far more encyclopedic and less tendentious: it talks about the police organization, the investigation bureaus and then statistics. A similar section could be introduced here. As you can see, Mhsb, it is far different from the one you proposed. -- the D únadan 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with you guys is that you insist in comparing Mexico with the US. Forget it guys! Each country has its own dilemas and Mexico is no exception. Crime may be a big issue in Mexico but may not be in the USA or in Europe, maybe terrorism is a major issue in the US. You are out of the scope, the article is about Mexico, not US. BTW, Supaman89: you do not own the article! we only own something when we buy, when did you purchase the article to claim it as your property? --Mhsb (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK! Let's try your way. The last arguments of User:Wanderer57 and User:Solid Reign convinced me to do so. May be we should change the section name to "Soccial issues" instead. The problem with that article and what I don't like, is that it actually doesn't have any section highlighting the problems of the country and that it's tendentious and violates NPOV. So, let's give a try and discuss that topic or other topic such as "Soccial issues" and post it in the article. But let's do it constructively, please provide your own sources and references as well, as I said before, this is a public encyclopedia where everybody participates. Show your point of view as well, the final result should be a section highlighting the problems of the country: it can be crime, I assumed crime is a big issue not only in Mexic but throughout Latin America. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned since you are interested in contributing on the crime sections of various countries, you may want to help me include the paragraph above to the U.S. article, it does have a section call "Crime & Punishment" and but it only talks about the good stuff, and still it will probably get deleted anytime soon, however we could create a section called "Law Enforcement" and talk about how President Calderon is dealing with the drug cartels, and how it affects Mexico because of consumers in the United States, and after we are done with Mexico let's go with Brazil and those "favelas of death" and then let's go with Russia, etc.


 * BTW, please do not revert the article again, the article has to stay the way it was, until we decide this issue here. Supaman89 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Supaman89: Mate, stop. Have a look at the top of that page. It reads Talk:Mexico. If you want to discuss these other articles you mentioned, I suggest you to join the pages: Talk:United States, Talk:Russia, Talk:Brazil and so on. If you are interested in other articles, please have a look on Colombia, there is a section about crime there. On Brazil, tehre is a section about social issues that talks about crime. In fact, if you want to compare to other articles, I would suggest to compare to other countries in Latin America, since they share the same heritage and problems. It's completely useless comparing with USA, Russia or other countries. After I finish here, I really want to contribute on some issues in Russia such as the struggle of the Government against major corporations after the implementation of tax, the russian corruption, the russian buroucracy, but this is another section in another article...--Mhsb (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am wating for suggestions of Supaman89. Please, bear in mind Supaman89 that a section discussing crime or social issues will exist, we're just discussing how to present it in the article. Again, don't make comparisons with US, here some basic history lesson: US was colonised by the British, Mexico by the Spanish. Let's focus on the discussion kid! --Mhsb (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Providing basic history lessons such as "Mexico was colonized by the Spanish" is (IMHO) insulting the other editor, creating ill-will and not contributing in any positive way to the discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1:30 has elapsed and still no constructive discussion at all from other users... Let's see how far it goes.--Mhsb (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, you should have started with that, what you want is to discuss "social issues" a rather broad—and ambiguous—title for a rather difficult task. Like Wanderer said, this is not the place to "discuss" social issues, but to present data (we are, after all, an encyclopedia). However, your comments make me wonder if you actually read the article. Let me quote what the article says, and has been saying for quite a long time:
 * "Nonetheless, income inequality remains a problem, and huge gaps remain not only between rich and poor but also between the north and the south, and between urban and rural areas. Sharp contrasts in income and Human Development are also a grave problem in Mexico. The 2004 United Nations Human Development Index report for Mexico states that Benito Juárez, a district of the Distrito Federal, and San Pedro Garza García, in the State of Nuevo León, would have a similar level of economic, educational and life expectancy development to Germany or New Zealand. In contrast, Metlatonoc, in the state of Guerrero, would have an HDI similar to that of Syria."
 * In reality, the article does speak about social inequality. Now, you originally wanted to present a section on crime, and then make an OR linkage to income inequality, which was opposed by us. I really don't think a section on "social issues" is appropriate. I think a section on "Crime and punishment" or "Law enforcement" could be acceptable, though.
 * By the way, you shouldn't be surprised if 1:30 have elapsed without comments. After all, we do have a life. Discussions like this one usually last weeks.
 * -- the D únadan 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To start with, I think we should include into the article the image below that has been removed:



Several other pages of latin american countries have a picture of a local shanty town. It doesn't make sense excluding that image and just showing neat things. What do you guys think of it? --Mhsb (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I think images are only supposed to be used if they specifically help understanding of the article (or words to that effect.)  So the answer depends on what is in the article about social conditions.  This is not decided as I see it.


 * I tried to look at this from the POV of what is done in other articles. For example, does the article on the USA show a poor area of NYC, or any other poor area in the USA? Does the article on Great Britain show a poor area in the east end of Glasgow, or any other poor area?  How about the Scotland article?  How about the Glasgow article?  The answer in every case (unless I missed something) is no.  Wanderer57 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Wanderer57. That's right. You will not see a shanty town in the articles for the countries you've listed because you are comparing countries with different levels of development. Ideally, you should make a comparison with other countries in Latin America, such as Chile, Brazil or Argentina. Have a look on that article Shanty town. You'll notice that most of the countries in the list are from Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhsb (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am particularly an enthusiastic fan of shanty towns, there is nothing filthy about that, they are just poor people who did not have a chance of a better life.--Mhsb (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's great. I don't doubt your enthusiasm for shanty towns. But that does not mean the article should have an image of a shanty town, any more than my enthusiasm for Belinda means it should have a picture of Belinda.




 * My point was NOT whether the countries I mentioned have shanty towns. I wasn't trying to suggest that, for example, the east end of Glasgow includes a shanty town. My point is that in the other country articles I mentioned, the landscape images are of the important public buildings, the City Hall, the museums, the glittering downtown, the theatres, etc. This is natural and normal.  They do NOT show the poor areas.  If someone in Mexico is working on an article about Mexico, it is natural that they take the same approach. Likewise, someone in Canada working on a Canada article.  The same is likely the case with the Chile article, which is the only one of the examples you suggested that I have looked at so far. There is a lovely shot of the financial district skyline. No shanty towns in evidence.


 * After having said all that, I have to go back to what I wrote earlier. I think images are only supposed to be used if they specifically help understanding of the article (or words to that effect.)  So the answer partly depends on what is in the article about social conditions.  As I see it, this is not decided yet.


 * Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)




 * OK. Tlet's test something. The article about Brazil has a section discussion social issues and a picture of a shanty town as well. The article about Colombia has a section discussing violence. I will remove these section for both countries and let's see what happens.--Mhsb (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May I suggest we do not test reactions in other articles for the sake of using them as arguments here? Supaman89 also did this to the US article.  If you want to contribute to those articles that's fine, but don't change them in a way you do not think it will improve them just so that we can see who's right and wrong.  I think we should first discuss the content of the crime section without the picture, then we can see if the picture fits the section and not the other way around.  If we are going to write it, I think a good place to start would be the kidnappings and the narcos.  Solid Reign (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Solid Reign, I don't want to be a troublemaker here, but I am working to have these pages with the same standard of a feature article of other countries. If Mexico don't have a section on crime, why should the other articles have? Or, alternatively, if some articles have a section on crime, why the other articles don't have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhsb (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

=
============== That reference is from Encarta Encyclopedia:

I Social Issues

Mexico is characterized by sharp class and social divisions. A small upper class controls much of the country’s property and wealth while the majority of Mexicans live in poverty. In 1998 the highest 20 percent of Mexico’s income earners received 58 percent of the national income. The lowest 20 percent received only 3 percent of the national income, while the middle 60 percent earned the remaining 39 percent.

Compared to the United States, Mexico’s middle class is relatively small. Many middle-class Mexicans have lifestyles similar to those of middle-class families in the United States—living in homes or apartments with modern amenities such as electricity and running water, owning one or more automobiles, and having access to educational and health-care facilities.

Most Mexicans, however, live in varying degrees of poverty. Although the Mexican government does not issue official poverty figures, national and international organizations have issued studies that attempt to paint a picture of the extent of poverty in Mexico. For example, a 1998 World Bank report said that 8 percent of Mexicans survived on less than U.S.$1 per day and 24 percent survived on less than U.S.$2 per day.

Mexico’s recent economic problems have hurt middle- and lower-income families much more than they have hurt wealthy families. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Mexico’s highest income groups increased their overall wealth, while the earnings of poor Mexicans declined significantly. For lower- and middle-income families, this often meant that they had to reduce their already limited spending on food and other basic necessities.

Many poor Mexicans have little or no access to health care and live in housing that lacks one or more basic amenities such as running water or sewerage. Although the quality of housing has improved considerably since 1970, by 2000 about 10 percent of Mexican households still lacked access to safe water and one-quarter were without access to sanitation. Many children also suffer from malnutrition and drop out of school early in order to begin earning money for their families.

In addition, Mexico’s rapid population growth has severely strained government services, especially education and health care. This growing population has placed tremendous pressure on the government and economy to create new jobs. The economy has not been able to create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Economic conditions have prompted thousands of skilled and unskilled workers to migrate north to the United States in search of employment.

Mexican cities suffer from many of the same social problems found in urban environments around the world. Poor economic conditions, however, have significantly increased the levels of urban crime in the country, especially in Mexico City. Drug abuse and juvenile crime have also increased in major cities in recent years.

--Mhsb (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I am really getting tired of this discussion that seems to be going nowhere, and I see three basic reasons for that:
 * For the last time: we do not, I repeat, we do not, oppose a section in crime. We have repeated this so many times, that it is not funny anymore, and it is frustrating to see that you did not answer a single one of my and Wanderer's concerns in relation to your proposal, but still insist that "we do not want a section in crime".
 * We do oppose your proposal. It is not encyclopedic, it has plenty of unreferenced claims wrapped in weasel wording and, in my opinion, it is tendentious. I already offered two solutions: (1) reinserting the previous proposal which cited the CIA's assessment, or (2) writing a section on Crime and law enforcement, which would talk about the different law enforcement organizations at the federal and state level and, as Supaman suggested, the army's recent involvement during Calderón's administration. You have not commented nor discussed about these proposals.
 * What you are actually proposing is a "social problematics" section, and therefore you are mixing two different debates into one. You want a section about "crime" but then you argue for the inclusion of a picture of a shanty town... two completely different subjects. This it not the place to discuss sociology, but since the 19th century it has been largely argued that lack of poverty does not entail lack of crime. While hunger forces a human being to steal, so does covetousness. I do not wish to engage in a sociological or psychological discussion—this is not the place to do so—but you keep on insisting, without bringing a reliable reference, that the violence and crime in Mexico is intertwined to "social" inequality, by what you actually mean economic inequality. (Social inequality is a different and a far more complex issue that is present in many developed countries; "social" inequality could be due to cultural, religion, ethnic or linguistic diversity).  While economic disparity, which is what you argue, is indeed a severe problematic in Mexico, we cannot make categorical assumptions or hypotheses without proper references, and mixing two different subjects in a single paragraph and implying a linkage is OR and possibly POVPUSH. The Economy section, as I have shown before, does speak of economic inequality, and it is the appropriate section to do so. A section in crime should not contain a list of crimes presented with weasel-words, without talking about the institutions in charge of law enforcement, crime investigation, the role of the government, and what has been done by the government historically and recently—they're not just sitting around with their arms crossed. A comprehensive section like that one would not only be encyclopedic, but also NPOV.
 * I hope I have been clearer now.
 * -- the D únadan 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember: this is English Wikimedia mate! If you want to paint Mexico the way you want, go to Spanish Wikipedia and fool yourself there. What you are trying to hide here? I've pasted above what Encarta Encyclopedia says without any editing and you are saying that I am being tedentious? If so, so does Encarta mate! Wake up body! Make some trip round the world, get to know other countries and other cultures. --Mhsb (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, mate, I do not wish to paint Mexico they way I want; the above comments are bordering on a clear violation on WP:Etiquette, and your insistence in ignoring our arguments and disrupting other articles to make a point is unacceptable. I am tired of repeating my arguments over and over, but tell me what part of "We do not oppose a section on crime" don't you get? -- the D únadan 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While I was composing the bit below, time was moving on. I'm going to paste my thoughts in here anyway.  Wanderer57


 * I would like to add a couple of additional points for consideration.


 * Mhsb's statement "I don't want to be a troublemaker here, but I am working to have these pages with the same standard of a feature article of other countries. If Mexico don't have a section on crime, why should the other articles have? Or, alternatively, if some articles have a section on crime, why the other articles don't have?" This sets an impossible agenda, or at least one so close to impossible that I cannot support it or encourage it.  Why so? The articles on different countries vary. Seeking a concensus in the context of one article is challenging.  Seeking to standardize over all the country articles has what is referred to in Wikipedia as a snowball's chance in hell of success.  Please don't take my word for it.  Ask any active administrator for their opinion.


 * Mhsb suggested I look at the articles on Argentina. Brazil, and Chile for pictures of shanty towns. I looked. There is a photo of a favela in Brazil, which I gather from the caption is a somewhat poorer area (It is not a shanty town from the look of it.) I suggested you look at the articles on Great Britain, Scotland, and Glasgow for pictures of the poorer areas.  If you "standardize" the Mexico article to match these other country articles it won't have a picture of a shanty town or other poor area.


 * The discussion between Mhsb and Dunadan about the causes of poverty is interesting but to me totally off topic. Extending the Mexico article to get into these issues would take it way too far afield.  I tried earlier to say this but maybe it got lost.


 * Let's try to get a modest and encyclopedic statement about crime together rather than turning to this much broader question. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

- - - - -


 * Mhsb: What is your purpose in posting the quote from Encarta? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The attention of administrators is required
is bordering on severe disruption of Latin American articles. His behavior has been the following: -- the D únadan 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposing a very tendentious section in crime, which was edited by some users, deleted by others.
 * We clearly stated several times that we do not oppose a section on crime or economic disparity, but that we disagreed with the way he was presenting it. We pointed out several points of disagreement. Mhsb has not answered our concerns but stubbornly insist—with personal disqualifications—that we are vandals and that we do not want to present a section on crime. At least four users have expressed their concerns and have shown willingness to discuss.
 * He disrupted the articles of Colombia and Brazil to make a point; he engaged in an edit-war in the latter.
 * He is abusing the maintenance tags: while not answering our concerns, he decided to tag the entire article as POV to show his disagreement.

Mate! If you scroll the page up, you'll see that I proposed huge amount of information. I haven't changed the contents of the article till know. I simply put a tag because there is no consensus here. With regards to disruption other articles, you guys were the ones to disrupt an article first:

''Okay, you want to talk about crime, let's talk about crime; I added a paragraph to the US article about crime in the United States, this one to be more precise: In the United States, the crime clock continues to click: one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds. And the cost of crime continues to mount: $78 billion for the criminal justice system, $64 billion for private protection, $202 billion in loss of life and work, $120 billion in crimes against business, $60 billion in stolen goods and fraud, $40 billion from drug abuse, and $110 billion from drunk driving. When you add up all the costs, crime costs Americans a stunning $675 billion each year.[35]

And guess what, it didn't last more than an hour until someone deleted it, I wonder how people in Detroit feel about that, oh wait, maybe there is a “conspiracy” from all the U.S. users, but since you like talking about crime so much I thought maybe you would like to help me introduce that paragraph to the article, what do you think? Supaman89 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)''

I just followed you point and removed this very section from other 2 articles. --Mhsb (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify:
 * You have expanded your proposal, but you did not answer a single one of our concerns. You simply expanded your proposal on the same line without addressing our multiple concerns. That does not mean "discussing", at least not in the English language.
 * "You guys" is clearly unacceptable and a fallacy. Please direct your accusation to the appropriate user, but not to the rest of users who have shown willingness to discuss, and who, unlike you, have not disrupted other articles to make a point. You simply have ignored our concerns.
 * Justifying your disruptive behavior by accusing another user (or falsely accusing many users) of engaging in a similar behavior is a rather lame excuse.
 * If you with to continue this thread of discussion, you should address our concerns, instead of insisting on your proposal. Maybe you should read WP:Consensus or compromise.
 * -- the D únadan 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I tried to pacifically discuss this with you guys, but there is a conspiracy here of some nationals to avoid talking about some topics that don't please you. What you are doing here is the same paint Iraq as Scandinavia, a place where no war exist, equal income distribution and so on. I shows my arguments, I presented several references but you didn't care. All you did was to reject every piece of evidence that I presented. The only user that began to show some interest on the section was Wanderer57. All you did was to revert my changes and reject my arguments --Mhsb (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the entire article before brining spurious accusations. Don't fool yourself, you haven't been "pacific". Let's recap: Please contribute constructively. Like you aptly pointed out, this is the wikipedia where everybody edits. Do not be surprised when five users question your edits. -- the D únadan 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have pushed a particular POV with WP:WEASEL wording.
 * You resorted to personal insults and attacks, as well as ad hominem argumentation. ("nationalistic", "patriotic", "you should travel more", "conspiracy"). What makes our arguments stand is that our proposals on a section on "Crime and Law Enforcement" are compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. We have also argued that economic issues should be discussed in the appropriate section, but that two different subjects should not be mixed. You have conveniently ignored our concerns and questions.
 * You have disrupted other articles and falsely accused others of doing the same by assigning the actions of Supaman to every one who disagrees with you (currently all editors at Talk:Mexico).


 * Dúnadan, please do not claim that other users are POV pushing, because it is considered incivility. Also, if you want to link to User:Mhsb's edits please use Userlinks instead of vandal. Cheers. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above Mhsb, your agenda of standardizing across country articles is an impossible task. It is coloring this discussion a great deal and making it very difficult. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! FIVE nationals, FIVE patriots. To start with, this, by itself, is very suspicious for the integrity od the article as a whole. --Mhsb (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stay cool when the editing gets hot and comment on content, not on the contributor. I noticed that you are new on Wikipedia, so I must advice to you that these disagreements often happens on Wikipedia and you must try to change the consensus. If you have dificult, please use the dispute resolution. Cheers. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what!? I am sick of it. For now, I am pissed off. Let's see what you guys can bring to the discussion. I will be out for a couple of days but I'll be back. Remeber: Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, not private. Everybody can contribute, including mexicans and non-mexicans. Cheers. --Mhsb (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are violating WP:Etiquette and continue with your ad hominem arguments. Please stop. We have discussed extensively, but you stubbornly push your own POV. Please read the sections above, we have expressed our concerns, suggestions and proposals repeatedly, but you insist on your own POV. You have engaged in disruptive behavior and personal attacks. Again, do not take this issue to the point that we do not have any other recourse but to request for a dispute resolution or arbitration. Please remain civil.  -- the D únadan  01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I just want to comment about my edit to the U.S. article, I'm sorry if it wasn't the most appropriate thing to do, I just wanted to make a point, anyways regarding your accusations: "FIVE nationals, FIVE patriots" let me tell you, the only patriot here is me, and I haven't even really been involved in this discussion, Dunadan (American) and Wanderer (Canadian) are just users who have contributed to the Mexico article for quite a while I can assure you they’ve always had a very neutral opinion towards Mexico, so I would suggest to you to stop making accusations just because they/we don’t necessarily agree with you. Supaman89 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the comments from User:Opinoso to Talk:Brazil since this is not the right place to discuss the issues of the article Brazil. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Music
The sentence "Popular groups are Café Tacvba, Molotov, RBD and Mana, among others." dates the article. It could instead read "Popular groups have included Café Tacvba, Molotov, RBD and Mana.208.102.143.238 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, I put that part like that kind of, it originally said popular singers are rbd and mana. However, these groups are currently popular, maybe it should read something like Popular groups as of  today are ... or something like that and also talk about popular groups in the past, like caifanes, maldita vecindad, timbiriche, etc. Solid Reign (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aerospace
I found this article in yahoo, maybe it can be added to the economy section, its still small but growing sector. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=annTj.3uBjII —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there are lots of information about the Mexican industry, maybe will put some more information eventually, like the Aerespace and Car Industries. Supaman89 (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Health Care and Education
Hey, I was thinking of merging the current Education section with a Health Care section just to put more information about this subject and improve the article, do you guys think I should do it and then you could add more info? Or does anyone think we shouldn’t add a Health Care section? Supaman89 (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest, for now, to add a health Care section. That information is important, and it is missing from the article. -- the D únadan 16:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Art
Can someone look in to this. Is it scheduled to be completed in 2011? can someone add to this article. It may look good on this article under art if it's true.
 * I don't think we should put renders of buildings, maybe when it is completed we could add a picture, as we'll as a picture of the new Chivas Stadium when it's done by the end of this year, but until then, I don't think renders would be right for an Encyclopaedia. Supaman89 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a truly fascinating looking "building". I also think it should not be included before it is built (or at least mostly built).  I am told by usually reliable sources that there are many interesting real buildings in Mexico already.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

entered a transitional stage
"In the 1990s, Mexico entered a transitional stage in the overall health of the population; in the 1990s Mexico exhibited mortality patterns similar to those found in developed societies.[112]"

"Entered a transitional stage" is too vague. I expect it is meant to indicate that health started to improve but it could also mean it started to get worse. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just copied verbatim the information from the links provided, but actually I like Dunadan's edition, I think it looks fine, what do you guys think? Supaman89 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Wanderer's point. The source does speak of a "positive" transition or improvement. I'll fix it. -- the D únadan 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime and punishment section
Several users have expressed their concern—through various means—about the lack of information regarding crime in Mexico. The great majority of users have disagreed with the two proposals offered at different points in time; and at the same time the great majority of users do not oppose a section on crime as long as the content is neutral, informative, comprehensive and not tendentious and not a "travel advisory brochure" with simply instances of crime, but no framework. Per a discussion that I had with user Mhsb, I offer the following proposal:

Law enforcement and crime

 * Public security is enacted at the three levels of government, each of which has different prerogatives and responsibilities. Local and state police department are primarily in charge of law enforcement. At the federal level, the Secretariat of Public Security operates the Preventive Federal Police and other agencies with specialized duties. At a parallel level, the General Attorney's Office (Procuraduría General de la República, PGR) is the executive power's agency in charge of investigating and prosecuting crimes at the federal level, mainly those related to drug and arms trafficking, espionage, and bank robberies. The PGR is in charge of the Federal Judicial Police—a reactive agency—and the Federal Agency of Investigation (Agencia Federal de Investigación, AFI)—an investigative and preventive agency.


 * While the government respects the human rights of most citizens, serious abuses of power have been reported in security operations in indigenous communities and poor urban neighborhoods. The National Human Rights Commission, however, has had little impact in reversing this trend, engaging mostly in documentation but failing to use its powers to issue public condemnations to the officials who ignore its recommendations. By law, all defendants have the rights that assure them fair trials and human treatment; however, the system is overburdened and overwhelmed with several problems. Despite the efforts of the authorities to fight crime and fraud, few Mexicans have strong confidence in the police or the judicial system, and therefore, few crimes are actually reported by the citizens.


 * Total crimes per capita average 12 per 1,000 people in Mexico, ranking 39 in a survey of 60 countries. Violent crime is a critical issue in Mexico; with a rate of homicide varying from 11 to 14 per 100,000 inhabitants. Drug-traffic and narco-related activities are a major concern in Mexico. Drug cartels are active in the shared border with the US and police corruption and collision with drug cartels is a crucial problem. Current president, Felipe Calderón, made abating drug-trafficking one of the top priorities of his administration. In a very controversial move, Calderón deployed military personnel to cities where drug cartels operated. While this move has been criticized by the opposition parties and the National Human Rights Commission, its effects have been praised by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs as having obtained "unprecedented results..." with "many important successes". In October 2007, the president Calderón and US president George W. Bush announced the Mérida Initiative a historic plan of law enforcement cooperation between the two countries.

Comments
Like I mentioned before, the above proposal does not contain an extensive list of instances of crime reported by local newspapers or travel-advisory brochures, bur rather presents the judicial and security framework with its limitations, successes and failures. I also avoided any reference to "economic disparity" and "social disparity". While the diverse theses of the causes of crime are valid POVs, I think we must not endorse any particular correlation nor explore the complexity of "causes of crime" in this article. Like I said, hunger forces a person to steal, as does the covetousness of a rich individual. I believe the appropriate section to talk about Economic Inequality is the Economy section. It already speaks of inequality, but if necessary, that section could be further expanded—and probably should, to reflect a more accurate and balanced picture of the economy. What do you guys think?-- the D únadan 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the text above proposed by the D únadan  and I think it does provide a snapshot of crime and what the Government has been doing so far. I agree that this is not the right spot to discuss the very fundamentals of crime. I liked the text the way it is, I assume this represents a NPOV. Two things though that I would like to propose. First, I think we should not put this section under Demographics, we should create a separate section, it doesn't seem to have much sense to put it under Demographics as other Articles have been doing. Secondly, I would change the title to "Crime and Law enforcement" instead, because I understand that crime occurs first and then comes law enforcement. I know that there might be some sorts of law enforcements that actually prevent crime from happening, but I understand that laws and enforcement do exist to address criminality.--Mhsb (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Also, I would like to propose the insertion of the main related article under the section:


 * Main article: Crime in Mexico.

Cheers, --Mhsb (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the inclusion of the main related article link.
 * Regarding the name, I have no particular preference on the order. Either way is fine. Actually, I was thinking of using Britannica's title "Security". But, whichever is fine with me.
 * As for making it a section in itself, instead of a subsection of Demographics, I don't particularly like that proposal. Security and Crime usually fall, on most encyclopedias and reports, on the Demographics or Society Section (along with Education and Health). I think we should move both Crime, Education and Health into Demographics, or alternatively create a new section called "Society" that includes both. I prefer the "Demographics" option.
 * -- the D únadan 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the sentence: "At a parallel level, the General Attorney's Office (Procuraduría General de la República, PGR) is the executive power's agency in charge of investigating and prosecuting crimes at the federal level, mainly those related to drug and arms trafficking, espionage, and bank robberies".


 * Two "levels" in one sentence is too many.


 * I suggest: "The General Attorney's Office (Procuraduría General de la República, PGR) is the executive agency in charge of investigating and prosecuting crimes at the federal level, mainly those related to drug and arms trafficking, espionage, and bank robberies". Wanderer57 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

- - -


 * The word "demographics" has a fairly specific meaning. I don't think it usually includes crime. Social issues comes to mind as a section title.

- - -


 * A bunch of minor edits are needed to the wording of the third proposed paragraph but they can wait till the broader issues are discussed more. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

- - -


 * Naming 5 agencies in the first paragraph and more in the next two gives this text a very bureaucratic flavour. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Answering your comments:
 * Your suggestion of rewording the first paragraph is fine.
 * Regarding "Demographics"; compare some of the online encyclopedias: on Encyclopedia Britannica, the sections on Security and Justice fall under "Government and Society", on Encarta, the sections on Social Issues, Education and Way of Life fall under "People" (i.e. Demography), . Alternatives are Human Geography, which, however, encompass Demography as well.
 * The listing of agencies provides the legal framework (compare United_States, United_Kingdom or Germany or even Britannica's section on Security itself. In any case we can create a section titled simply "Law", with subsections "Crime and law enforcement" and "Judicial structure". In fact after reviewing these articles, as well as the encyclopedias, I realize that none of them have a outstanding section on "Crime", but rather a section on "Law" or "Security". These titles seem more appropriate than our "Crime and law enforcement", and their hierarchy under "society", "people" or "government" also seems adequate.
 * -- the D únadan 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with it, Dunadan I just have two suggestions, the first one is to make it a bit smaller because the article is already big, so I'm sure you'll be able to shrink it a little bit, and the second one is to leave the name simply as "Law Enforcement " since the section is about general law enforcement and that includes crime and other subjects as well, as for the rest pretty good, nos vemos. Supaman89 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the title of the section is fine if we keep "Crime and Law enforcement". I understand that we are talking about two subjects in one section.--Mhsb (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Further replies to some of the above comments.


 * I think the word "demographics" could be used if one wanted to talk about the "demographics of crime" (or of criminals). However, we have a broader subject in mind.  Misusing the word "demographics" (which is what I think we would be doing) will not make the article clearer.
 * Yes, the listing of agencies establishes a "legal framework". It also, IMO, makes the paragraph barely readable,  Could not the specifics of the agencies and their relationships be left to the article on crime in Mexico?  The section on Tourism, for example, does not list state or federal government departments concerned with tourism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderer57 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we are back to square one, and we have to start all over. First, I disagree with Mhsb, law enforcement and crime are not two separate subjects, but very much interrelated if not a single discipline of study; no external encyclopedia, research study, thesis paper or analysis will simply speak of crime without elaborating on the judicial structure in place to prevent or react to criminal activity, as well as its successes and limitations. Secondly, there seems to be a strong concern to let "crime" be a single section in this article—and possible extensive to Latin America and other articles—as well as to its location. I also disagree with that position. Britannica and Encarta—and the English Wikipedia, at least for consistency across articles—all position "Law" and "Security" (please note the titles use therein) within either "People" or "Society", and not as "stand-alone" sections on par with say Physical Geography or History. Btw, Wanderer is in some way right, "Demographics" is not the right word, but Demography is. Alternatives are fine, like "Society" or even within "Government and administration". Last but not least, naming the judicial and criminal abatement institutions, IMHO, does not make the paragraph barely readable. Rewording and restructuring the sentences may make it, if need be, more "readable". Compare other sections on Law, Law Enforcement, or Crime and Punishment in other articles both here in Wikiepdia and in external encyclopedias. -- the D únadan 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, please, not back to square one! Let's look for ways to avoid that.


 * I took another look at the first paragraph of Dúnadan's proposal. It does name a bunch of agencies, and I think that is confusing.


 * However, perhaps the biggest problem is that even if I study the paragraph carefully and "draw up a chart", I can still only get a vague idea of what those agencies do.


 * For example, there are the "Preventive Federal Police", the "Federal Judicial Police", and the "Federal Agency of Investigation".  IF it is important for the reader to understand the differences between these agencies, more explanation is needed.  Wanderer57 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Regarding last D únadan 's comments:

"Secondly, there seems to be a strong concern to let "crime" be a single section in this article—and possible extensive to Latin America and other articles—as well as to its location. I also disagree with that position."

I am pretty sure that I am the one who has fiercely defended that argument. I don't want to escalate this discussion any further, I am no longer proposing anything related to crime in Mexico, Brazil or any other country in Latin American. Your suggestion about the name of the section is pretty fine for me. With regards to the first paragraph, I agree with Wanderer57, but quite honestly, I wouldn't have fight if you are to start all over again... Cheers, --Mhsb (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, how about this for the first paragraph:
 * Public security is enacted at the three levels of government, each of which has different prerogatives and responsibilities. Local and state police department are primarily in charge of law enforcement, whereas the Federal Preventive Police is in charge of specialized duties. All levels report to the Secretariat of Public Security. The General Attorney's Office (Procuraduría General de la República, PGR) is the executive power's agency in charge of investigating and prosecuting crimes at the federal level, mainly those related to drug and arms trafficking, espionage, and bank robberies. The PGR operates the Federal Agency of Investigation (Agencia Federal de Investigación, AFI) an investigative and preventive agency.


 * Regarding location:
 * Under "Demography" (changing the title of the section accordingly), and the subsection titled "Crime and law enforcement"
 * Under "Government and administration" (changing the title of the section accordingly), and the subsection titled "Security"; Military should also be moved as a subsection of "government and administration", I can't find a reason why it should be a section by itself on par with History or Geography.
 * Other options?
 * -- the D únadan 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't received any comments regarding the above changes to the proposal. Should I interpret that as a lack of consensus or the opposite? I think a section on Security is informative. -- the D únadan 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with it, good job. Supaman89 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime Rates
It is interesting to see that the recorded crime rate is far higher in the USA, Canada and Switzerland than in Mexico.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest I myself find that data hard to believe, especially from Canada let alone Switzerland, although it's interesting to see how the American media always exaggerates all the bad indicators about Mexico. Supaman89 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is because crimes in Mexico are rarely reported (what for?). Therefore Mexico's official crime rate is kind of pointless.  So a higher crime rate might actually be representative of less corrupt authorities, not of crime in the country.  I really don't think that the American media exaggerates the bad indicators about Mexico more than Mexico understates them. Solid Reign (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Mexican media also exaggerates them but anyways as I said, to think that a country like Canada or Switzerland have higher crime rates than Mexico or Portugal is quite unrealistic. Supaman89 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article says at the bottom that these are just officially reported crimes. So the data is true, Canada has more crimes reported per capita than Mexico, which makes perfect sense.  A better estimate would be a census, although it wouldn't be very comparable to worldwide crime rates.  Mitofsky usually does these kinds of polls if you're interested in more realistic data. Solid Reign (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

United Nations
A couple of days ago I realized that Mexico is between then 10 major contributors for the U.N. Budget, do you think we should put something about that in the article?, I mean it is an important fact specially because it shows that Mexico has some importance in the UN unlike most people would think. Supaman89 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Mexico is one of the top ten financial supporters of the United Nations?
 * Wanderer57 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding name and official languages
I have reverted the most recent edits to the official name and official languages of Mexico based on the following rationale:

Regarding the introductory paragraph
I had reverted this edit before, and I thought the edit summary was sufficient, but I guess a more comprehensive explanation was needed. In different languages some [or all] names of countries are preceded by a definite article when they appear in a sentence. In the English language, composed names which carry a meaning (i.e. the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates) are preceded by a definite article when they appear in a sentence, even though in fragments (i.e. "sentences" without a verb), it is not necessary.

For example, we say "Welcome to the United States" and not "Welcome to United States"; we say "The capital of the United Kingdom is London" and not "The Capital of United Kingdom is London"; we say "The United Arab Emirates is a country located..." and not "United Arab Emirates is a country located". Therefore, it is not grammatically correct to say "United Mexican States, or simply Mexico, is a country..." [a sentence with a verb]. It just doesn't ring right to English-speaker's ears. It is not a matter of "making it simple", but of making it grammatically correct.

As a side note, in Spanish, the definite article is not used in informal contexts, but it is very much used in formal contexts; for example, a sentence in Spanish may be constructed like this "La capital de Estados Unidos es Washington" without the definite article "los". In formal contexts (like an encyclopedia), the definite article is preferred, and thus, in the Mexican constitution we find the expressions: "Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos" [title] or in the article 44: "La ciudad de México es [...] sede de los Poderes de la Unión y capital de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos". I don't particularly like the style used at es.wiki, and I would definetly not use it as a "normative" reference for us. -- the D únadan 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Official versus national languages
Regarding the "official languages of Mexico", there is no clear-cut answer for that, of which some interpretative conclusions were discussed at es.wiki. 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.. 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" (italics mine)

Now, in the most recent edit, Ramirez72 is stating that the official languages of Mexico are Spanish and the 62+ Amerindian languages, whereas the national language is only Spanish. That is not what the constitution nor the "Law" state. There are no official languages, but there are 63+ national languages, as expressed verbatim by the aforementioned law. It could be argued—and so it was at es.wiki, I believe by Yavidaxu—that by making the languages "equally valid" and by allowing indigenous peoples to request certain government or public documents in their respective languages, that means they are "official". This is a conclusion reached at es.wiki, which is not an authoritative source, so we can't claim that "es.wiki is the correct version". What is absolutely clear is that (1) the constitution does not make any language "official", (2) the Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples does not grant any language the status of "official" language, verbatim or literally, but (3) the Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples do grant all languages the status of "national languages", verbatim and literally.

Moreover, the table at es.wiki does not have the option of differentiating between "national" and "official" languages, so they seem to have put them all together. Here, at the en.wiki, the table does have the option, and we are misinforming the reader assigning the wrong qualifier to the wrong set of languages. The "national languages", as stated literally by the Law, are Spanish and the 62+ languages, and not just Spanish. On the other hand, there is no official de jure language in Spanish, but a de facto official language (all official documents, including laws, bills and the constitution, are only published Spanish, and not in any other language).

-- the D únadan 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was actually going to fix that later but you already did, in conclusion, Mexico (like the United States) does not have any official language, there are the so-called "national languages" that as the name implies are part of the nation but there is no official one, not even Spanish, that means that if all of a sudden Mexicans started speaking German, then German would be the de facto language like Spanish is now, so anyways Dunadan’s edition is fine. Supaman89 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that since the national languages already have a section where they are explained properly, to put them in the infobox would just be redundant, so I think it is okay to leave the box with just one "language-space", also at the end of the infobox it has a note about the national languages so mentioning them twice in the same box is unnecesary. Supaman89 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Everything in the table is redundant; all the information in the table is repeated elsewhere, but that doesn't mean we  should delete it all. Moreover, the concept of "national language" is, IMHO, important enough to merit its inclusion in the infobox. -- the D únadan  22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo of ships
Re the photo of Mexican navy ships. Very nice photo, but there are a couple of problems with the caption.

1) It says it is a photo of one ship. There definitely seem to be two ships.  Shouldn't the caption cover that?

2) Caption states "aircraft carrier". The only capacity to carry aircraft seems to be a helicopter deck.  I don't think this makes them "aircraft carriers."

The link in the caption leads to this: "The third USS Stein (DE-1065) was a Knox-class destroyer escort, later redesignated as a frigate (FF-1065) in the United States Navy." Destroyer escorts or frigates don't convert readily into aircraft carriers.

Could someone closer to a Mexican naval base check this? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourism
I't will be nice to see a photo of both Cancún and Acapulco on the article.76.235.133.4 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the section is too small to include two pictures. Supaman89 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tepezcohuite
This was in the Biodiversity section, in a list of ingredients. Tepezcohuite (used in burn treatment)

Is this correct? Wanderer57 (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest I've never heard of it, but when the user added the list with all the ingredients I just thought they were correct, probably a quick google search will do it. Supaman89 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tepezcohuite is used for burn treatments. I believe that both the tree and the bark used in the treatment are called the same. I don't think that it would be considered an ingredient, I've never heard of it being used in cooking. It's an interesting topic, I remember that when its use by a clinic in Central Mexico became public knowledge. The results were close to miraculous, according to the doctors and the news reports. Hugo cantu (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Music Section
There seems to be a controversy in the edit summaries. Let's discuss it here instead.

Is it terribly POV to list some popular singers and bands in sentences that begin:
 * Some well-known Mexican singers are 
 * and
 * Popular groups are 

It is not as if the sentence said "the greatest singer in Mexico in the 20th century was ................." Putting that sentence in the article would need a source.

As Supaman89 said, I am not POV about Mexican singers and I did not put any names of singers or bands into the article.

I reverted an edit where two names were removed and three other names were inserted. I reverted the edit because there was no explanation of the edit. (Later the other editor and I had a brief discussion which is HERE.)

As far as I'm concerned, all five singer's names could reasonably appear in the article. That would be much more representative than having only the two names or only the three. If there are no serious objections to this approach, I'll draft a wording and post it here for comment.

Feedback please and thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, I just don't see what the problem is with naming "Belinda" and "Thalia", it could be argue that there are other "more well-known" artists but common, the point of the section is just to list a couple of Mexican artist so the readers can have a general idea of current Mexican singers; further more, the fact of trying to remove some artists and putting others (like some did) does seem more like a POV to me.


 * We could make a bigger list and include more singers/bands but again we could go back to the same issue: “why did we include this one but not that one”, if we mention 5 artists is fine, I just hope that people later won’t come up and remove the ones they don’t like and change them for others. Supaman89 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say "none" is better than "a few" for two reasons, one "practical" and another "political".


 * First, the main article on Mexico is already too long, and adding "examples" may be one reason contributing to this unreasonable length.


 * Second, we have the clearly POV problem of "why not Maná, Los Yonics, Lupita D'Alessio, or Paquita la del Barrio".


 * So I'd say we're better off with lesser facts rather than with more questionable choices, at least in this main article.


 * Of course, you may start an article on mexican pop music describing all these facts, adding here a link here to that entry. Louie (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, someone just complained about why not adding "Rock" to the article; and of course they will want "examples"... Louie (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't know the singers you mention, but based on the articles about them in Wikipedia, it seems Maná is a huge success in Mexico and internationally. No reason why not that I know of. Lupita and Paquita do not seem quite as "huge" (based solely on the articles) but I wouldn't have a problem in including them. There is no article on Los Yonics (or possibly it has the name spelled differently). Do you think there should be one?


 * I like the suggestion of an article on Mexican pop music. Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject is too slight for me to volunteer to help with writing. I just learned how to set up tables if that would help.


 * Cheers,. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But again I think we're making to much of a big deal about this, it's just a list, 99% of the people who read this article don't really care what artists are shown and which ones are not, I say we just include 4 pop artists and 4 rock artists and that's it, I don't really mind which ones we include, seriously is not that important. Supaman89 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Paquita la del Barrio = She's kind of a joke singer
 * Los Yonics = ...Never heard of em.
 * Lupita D'Alessio = She's actually good


 * Why not 4 ranchera, 4 folk, 4 tropical, 4 trios, 4 boleros... You see?: once you're started, the list may go on endlessly... Louie (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Supraman89 - big mistake to criticize other people's taste in music. Maybe you are in a different generation?  Ever heard of Maná? Pedro Infante?


 * That reminds me. The article Music of Mexico has no mention of Pedro Infante. Doesn't this mean it is in need of work?  Wanderer57 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the article on mexican music is clearly biased by age. I remember growing up on rancheras, boleros, and The Beatles ;-). Moreover, there is no mention of the two major national bards: José Alfredo and Juan Gabriel >:/. Louie (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you guys got me wrong, I wasn't criticizing no one, I was just saying that it's just a list, let's not make this a huge deal, of course I know Pedro Infante and Mana, both are great, regarding the other genres, the section does mention about traditional styles like Ranchera, Boleros, etc. the section also mentions that most Mexicans listen to pop/rock on an everyday basis just like anywhere else in the world that's why it mentions some examples of these Mexicans singers that really represent today’s Mexico's music, if you like we could do something like this “Traditional artists include Pedro Infante, Jorge Negrete, etc. and Contemporary artists include RBD, Mana, Belinda, etc.” that way we wouldn’t include genres because it truly would be endless. Supaman89 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Music
Can someone put Mexican rock under rock in the article and fix any problems.75.62.144.30 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.144.30 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Mexico
Hey, I just noticed that the section "6.5 Religion," under "Demographics," begins with the phrase, "Unlike some other Latin American countries..." The phrase seems to have no effect other than to want to make Mexico appear "better" than other Latin American countries by making it appear more "tolerant" than they are. As a Catholic Mexican myself, I must admit that this seems unnecessarily antagonistic. Why not just get rid of the phrase? Just because inhabitants of certain other Latin American countries flaunt their attributes so as to make their countries appear culturally similar to Western Europe doesn't mean Mexico should stoop to their level through a Wikipedia article.--Unsigned, 23 February 2009


 * Agreed, the cited phrase adds no value to the article and it looks like serving the intrests of someone's hidden agenda... go ahead and remove it. --Cerealito (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in removing the phrase?--Unsigned, 03 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.58.15 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)