Talk:Mexico/Archive 7

Mexican People Article?

 * I noticed when I type in Mexican People, or Mexicans, it just re-directs to Mexico. I think the inhabitants, no matter how diverse or from what background, deserve a page of their own. I am far from an anthropologist, linguist or historian, but it seems to me a lot of Countries are populated from people of diverse ethnic/tribal backgrounds. Take for example Spain. The Spanish People get their own article. A Spanish person could claim ancestry from Greeks, Romans, Celts, Goths, Moors, and Arabs. They seem as diverse as a Mexican who can claim lineage from Spanish and Aztec ancestors. Skeeter08865 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and create one then if you can find some sources. It sounds a good idea. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Coat Of Arms
the new mexican government 2006 -2012 are using this coat (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Escudo_Mexico_2009.jpg) the coat used in this article is old.. thank you.
 * The COA cannot be changed arbitrarily by the goverments in turn. They might use the image you mention in the logos of the Secretariats, but the actual COA is established in the "Ley Federal de los Símbolos Patrios"). EOZyo (мѕğ) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican craftwork/handicrafts
A section about Mexican craftwork/handicrafts/folk art is missing.--correogsk (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC) awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.242.60 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Race figures in infobox country template
A user is adding the unofficial figures of race in the main infobox template. I think this should be discussed first (and in fact, I think it was already discussed and the result was not to include those in the infobox) because the Mexican government does not keep record about the "race" of its citizens.

Some of the country articles that have this information in the main infobox is mainly because the correspondent national census agencies officially ask about race. Also, there is the fact that these figures greatly vary between the unofficial sources, and that there is no secure definition about who should be considered mestizo, or "predominantly european" or "predominalty amerindian", or "pure amerindian". Those definitions are far from being well defined.

However, any change as drastical/controversial as this one should be discussed first. Thanks.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  06:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the Mexican census doesn't record "race" anymore, but in these days of the genetic revolution, ancestry and mixture are being revealed more and more. I just added a bit on the ongoing Mexican genome project which has already produced a significant report on its research. Since the census stopped tracking "race" back in the 1920s, demographers had been forced to use extrapolations, reasoned assumptions and limited self-reporting. Surprisingly, this early genome report closely corresponds to many of those pre-genomic studies. More to come for sure. Tmangray (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullet trains in the Transportation section
As far as I'm aware there are no bullet trains in Mexico... yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiseargote (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Every Spanish Person is Mexican
There is other nationalities its not just american, asian, African, and Mexican. There's many more spanish races theres Puerto Rican, Peruvian, Columbian, Ecuadorian, Venezuelen, Brazilian, and many more so dont just call a spanish person Mexican because their are other kinds of Spanish nationalities. So remember its not just Mexican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola815 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lola, I think that I understand what you mean, but not sure that it has something to do with the article. Just to clarify some points, Spanish people are from Spain, not Mexico, Colombia or Ecuador. Hispanics can be from Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, etc., but not from Brazil. Hope it clarifies that, but I'm still unsure as to what cause you to feel the need to write your comment. Cheers. :) Hugo cantu (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu
"In 2009 Mexico was the creator of the new disease commonly referred to as the "swine flu". This spread to many different country's and has lead to the infection of hundreds of people."

This is factually incorrect, unless there is some evidence that "swine flu" was actually created and not the result of a natural mutation. It might be said that the "swine flu" virus originated in Mexico in 2009. Also, it is not "country's" but "countries." A better way to phrase it would be: "This spread to many different countries, infecting hundreds of people."

Ydigernes (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

United Mexican States—correct translation?
As a native Spanish speaker, it strikes me as a very odd translation—I believe Mexican United States is more accurate, given that in the Spanish name, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, "Mexicanos" modifies "Estados Unidos." In my opinion, the translation should reflect that (i.e., Mexican should modify United States, instead of United modifying Mexican States, which would translate "Estados Mexicanos Unidos" in Spanish). I have googled both terms and found that United Mexican States is three times as popular as Mexican United States, so what I want to ask is, why is United Mexican States used, instead of a more accurate Mexican United States? Is it for convenience, so that there are no confusions with the United States of America, or is there a reason, a source, an official document, or anything that has instigated the use of UMS instead of MUS?--66.229.214.176 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the reason behind this must be to avoid confusion with the United States, so it doesn't sound like the Mexican United States of America. However, it appears to be the official, or more common way of calling it, by the government.  If you search Mexican United States, you'll find that there's only about 220 results versus the 2200 results from "united mexican states".  This is searching all gob.mx domains.  Mexican United States usually refers to "Mexican-United States relations" or border, but not to the official name.  -Solid Reign (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

. "United Mexican States" makes a lot more sense. It's the same as "United Arab Emirates" not "Arab United Emirates. "United Mexican States" is the correct adverb/adjective order.  Let's leave it at that.   -Quimbero 02:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.9.129 (talk)
 * See Toponymy_of_Mexico. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been posted many times but then deleted again after a while. I also think that the correct translation is Mexican United States. Considering that the first documents even speak of Estados-unidos Mexicanos (Mexican United-states), both words shouldn't just be separated by an adjective which refers to both of them. Nevertheless, the official form in English is United Mexican States, independently if it is a real literal translation or not. The only possible reason for this is to avoid confusion with the United States. This is of course justified but it is also part of a very interesting sociolinguistic phenomenon of the USA. Here you will find lots of examples of name shortenings with which national origins simply disappear: Aldera (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alta California is now called California in the USA.
 * Baja California in Mexico is now just called Baja by USAmericans (relationship to their California and the origin of the name are lost).
 * French Fries are now called Liberty Fries, just for political reasons.
 * Mexican United-States is called United Mexican States to avoid confusion with United States (of America; there has also been a lot of pressure over Mexican politicians to change the official name of the country to Mexico in order to finish this problem).
 * Mandarins are nowadays more commonly known as Clementines or Tangerines, etc.
 * The "official" form in English? And who determines, and under what authority, that a particular translation is "official"? Purported confusion notwithstanding, the appropriate translation is indeed "Mexican United States" and has been used in Academic (official?) translations of the Mexican Constitution, which in my opinion is a much more relevant source than the number of google hits. As as side note, IMHO, it really doesn't matter how Americans colloquially call Baja California (which in English encyclopedias, that is, Academic sources, still shows up as "Baja California" and not "Baja", and so does our Baja California article), and at least where I live, nobody ever says "I want a double cheeseburger with Liberty Fries", but "French Fries", or simply "fries". -- the D únadan  21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All of your opinions are nice, but all official documents in English nowadays say, "United Mexican States". Look at the government websites in Mexico translated into English and it'll say "United Mexican States". The immigration forms when you first arrive at airports in Mexico say, "United Mexican States". My passport (I am indeed Mexican) says "United Mexican States" in the English translation. It will stay as "United Mexicans States". 76.79.9.129 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Denmark - Mexico relations
Can anyone help find sources for Denmark–Mexico relations. Anyone that can look through Spanish sources would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
There is a mistake on the Administrative Divisions of Mexico table. Hermosillo is the capital of Sonora not Tepic.
 * Fixed, thanks for catching that. Alexius  Horatius  01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiAds and Comercially neutral content
Hello. I've noticed that the article has too many images of private, for-profit corporations that might be silently taking advantage of the high traffic and exposure of wikipedia.

To be the clearest possible: An image on wikipedia provides hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of displays. While it is legitimate to be looking for a specific company on wikipedia, commercial images in this article seem to be out of scope and constitute a very effective free ad.

I hereby propose to replace/subsitute/delete the following images:

Economy::Bombardier_Global_5000.jpg       ---> wikiad on the image foot. Would embraer be happy?

Economy::PueblaAssembly.jpg               ---> wikiad on the image foot. GM and Nissan would love to have this exposure.

Sports::Estadio_de_beisbol_en_Monterrey.jpg---> wikiad on the image foot. Other baseball teams under-represented.

Economy::Transportation::Aeromexico_*.jpg ---> wikiad on the whole image. Mexicana is ranting.

Economy::Transportation::Telmexstore.jpg  ---> wikiad on the whole image. Not good for competition.

HealthCare::Mexicohospital.jpg            ---> wikiad on the whole image. Other private hospitals are not happy!

These images should be replaced with others commercially-neutral content. The first three might just require a new image foot.

I've started to fix this by deleting the image of a drone "developed by hydra-technologies", which was the most obvious wikiad. Hope we can all agree on this effort to improve the article. Regards to all editors! Cerealito (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But if you think about it that way, it gets much more difficult to find "commercially-neutral" pictures because most of the times you could be advertising someone, for example:


 * Economy: What could we put there without advertising someone? More buildings? I think it’d be repetitive.


 * Broadcast media: I can’t think of any image there beside something related to Televisa or TV Azteca (private companies).


 * Sports: If we put a baseball game we’re advertising some team? what if we put a NASCAR race, are we advertising NASCAR Mexico?


 * Healthcare and Education: We could put a public hospital (in fact I think we should), but if we put something like the Biotechnology Center, are we advertising the Monterrey Institute of Technology?


 * So, I think we could change some pictures if we can find better "non-advertising" ones, but we shouldn’t be too picky about it and try to remove them all at once because they could be advertising someone. Supaman89 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah no rush, let's just do it little by little. I was looking at the articles of the USA or Germany, they seem to be more commercially-neutral... I know it's a difficult task but it's totally worth it. I don't have images at hand but maybe...
 * Economy : let's just remove the Volkswagen link.
 * Sports : let's just remove the Sultanes link...
 * Healthcare : let's put a public hospital pic. As for the ITESM, I think it's a non-profit so no problem here.
 * Transportation : Let's change the aeromexico plane for a picture of aerial traffic (or maybe one WITH MANY AIRLINES being displayed?)


 * I hope all editors can take this into account in the future when adding images! Cerealito (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle America (again)
I'm opening a new discussion regarding this issue, the term Middle America exists and is used in some publications to describe Mexico's location however compared with the term North America is definitely not as widely used, not to mention that more than half the links about MA refer to the middle class in the United States, therefore I think that the undue weight of the term has to be made clear in the paragraph, because the way it is currently implies that both terms are equally used which are not, here there is a list of how some publications describe Mexico and North America, please notice the lack of the use of the term MA, . Supaman89 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course that in a carefully picked list the term MA will not show. This is a very long discussion, and we, including yourself Supaman, had agreed on a consensus. Regardless of the fact that Corticopia seems to be gone, we should abide by the consensus reached by a poll in which you voted as well, instead of reopening a Pandora box. -- the D únadan 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that we do have an undue weight issue, since the very first introduction of the term Middle America. If you try to find information about the continent North America, you will find its proper description without the use of this term, which indicates its rare usage. Of course we could also search and carefully pick a list of links that use the term, and then say MA and NA are equally used terms, but the real situation requiere the commitment and willingness of all of us. I also think that this is something we can easily fix, by adding two words: "rarely described".  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all.. North America's not a continent! America is the continent, not North, Central or South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.139.154 (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you should't forget for the english speakers in the world "AMERICA" isn't a continent, they divide in 2 (the americas)North and South America, I know, for the rest of the world is AMERICA, one single continent, but who knows why they divide in 2 the continent, i think it began when US build Panama Channel or something, i don't really care because for all the world AMERICA is the continent, but for english speakers America is United States. Now, Is important where's Mexico??, North Central South, Asia or Jupiter, Mexico is Mexico wherever it are... ">( Talk? ) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This all sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. How can it be that 'Middle America' is given undue weight to describe Mexico's location in the Americas, let alone North America, when it is only mentioned once in this article, and appropriately in the lead of the Geography article?  Is it inequitable to make this assertion?  No.  Any number of reputable sources indicate this quite plainly (either that the country is in the region, or that the region is a component of North America:  .   (further on)  (also consult relevant articles.)  That is not to say it is included in North America when appropriate.  But to exclude the term is to give undue weight to a notion that is just as contestable: for example, North America - which in English is often used to refer to just the U.S. and Canada - as compared to Latin America, etc.  NAFTA and arrogance are not carte blanche reasons to suppress other considerations in any encyclopedia.  Shall we change the article to read that Mexico is a North American-has been if the U.S. Democrats take the White House (and make good on their promise to renegotiate NAFTA)?  Pu-lease ... Ixtapl (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you should read carefully every comment. Nobody is talking about excluding the term.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read 'every comment', at least the ones that matter, and also the ones above in this section: it would appear that a few editors are engaged in a long, drawn-out point-of-view edit war about what is in North America or not. Also, it is curious that you would direct me to read every comment (and fixate on one idea), when it seems apparent that you and Supaman89 (given Dúnadan's comment above) are either unwilling or unable to conciliate.  (This Corticopia may also be similar.)  Really, what is wrong with the text as it is or was?  Anyhow, can you provide a reliable citation that 'Middle America' is "rarely used"?  As well, can this be sourced explicitly: "Geopolitically, however, Mexico is considered part of North America."  This seems to focus on a specific sense and ignore senses when Mexico may not be included - see above.  You haven't convinced me.   Ixtapl (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The term Middle America is in deed rarely used compared to the term North America, you can do a quick search to check the number of results for each, the way the paragraph is right now, implies that both terms are equally used which is incorrect, it'd be like saying that the term Northern America is just as frequently used as the term Anglo America, all that needs to be done is to fix the current undue weight of both terms by clarifying that one term is rarely used. Supaman89 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yhat may be the case but, web hits aside, you will have to provide a reliable source which explicitly says it is "rarely" used, in addition to one about its geopolitical status. Your analogy is not necessarily accurate: after all, Mexico is commonly included in Latin America, in which case everything north is included in North America (read: Anglo-America).  Ixtapl (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I waited a couple of days to answer it’s interesting to see that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been done precisely in this section (and quite fast by the way, almost like you were waiting)… anyway, if one argues that there needs to be a text explicitly stating the word “rarely” for it to be true, then one could also argue that there needs to be a text also stating that it is “not rarely” used, in other words common facts (like that whales can’t fly) are obvious to be true (I wouldn’t ask for a text stating “whales can’t fly” to know it’s true) in the same way it’s a fact that North America is the common term and that Middle America (which is mostly used for the middle class in the United States) is not that widely used, all that needs to be done is to clarify the undue weight in the proper section, Corticopia. Supaman89 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For now, I am just observing and may edit, but stumbled upon this section and thought to comment.  I am not this Corticopia, and have no intention of getting wrapped up in anything, so get it our of your head.
 * As for your response, I believe the burden of proof is on you to substantiate including "rarely", not on me to say "not rarely" (which is not exactly the case): you don't see any usage notes in the entry for 'Middle America' here, for instance. If references for either exist, please provide.
 * Anyhow, it is clear that, given your commentary, this discussion is better had with someone else. Ixtapl (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am "American" as in U.S. American (Norteamericano), and I have always been taught that Mexico is geographically a part of North America but culturally and socially a part of Latin America. Likewise, I have conferred with an excyclopedia and there are indeed 7 continents of the world-- Asia, Europe, Africa, Antartica, Australia, North America, and South America. Why is North America consisdered its own continent? The reason is because it has its own geogrpahical plate as a land mass, on the North American plate.

Mexico is in North America. And that is final. --74.47.100.150 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Mexican immigrant in the United States, I think it would be ideal if North Americans viewed Mexico as a North American country, while Mexicans viewed their country as Central American. The reason for this belief is that it pains me to see Mexicans clamoring for admission into a "club" that just won't have them. In short, I think the classification of Mexico as part of North America should probably remain intact, at least in the English-language Wikipedia article. (And here I must digress:) Otherwise, I am not a major fan of Mexico's cozy association with the United States, but I do realize that it stems from geographic reality and pressing economic necessity. As a way to offset this unpleasant state of affairs, I think it is essential that Mexico publicly but nonchalantly look toward the south and embrace its Latin American heritage, while still maintaining cordial relations with its northern neighbor. Above all, it is essential to pursue closer relations with the Central American nations, which are historically close to Mexico and whose people generally lack that non-so-subtle racism toward the Amerindian race that characterizes too many blowhards from certain other Latin American countries. (For an example of this barely-concealed racism, turn to the discussion page of the "Latin America" article and look under the headings labeled "white" or some variation thereof. Truly, there is more racism toward Mexicans in those pages--written by other Latin American authors--than I have ever seen in twenty years of living in the United States.) In any case, keep Mexico in North America, por favor. --Namenderkrieg (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you think that way since because usually Mexican Americans think a bit different than Mexican in Mexico; Anyhow, Mexicans do not view Mexico as part of Central America (maybe people from Chiapas and Oaxaca, but I'm not even sure about that), we've always seen it as part of North America becuase well... geographically it is there, there's just no way around that fact, regardless of that, we do keep relationships with all the countries in the Americas, and that includes Central American countries. Supaman89 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Trim the article
I have tried to trim this article down bit by bit with clear explanations, but in | one edit I have been reverted like a common vandal. I am entitled to a better explanation than "I understand you're trying to trim it, but...": Green Giant (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need more than one infobox in this article - the Infobox country? The rest of them (Economy, Politics, Cities, Education) belong in relevant daughter articles.
 * Why do we need 1,000 or so double spaces padding the article?
 * What are the right-alignment fields in image thumbs for? Thumbs are right-aligned and 180px by default.
 * Why are the Administrative Divisions next to Geography, when they are "Political" creations?
 * Why have detailed subsections on infrastructure been restored to "Economy", when we should be summarising each section?
 * As I explained in the summary, I didn't finish my edit, I only got half way through because I had something else to do. I was (and did) actually going to do some of the same stuff you did in your edit such as deleting unnecessary links, double spaces, removing the right-alignment and 180px thing, etc. I just didn't think removing all those infoboxes (politics, economy and health care) and the removal of some pictures was such a good idea, so instead of adding up all those things again, I was easier for me to revert it to its previous state and from there delete all the stuff you did in your edit (the ones I mentioned before) and that’s what I was doing. Once I’m done with my edit we discuss about it and see what’s the best for the article. Supaman89 (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Green Giant (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the CIA Work Factbook, Mexico's GDP (PPP) is 1,559 trillion in 2008 so why is it constantly being changed back to billion? Like a country of that size could survive off that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielg77017 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the source again. It says "$1,559,000,000,000" for GDP PPP (1point559 trillion) and "$1.143 trillion" for "GDP (official exchange rate)". The "." in the latter is a decimal point, not a thousand separator. Green Giant (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Economy
The very opening of the economy section in the article contains a contradiction in terms: "Mexico has a free market mixed economy...". See it? Free Market, and mixed economies are different economic systems, the terms are mutually exclusive. The term mixed economy was coined to refer to those economic systems with a market structure and significant levels of state direction (Like Mexico, the U.S. and almost every country). I suggest the sentence I reference be changed to "Mexico has a mixed economy...".

Nothing against Mexico but the prevalence of government enforced monopolies, state ownership, the often weak rule of law, and long history of tariffs and price controls are a far cry from the system Adam Smith described. Indeed few countries are true free markets, probably only Hong Kong and Singapore come close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.143.163 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the side bar containing quick facts about the Mexican economy, it claims that Brazil accounts for 30.1% and Chile account for 9.3% of Mexican imports. I checked the CIA Factbook source cited below, and these numbers are not at all consistent with the source cited. This needs to be corrected. For an academic project I am looking at OECD numbers on Mexican imports, and what I have found is consistent with the CIA Factbook numbers, and are wildly different than the numbers currently being shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.159.82 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember Wikipedia is a free website, if you see any mistakes or inconsistencies, please feel free to fix them, that's the idea of Wikipedia that we all can improve it. Supaman89 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey, did anyone look at the chart of Income of Mexican Citizen in US dollars? Did you noticed it was unsourced, except for the person who uploaded it and gleefully admitted that they did it themselves? Are those numbers correct? If they are, they're quite surprising (and don't match the figures in the article!)64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)!64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)#64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)%64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Official name of the country
Although in a few documents, the correct translation of Estados Unidos Mexicanos in English should be Mexican United States rather than United Mexican States. You may find references here:

The constitution in English by a research institute at UNAM: http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/infjur/leg/constmex/pdf/consting.pdf

An article about its armed forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Armed_Forces

I hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnjnjn (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see old discussions about this subject. Supaman89 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Demography
Hello. According to INEGI and Conapo, the Mexican population reaches 107.5 million. You can look at http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/contenidos/estadisticas/2009/poblacion09.asp?s=inegi&c=2734&ep=18 or at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=193 (select "Républica Mexicana" and click on "Ver").--Youssef (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC) --Youssef (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that a majority of Mexicans are 'mestizo', i find that very unlikly. According to the TIMES COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE WORLD they have an ethnic chart done shortly after independance of the latin american states which shows Mexico ( and others ) has more indians than Mestizos and whites all together! I think whats happening is people are confusing mixed culture with mixed race, i mean in England our language is halve french but were not called Anglofrench people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.170.148 (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that times it was, but if you read a little of Mexican history, Mexico has 3 wars after the independence and the 80% of the Mexican population die, after the Mexican revolution in 1910 only survived 14.3 millions of Mexican, after that Mexico open the borders to Spaniards running from franco like (60,000) and Frech people, after in WW2 to germans and Mennonites and a lot of europeans and all that people mixed with the Mexican and now in 2009 the 80% are mestizo, Indian and European. Actually in Mexico you are mestizo if you great grand father was mixed with indian, even if you are white with blue eyes if someone in your family was indian even 100 years ago, you are mestizo and in Mexico the 80% of population sometime someone in our family was indian. and very proud. got IT.?? --jmko22 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. Firstly Mexicos population was only 6 million at independance so the notion that it shrunk to 14 million is completly wrong, secondly 80% of its population killed? where did you read that. If that were true it would the worst genocide in history. Also ive never seen a blond haired blue eyed Mexican before, alot of dark skinned dark eyed Mexicans but never nordic looking ones! I think the Mexican mestizo thing is alot like the turkish were seljuk belief and generally a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.229 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine both IP's are from the United States, hence I understand you are used to see Amerindian looking Mexicans, but in Mexico most people have both European and Amerindian blood, from various degrees, if you go to any Mexican city you’ll see people of all shades. When Mexico was the New Spain it was around 40 percent white, all those whites didn't simply disappeared, they got mixed with the Indians creating Mestizos, besides Mexico has had lots of European immigration throughout its history that's why most people in Mexico are mixed blooded. Supaman89 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but can you prove it? The only colonial charts i have seen sho indians at about 70% and the rest evenly divided between mixed bloods and whites. Are you saying all the indians disappeared. Anyone mixing ith that number ould soon be absorbed. I dont get why SOME Mexicans are so scared of being indian i mean do you think we whites are better or something and you want to be us? because you wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.229 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're taking those charts you saw in a book as a fact and you're disproving all the other sources, anyway there have been genetic studies that proof that most Mexicans have European and Indigenous blood (Links Official website from the Government of Mexico | One of the plenty articles published | PDF article from the website) I'll quote this paragraph from the article:

In the northern states European origin is predominant and in the southern states the indigenous one, while a small African origin is homogenous throughout the country. Supaman89 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at more recent data like -Britanica has it at about 16% White, 16% Indian, and about 68% Mestizo, The CIA of the USA has it at 60% Mestizo, Amerindain or predominantly Amerindian (Mestizo still) 30%, White 9%. Check out this more me and tell me what you think Mennonites in Mexico Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because they say that do not make it correct. They are simply going with the flow, the point im making is that no proper genetic test has ever been done(like those done in many other countries including mine) and it is only assumed latin americans are mixed race. In many ways its just political correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.229 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

View this site, its a government based genetic study about the population, read it, study it, then get back to us. http://www.inmegen.gob.mx/ Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That Mexican population is manly Mestizo which means Amerindians are Mixed with Europeans, Doesn't exactly means that we are mixed with Albino whites, The Europeans We are mixed with are Spaniards which tend to be more dark or/and short in comparison with other Europeans(British, Scandinavians etc.). So although some of the statement that we are manly Mesticos is awkward for US Americans is only a matter of looking up Who are we manly mixed with. Besides for the US Americans that have never been to a largest cities in Mexico will find that We DO have some white people; that they tend to come from wealthier families in Mexico, and wealthy Mexicans do not tend to immigrate to the US in vast numbers as other Mexicans do, well you just need to travel to the actual country to more accurately describe the people from there( because even if you see a white Mexican on the US you will probably think he is just other American, and will never notice him). Also the CIA WORLD FACT BOOK States this Ethnic groups: (in Mexico) mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%-- tetzaoncoatl (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetzaoncoatl (talk • contribs) -- 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Romany in Mexico?

I don't doubt there's at least one romany speaker in Mexico. But if you mention it as a language there, then you have to add more than 10000 languages and you can not state it in the same level as french speakers (there are thousands of french speakers in Mx, colonies and a long heritage in some zones.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.232.34 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The spanish are not dark skinned, that is a steriotype. You'll find dark spanish complexioned people in wales and ireland. The old belief of dark skinned southern Europeans goes back to the 19th century when English and other Germanic sumpremecists tried to show the differance between so called 'true Europeans' and what they considered to be secondary Europeans. The spanish are white whereas the Mexicans are not remotly European looking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.244.90 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Spain has white people but most of them tend to be darker, They have always been mixing with people from Arab background, due to their proximity and several wars, you can even notice that in the etymology of several Spanish words and cities from Spain, Therefore Spaniards are darker, You have to make differences, though, northern European people are very much white, and southern Spaniard tend to be darker. (Is like if I only have seen black French people in my neighborhood and I will state all French people is Black. very ignorant.) even indigenous groups from Mexico look different, some are chubby and dark, others are tall skkiny with American Indian like features. So only racist people will denie that Mexican cant be white or of any other color. Besides, White is just another way for some people to feel superior, and if anyone can have it, they feel powerless-- 04:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetzaoncoatl (talk • contribs)

You still have no proof. On the Talk spanish people page it is shown that the spanish are entirly European, to say their not is racist. Why can't mexicans just be proud of their proper heritage. Its like the Arab states in the 60s all of who claimed full arab decent untill they realised that was nonsense. The same will happen in Mexico oneday!-English Bobby (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude but maybe I didn't emphasize enough the words genetic studies. They proof that most Mexicans are mix blooded, and yes, we're proud of out heritage and that includes the Indigenous and European part. Supaman89 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are not that reliable actually. The first one is goverment run, which tells people what they want you to know (this happens alot in England) and the second is only such because i can't speak Spanish and there doesn't appear to be an English translation.--86.141.67.133 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Althought I am quite tired of all those albino power supremacists, nordicists and other racists, we should refrain from leaning on clichés and stereotypes. Spaniards are not darker than french, british, italian, swiss, belgian or german people. If we are just speaking about their suntan, we could conclude that britons are red-skinned for what we can regularly see in Spain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint all of the haters, but if you come to mexico to study or live you will rarely see latin-indigenous looking people, i think the mistake is because most of the indigenous looking people works on tourist focused places selling tourist-like suvenirs (not because they cant get another place to work, but because it give good income), and the guy talking about the people after mexican independence and before mexican revolution, well... it happened one 100 years after the other and at that time it was normal to have like 10+ childs per family.

Sometimes i get a little surprised on how the self-proclamed "americans" see Mexico, is not that the people from Mexico is ashamed from their heritage, is just that most of the people just didnt care as the "americans" do trying to not mix their blood with "non-americans". I think one of the oldest and most common phrases in Mexico is "Mejora la raza" (improving the race), i dont care about giving facts at all, if you don't believe just come and see by yourself. Just on my family, the elders have blond hair and blue eyes, my cousin have gray-green eyes and light-brown hair and even with that heritage i'm totally mestizo looking (dark hair/eyes and no, i'm not adopted) so yes... most of the population in mexico is mestizo. P.S.: I'm not sorry for my poor english =).--201.158.234.64 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it depends on the area you visit what type of people you'll meet, if you visit the northern states (except for Tijuana) you'll see that most people there are light-skinned mestizos; if you visit the southern states you see that most people there are dark-skinned mestizos (you'll find a lot of pure indians in Chiapas and Oaxaca), here in my state Veracruz you'll find people with African heritage, nonetheless most Mexicans are mix-blooded mestizos with Amerindian and European blood as it has been mentioned plenty times before. Supaman89 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

question for the native american indigenous people of new spain aka mexico
why don't you have a problem with speaking a language that was forced on your ancestors on their homeland?the language of the imperialistic slavetrading conquistadors.spanish in case you have no idea what a conquistador is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The New Spain (what later would become Mexico) was created by Spaniards, they mixed with the Native Americans from Mesoamerica creating Mestizos, which is what most Mexicans are nowadays, so Mexicans aren't "speaking the language of the conquerors", it is part of their heritage. Supaman89 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Though there is no proof Mexicans are Mixed race. Most of the peoples of the mediterranean were conquered by Rome yet non of them are half Italian today.-English Bobby (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't repeat myself here since there is already a discussion about this subject two sections above (Demography). There you can read the paragraph in pink along with the link to check the genetic studies. Supaman89 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would any Mexican "have no idea what a conquistador is"? That's like saying "in case you have no idea what a Pilgrim is" to any American who has been to elementary school. And in case you haven't noticed, "conquistador" is Spanish for "conqueror", so no Spanish speaker should have any trouble figuring out what a conquistador is, even if they're unaware of Mexican history. As to the actual question, do you ignore the fact that for most of us, the conquerors are our ancestors as much as the conquered? Or are you aware of Mexico's ethnic diversity and are, in fact, asking how the indigenous, non-mestizo people of the country feel about speaking Spanish? If it's the latter case, your question is valid. The various indigenous peoples of Mexico still speak their original languages. Most of them are bilingual or multilingual, speaking one or more indigenous languages plus Spanish, although to this day there are still some who don't know Spanish. Anyway, the problem for these people is that their languages are ignored or discriminated by the mestizo majority and, in some cases, drifting to oblivion with every generation that passes. Some of them react by rejecting their culture and trying to adapt to the Spanish speaking establishment, others simply keep talking their language and teaching it to their children like they have aways done, and others react by taking more pride in their heritage and actively promoting it, but I've never heard any of them say "let's not speak Spanish, it's the language of the conquerors". That would be very impractical. As far as I know, they have no problem with Spanish as long as they can keep their languages alive and not be alienated for it. Itzcuintli (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather poorly written
Surprising to find much of this article poorly written. Just one example, "As the conservadores refused to recognized, the War of Reform began in 1858, both groups had their own governments, but ended in 1861 with the liberal victory led by Amerindian President Benito Juárez. In the 1860s underwent...." Plain bad writing.
 * Wikipedia is a free website, if you see mistakes like those you can help fix them. Supaman89 (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Independence
Perhaps reword the part about declaring independence. Hidalgo and Allende didn't work together as implied here.--Phil5329 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day
Independence day is incorrectly listed as September 15, 1810 in the country stats section on the right hand of the page. It should state September 16, 1810. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.90.245 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Run-on sentences; sentence fragments
This article, and the History section in particular, are full of run-on sentences and sentence fragments. I corrected one of them, but correcting the rest might be a good project for others to take up. Jrsightes (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Error with Mexico City Population Volume
Can someone check that the information about current population for mexico city is correct?, I am quite sure they are living 22 million people not 19 million (this information is acording to the INEGI or national statistics and informatic institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianandrade (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image


This image will look good in the sports section can someone pleas add it. (unsigned)
 * I would rather not add it, for the following reasons:

1. There are already 2 images in that section. 2. Football (Soccer) and Baseball are Mexico's most popular sports. 3. Could we even consider "Lucha Libre" a real sport, we all know it's fake however entertaining it might be. Supaman89 (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucha Libre is quite an iconic sport from Mexico. The two sports images in the article are relatively boring, but this one is quite entertaining. I say, delete the baseball stadium picture and add this Lucha Libre picture.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of several images
Supaman89 (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Field in central Mexico.jpg - A picture of buildings isn't appropriate for the climate section.
 * File:Turbiny wiatrowe ubt.jpeg - Good info but those wind turbines aren't from Mexico.
 * File:PS3&PS3slim.png - WikiAd for Sony and it has nothing to do with Mexican science or technology.

<Add Mexico, with Switzerland and the Republic of Korea, form the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), regarding UNFCCC
Add Mexico, with Switzerland and the Republic of Korea, form the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG). http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/negotiating_groups/items/2714.php Switzerland signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 and ratified it in 2003, when did Mexico? The EIG is related to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, currently the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 '"COP-15" in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7 and December 18, 2009. As for notability, this meeting has been called the most important meeting in history, for example ... for reference starting points, see Category:Climate crisis, Category:Global warming, Category:Climate change, Category:Stop Climate Chaos, Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action, Category:Action on climate change 99.155.157.151 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.157.151 (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Armed Forces

 * The Mexican Armed Forces section, as many would know, suffers constant vandalism by fanatics who love to attribute all sorts of weapons and equipment that doesn't belong there. In this section I saw that it stated that Mexico was operating the Su-27 Flanker and it gave two outdated sources which only elaborated on the fact the the Mexican Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR) was contemplating the purchase of the Su-27, but these articles never actually said that the purchase had been fulfilled. I know for a fact that the contract to aquire the Su-27 by the Mexican Navy never came to pass because the SEMAR (SECRETARÍA DE MARINA) stated in their website that the offer to purchase the Su-27s was declined as you can all see for yourselves here: Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Content and undue weight
The article has come to a point where we urgently need to fix it.

I see editors with hidden agendas adding content that is completely irrelevant to the article and that seems to me much more as fan talk than anything else. I lived in Mexico for many many years and I still have lots of contacts there. I closely follow the mexican press and I know:  That 'Hydra Technologies' is not a major player in the aerospace/defense industry That 'Zonda Telecom' is not a major player in the communications/electronics industry whatsoever  That this list will certainly grow as other editors with conflicts of interest continue to add content that is much more WP:self-promotion than anything else. 

Mentioning CEMEX, TELEVISA or AEROMEXICO in the article seem perfectly normal to me as they are internationally recognized companies that play a major role in the country in their respective fields. But Zonda Telecom? Really? Do people looking for information about MEXICO really need to know that Hydra Technologies won a prize that no one ever heard of?

To the editors that seem to have an special interest in having mentions to the above mentioned companies in THIS ARTICLE:

please explain why and how are these mentions worth including in an article that is supposed to be about A COUNTRY.

I'm once again removing this irrelevant content from the article the time being.

Before reverting this edit or replying, please read wikipedia's policies about undue weight thanks.Cerealito (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This Content is not irrelevant and just because something doesn't interest you or you haven't heard of it dose not give you the right to eliminate other peoples right to know this in information. Hydra technologies is relevant because Mexico is trying very hard to become to become a major aerospace power and Hydra represents the first internationally recognized aerospace innovator of Mexico. Zonda telecom is actually fairly well known even as far away as Russia and Europe so i don't get why this can't be mentioned since Mexico is a country which is becoming ever increasingly known for it's telecommunications sector. Lanix is a world contributor to the electronics industry so it seems very weird that you say it should not be featured in the scienc and technology section. I've read the undue weight section and talked it over with another editor and the undue weight doesn't apply to this. Also, corporations play a huge part in modern Mexico so they will have to be mentioned so there is no reason to revert things just because they involve private companies. Just because a private company is mentioned and positive things are said about it, it doesn't mean that it's a wikiad Rahlgd (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the content is not irrelevant `just because something doesn't interest me`. As matter of fact I do work in the aerospace industry. I'm deeply interested on UAVs. And that does not make Hydra technologies more or less worth mentioning in this article. Don't be ridiculous, I'm not taking anyone's right to know anything. They still have their right to know whatever they want, they just have to look it up in the appropriate sources, NOT HERE. The greatest example is the paragraph about the `Leonardo Da Vinci` prize. I'm not claiming it's not true I'm just saying it does not belong here.


 * `Mexico is trying very hard to become to become a major aerospace power` (sic). First of all, Mexico is not a person. Mexico can not be 'trying very hard' to do anything. If there are official policies to make the aerospace industry grow, that's cool. THAT might be of general interest in the article, maybe in the industry section. For now I just see a minor, not-well-known company taking two out of the seven paragraphs of a section that is supposed to be about the GENERAL state of science and technology in a country. How you ruled out undue weight there is completely beyond me.


 * `Zonda telecom is actually fairly well known even as far away as Russia and Europe.` Citation needed, please. I'm writing from a western European country right now. Never did I hear of Zonda Telecom until I came across with its mention in this article. We can keep the mention to Lanix if you want, at least I remember considering buying one of their computers.


 * As for your statements defending mentions of corporations in the article, I don't understand why you wrote them. I never had a problem with those, as I stated from the very beginning. Cerealito (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to achieve concensus in the Industry/communications section, I'm removing the image of Zonda Telecom but leaving the text mention. I've requested citations though; the information given is very dubious. Cerealito (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The glowing mention of Zonda, Hydra Technologies, and Lanix certainly fall under undue weight. This is not because I'd never heard of them (I hadn't, except for Lanix, neither in Mexico nor in Canada, where I live now), but because they are not representative of Mexico. Think the disaster the Mexico page would be if every moderately large company that won some award, or that exports to Latin America, or that does business with Europe or Russia, was featured on the page. JorgeAranda (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fellow wikipedian Rahlgd: I deeply regret that you keep adding content to the article that is not relevant to it. We have a serious discussion going on here and you just reverted changes without any further explanation. Reverting changes without any explanation is against wikipedia's spirit, so please take the time to explain your reverts in the future. Let me assure you once again that I don't have any kind of problem with private companies. Please stop insinuating that, it is simply not true. There are many mentions to them in the article and I have never attempted to delete them, I'm fine with them and I will try to add more if they make a better article.

The point here is: the mentions to Zonda Telecom and to Hydra technologies are completely out of scope. I've given you my reasons and replied to your arguments. Fellow wikipedian JorgeAranda gave you more reasons. Looking for a consensus I edited the article removing the images but leaving the text mentions and asking for further references. You responded with a revert and silence...

could you please at least read the concerned sections as they are? I'm waiting for your reasons and arguments, don't you think that we could get to an agreement? Cerealito (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do think that it is completely appropriate to have at least Zonda telecom mentioned in the communications section because they have contributed a lot to the Mexican telecom industry and have made large strides to advance mobile technology in Mexico and as far as not being recognized internationally i don't see why Zonda would not be considered multi-national considering the six meter high zonda mptrez billboards in Moscow. I do understand the your issue with Hydra however and i will not attempt to over state them in the science and technology section but i do think that we can have the Zonda phone in the communications article because even using the logic that Zonda is not big outside of Mexico (which is not entirely true) it is still a major company in Mexico and the article is about Mexico and that section is about the communications of Mexico. To not include zonda in the communications article would be like talking about the automotive industry of Japan and not mentioning Toyota or Honda. Rahlgd (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Rahlgd, thanks for replying. I see that you didn't completely reverted my changes. As a gesture of good faith I will do my best to get to an agreement here before I commit any changes to the concerned sections.


 * `I do understand the your issue with Hydra however and i will not attempt to over state them in the science and technology section` - OK now, I guess we just agreed on one point. Hydra technologies has text mention on the industry section. I guess that's already enough for a company that does not represent Mexico at all. Can we just leave the s&t section without any further mention to Hydra technologies? Moving on to Zonda Telecom...


 * `Zonda telecom (...) they have contributed a lot to the Mexican telecom industry and have made large strides to advance mobile technology in Mexico` - According to whom? please point me to at least 3 reliable sources stating this, otherwise this is just original research or your very personal point of view; In this latter case there is no reason to mention Zonda Telecom in the article.


 * `i don't see why Zonda would not be considered multi-national considering the six meter high zonda mptrez billboards in Moscow.` - Where are you getting this information from? This is the kind of statements that make me think of a Conflict of interest going on. How did you get this specific information? Anyways, I won't even ask you for further references on this. Even if Zonda Telecom is considered 'multi-national' they do not represent Mexico at all and an image of their products has no place in this article. If their billboards were double the size and they had them in London as well, that wouldn't change a thing: Zonda Telecom is not relevant here. You can add that to the Start-up Companies based in Mexico article if you want, but not here.


 * Finally, I do not think it is legitimate to just erase tags. I did add them because some statements seem dubious to me, and I ask for reliable sources. Content that is not verifiable is subject to be deleted in a reasonable amount of time. Cerealito (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fellow wikipedian Rahlgd: You keep removing tags instead of adding sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources stating the information you insit to add to the article and that I find very very doubtful. I'm kindly but firmly requesting you to assume your burden of proof.

I'm also removing this statement: `Many Lanix products and other Mexican electronic products are marketed in the United States and Europe by Phillips, Sony and other companies under royalty agreements.` That was 'supported' upon this citation: http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/mexico/403485-1.html. As any editor will be able to see, that webpage has nothing to do with the Lanix corporation.

Cerealito (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i don't know how else to prove to you that Zonda is major representative of the Mexican telecom industry. That's like asking someone for proof that Samsung is a major representative of the South Korean electronics industry. It's just common knowledge. And yes there are Zonda billboards in Moscow right outside of Domodedovo airport and in downtown which i have seen so i'm pretty sure Zonda is known in other countries. I don't know why your so transfixed on getting rid of Zonda Telecom. Why would you even try to delete it's main article? If anyone has a conflict of interests it looks more like you just have some problem with Zonda. Zonda is representative of the Mexican communications industry for the following reasons:

1.It's Mexicos first indigenous mobile phone designer and manufacturer 2.It's products are used by large companies such as Telcel and America Movil 3.It is a Mexican company that other foreigners may know about 4.It has a large revenue and is a major corporation in the cell phone industry in Mexico and is known in other countries 5.It has integrated very advanced technologies and has been the first Mexican company to implement these 6.It employs over 19,000 people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahlgd (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I can see that some Mexicans may be proud of this list, none of its items are compelling reasons to devote a fragment of a page on Mexico to Zonda. A firm need not be mentioned in a country's page because it designs and manufactures mobile phones indigenously, nor because some other companies use their products, nor because foreigners may know about it, nor because it has a large revenue, nor because it features 'very advanced technologies', nor because it employs lots of people. Again, if criteria like these were to be used to accept mentions of firms in Mexico's page it would soon become a long and uninformative business directory.


 * Unfortunately, I have to say that I, too, sense a conflict of interest. I find it strange (but not impossible!) that a neutral Wikipedian would spend so much effort squeezing in a mention to this particular telecom. Perhaps you have nothing to do with Zonda and it simply makes you proud, and I sympathize with that, but I wish you could also see that, from a neutral perspective, a firm like that has very little to do in an article about a country. JorgeAranda (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rahlgd: please review these very important wikipedia's policies Verifiability. and ADS. In a nutshell:
 * `The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.` (emphasis mine). None of your claims have been sourced. Common knowlege does not apply here: I've been around for a while...


 * `Examples in articles tend to attract spam. Sentences such as, "For example, Chevron Corporation has ..." tend to attract editors to add more examples. Examples should be sourced with independent, reliable sources. Such examples should also be highly relevant to the article topic.` (emphasis mine). Even if you provided sources to the information you state, HOW relevant is it to THIS article?


 * `Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. ` (emphasis mine). You say that I have a problem with Zonda Telecom. Well not directly with it, but with their fans adding carefully masked promotion to wikipedia.


 * I'm sorry but I still don't see WHY should an article about Mexico have a big picture and a glowing mention of Zonda Telecom. In the best interest of Wikipedia and the present article, the disputed content should be deleted. It would be a real shame to take this discussion to the  COI noticeboard  Cerealito (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sources, the poor relevance of the disputed content to the article and the lack of response from the interested editors, I'm once again deleting this information in spite of the lack of consensus. Cerealito (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate in Mexico
The information about Mexico's climate is poor because is missing much of the information of the northern desert climate and the extreme temperatures of 45 °C of more in the desert. editsemiprotected--Mario 181193 (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Mario 181193


 * Please explain exactly what changes you want made, and provide a reliable source supporting it.  AJ Cham  04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this section should include the geography of the desert in Northen Mexico like in Sonora, Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and small portions of Tamaulipas. It should include the extreme temperatures of 50 °C and upwards in the Sonoran Desert in Baja California and Sonora and the extreme temperatures of the major city Monterrey of 40°C adn upwards in summer time and that northern mexico is located at the same latitude of the deserts in northern africa and Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario 181193 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected
On the right section where it shows Mexico's declaration of Independence as sept 15 1810 that is incorrect the real date for Mexico's declaration of Independence is Sept 16 1810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlochacon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

mexico
many of our modern foods now come from mexico do to all the imigrents takeing there culter with them, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereal21 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

with population of 111 million, it is the 11th most populous country. Two amazeing to beleeve--all these 1s in a only place. is it be true? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many images?
This article has multiple issues, the most visible, perhaps, is the unnecessary amount of images. I've removed some myself (size has been reduced by nearly 8 KB), but I think it'd be better if there were a clear consensus concerning which images should be removed. Kraft. (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I have been deleting unecessary images for months! Sadly user Rahgld is to blame. He sometimes adds images that have nothing to do with Mexico, such as the one of Burbj Kalifah (world's tallest tower) or one about Voladores de Papantla is the sports section (C'mon!). Some very short sub-articles such as culture or tourism, have been stuffed with 2 or even 3 pictures in the past, something that is just too much.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  07:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Rahlgd's edits
I felt I had to revert the recent edits by user Rahlgd for the following reasons: First and most upsetting, Rahlgd vandalized some numbers, such as the estimate of population in prehispanic times. Second, he continues to add pictures to an article that has already been discussed, several times in the past, as having too many of them. Third, several of the pictures suggest personal bias or conflict of interest issues. Fourth, some of the edits consist of dozens of small changes, few of them objectionable on their own, but together they add up to present the subject matter on a very different tone than what had been agreed by the community before --this is notable in the Industry and Military sections. I am sorry to revert other people's edits along with this. JorgeAranda (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers in the pre-hispanic times were sourced from national geographic. Also while you mean good faith in your revert you also reverted other peoples work and shouldn't have just reverted everything. If you want to get rid of some images, we should go over them instead of just reverting the whole thing. Also i am confused on how any of the images are a conflict of interest. I am going to revert the most recent edit and from there we can then decide what we should change. Rahlgd (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with you Jorge. Rahlgd has been adding some dubbious information here and there, and while I personally am not against adding industry examples of success (such as Zonda), I am of adding too much pictures that are not representative of Mexico, such as the Burbj Kalifah or Aztec dancers. Rahlgd, I understand you want to portray better the image of Mexico to the world, but sometimes your edits are very childish, they lack of verifiable sources and sadly, other user might consider them objectionable due to the fact that it seems boosterism. The discussion about too many images has been long in the past... with you. You seem not to understand that a good article doesn't require that many pictures.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't been very active lately because of personal issues, but I had been thinking of reverting a number of Rahlgd's little changes myself. It's really sad that some people just don't get that Wikipedia is about verifiable, neutral content and not about promoting their very personal idea of things. Cerealito (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay that sounds reasonable. Okay then, i'll not add information that might sound dubious without sourcing then. Sorry if i added thing that could be portrayed in a personally advancing manner, i realize what you mean now. I must disagree on the statement that Aztec dancers don't relate to Mexico. I'm not at all advocating the removal of of the other image in the culture section but i think that there can be both without the article having too many images. Rahlgd (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No one (at least NOT me) has ever said that Aztec dancers "don't relate to Mexico". Current Mexican culture is far better represented by folkloric dances. Every single Mexican state have one typical dance. No state is represented by an Aztec dance I can assure you. And nationally, Jalisco dances have always represented the country and certainly Jarabe Tapatío is one of the most known Mexican folkloric dances in the world.


 * Also, there is the issue of too many pictures. A subsection with only one paragraph does not need two pictures. I have erase and will continue to erase the Aztec dancer picture. It simply does not belong to a subsection of culture. Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Prehispanic culture is definitely an important element of Mexican culture. But Prehispanic culture is already represented throughout the article, and this "Aztec Dancer" picture is of dubious representativeness. I traced it back to its source in flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dawn_perry/1120985813/), where I found that the picture shows "Aztec dancers demonstrate for the "Queen" at "tea time" at the Bristol Renaissance Faire in Bristol, WI." It is a bizarre picture, actually, and a caricature, and I do not think it is representative of Mexico at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeAranda (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that the Aztec dancers can be considered a relavent cultural aspect to the culture section but i do see your argument that it could be considerd none-representative of the country as a whole. However i don't believe the current picture is completely representative to Mexico as a whole either and i think massive segments of the national population would agree to neither of the pictures as being not universally representative. So i believe that both can be considered equally relevent. If we only leave either one it is not completely representative of the whole nation and will lean to one stance or the other so i think that having just one is not trully representative of the cultures that make Mexico. Rahlgd (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're missing out the most important point: it is a sub-article. Sub-articles should not have that many pictures. So if one picture is displayed, let it be the one that represents better the "culture" of Mexico. Aztec dancers are not better to portray Mexico than a Folkloric dance, which is far more actual and more spreaded in all of Mexico. Also our marvellous prehispanic cultures are already well represented in the article, in other sections. Using too many pictures of ancient cultures only promotes a stereotyped Mexico.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I only want to point out the fact that Raghld has attacked me in a very uncivil way. He went for "help" to other user talk page kinda spreading a prejudice against me. He said that I'm against native Mexicans because I find the Aztec dancer picture not suitable for the culture section. WE have given him our arguments, yet he decides to make this a personal battle. So I'm not sure how productive is to "talk" to Raghgl, when it seems that the only thing that matters to him is to get the things done his way.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I said that because you have made those kind of remarks against me in the past and called me a racist because i said that there were more indigenous peoples in Mexico than whites. YOU CALLED ME RACIST! If anyone has spread prejudice it's you! You had no right to call me racist against anyone just because you disagreed with what i said! I'm not even indigenous so the fact that you said i had prejudice against whites and mestizos was ridiculous and purely you venting on me because you didn't like the information that i presented! I don't think that the Aztec dancer represents a stereotype at all. In fact it seems like you just have some problem with showing the Aztec dancer because it does not adhere to the culture you have in your mind as being the "true" culture of Mexico. And in the above text you failed to mention how you were the one who said i was racist in the first place, and i did not say you are biased because you did not want the Aztec picture, i said you were biased because you called me racist for saying there are more indigenous peoples in Mexico than whites and how you kept changing the numbers in the demographics section so it would look like there are more whites than indigenous people behind my back even though the information i presented was cited and accurate information! You were the one that lied and tried to inflate the white population and then you call me racist for presenting accurate information that went against you! That is why you appear to be biased against indigenous! It also appears that you are biased against them because you won't put a picture of an indigenous dancer because you say it does not represent the culture of Mexico! IT DOES REPRESENT THE CULTURE OF MEXICO! If you think it gives Mexico the wrong image then that's a shame because it does represent Mexico and it should not make you think it's the wrong picture of Mexico for people to have. It is downright disrespectful to think of a certain aspect of Mexican culture as wrong! It's no different than saying the people that practice it are wrong! If you really think that it is a stereotype than i don't get you at all. There are indigenous dancers because there are indigenous peoples. Just because you think that it may not look good and you may think that it is a stereotype doesn't mean that it is not a true representative of a part of Mexican culture. There are indigenous peoples all over Mexico and there are still people that adhere to indigenous cultural ways, and that doesn't mean that they are not representing Mexican culture. Maybe not the culture of Mexico you know but, still it is representative of Mexican culture! If you don't think it does than i can't do anything to change that. Are you honestly saying that 30% of the population does not deserve a single picture on the culture section showing an interesting aspect of they're contribution to Mexican culture as a whole? I could say that the Jarabe Tapatío does not represent Indigenous culture of Mexico so why should that be up any more that the Aztec dancer? Rahlgd (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: The Aztec dancers are folkloric dancers since they are predominantly a custom of the common people (hence the name Folkloric). These dancers are also found in professional schools of dancing and theater across Mexico. They have a very wide presence all over Mexico (even in the U.S.) and vary in style from amateur to professional. I have seen Aztec and other native American style dancers perform in the prestigious Teatro Degollado in Guadalajara Jalisco alongside other folkloric dances. As the people in this discussion have already said: these sub-sections are stubs and only the most general and wide ranging elements should be used as brief narratives, details should be saved for the main articles. In short words, we must stick to the "stereotypes," that is, those images that are immediately identifiable by the widest audience possible as being Mexican for the sake of overview. Putting up an image of an Aztec dancer will not affect the article at all and they are just as legitimate as the Charro if anyone wants to argue that only Mexican folkloric images should be included.

Also, You guys have hit a very complex snag which is basically the tip of a social iceberg. I have noticed that there is an ongoing battle in the Mexican community over conflicting identities with some arguing towards the Hispanic image while the rest argue towards the indigenous image with the "mestizo" awkwardly stuck in the middle. It's no mystery that the poorest people in Mexico are the indigenous and the upper classes are predominantly white Hispanics. Mexican politics and the media contain a mostly white staff despite the fact that the majority of Mexicans are darker. The racism and racial stratification that is a legacy of colonialism is still very present in Mexican society and attitudes. Many Mexicans are just resentful of Hispanicism and want nothing to do with a Hispanic identity thus lean and identify with the indigenous ancestry and heritage and try to uproot the Hispanic element. This is happening because Mexicans are feeling discriminated in their own country as the Mexican media mostly caters to a white upper class audience and promotes a culture that feels alien and foreign to the common Mexican. This harbors a cultural cringe as a result of the upper entrepreneurial classes judging the common Mexican to be inherently inept at being independent and autonomous which causes them to have to import almost every complex and manufactured thing (technology, training, machinery etc) from Europe or the United States while at the same time diminishing incentive and initiative in Mexican society. The resulting inferiority complex is only exasperated by the government and the upper classes welcoming all types of foreign nationals while deliberately oppressing it's own people as it.

Now I think I have gone way off subject. I only wanted to give a very brief explanation of what is happening behind this seemingly simple debate. These are very murky waters in the middle of a storm so the best advice I can give here is to stick with the facts and keep idealism and opinion at bay. Keep it simple as well because if you get into too much detail you will end up with the paragraph I wrote above. The article should only include what is relevant and encyclopedic, I personally believe that pictures are better than plain text. The number of pictures should be limited to somewhere between 1 and 3 if the text is long enough, and they should be relevant to the subject. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ocelotl. I also think that folkloric indigenous dances are perfectly acceptable material for the Culture section. But the picture in question (source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dawn_perry/1120985813/), from a "Renaissance Fair," is a bizarre candidate to fill this role, as it doesn't represent any culture (Amerindian or European) appropriately. JorgeAranda (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowfall in Sierra Madre del Sur
I have never heard of such a thing... is there a reference? Snow is common in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (a.k.a. Sierra Nevada). In fact, the picture shows pine trees, which are not common of the Sierra Madre del Sur, but are very common of the Sierra Nevada. The author of the pic, describes it as "Snow in the mountains of central Mexico", but Sierra Madre del Sur does not cross central Mexico. -- the D únadan 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Improving the history section
I noticed that recently someone changed the history section by adding a heading that said 20th century. That got me thinking that maybe we could expand the history section and provide more in depth explanations of specific times or Era's like in the Russia article. I think this would be a great way to improve the article and it would give a lot more understanding especially if each section in the history area explained how these specific times effected the people and influenced specific cultural or societal aspects. If anyone has ideas please share them here. Thanks, Rahlgd (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted sentence from lead
I saw AlexCovarrubias and Bambuway working on this sentence in the lead: "Despite Mexico's position as an emerging power, the increase in drug-related violence and uneven income distribution remain issues of concern."

It appears that Mexico is a middle power and an emerging market. However, when I read the whole sentence, I started to feel that it is not quite right. Here's the problem: the structure of the sentence is "Despite the fact that X is true, Y is true." The use of the word "despite" suggests that one would expect Y not to be true when X is true but that in this particular case Y is surprisingly true. If we look at the list of middle powers in the middle power article and the list of Emerging markets, there are several other countries that also have drug-related violence (Colombia) and uneven income distribution (Brazil, India, Phillipines, Indonesia). Thus, I don't think the sentence gives the reader the right impression so I deleted it. There's no problem with either half of the sentence. It's just that when joined together with "Despite", the sentence implies something that is not true which is that it is exceptional for a middle power or an emerging market to have drug-related violence and/or uneven income distribution.

--Richard S (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. The sentence was misleading in many ways, especially for implying Mexico as a great power, and the idea of a drugs problem being rare for a middle power / emerging market. Bambuway (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think you're right, and I think that information doesn't belong in the lead paragraph not just for syntactical reasons. The lead paragraph should give a very broad overview of the article's topic; drug violence and income inequality are important topics in Mexican society, but I think better dealt with later in the article. So, I commend you for being bold. Moncrief (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexican period. Starts in 1910, not in 1821.
For some reason, the U.S. or Wikipedia considers Mexico as a country since 1821. That is a totally different and disrespectful point of view to the Mexicans'. Mexico will celebrate it's Bicentenary in 2010. For Mexicans an for nowadays Spanish too, Mexico is a country since 1910. The 100 year anniversary was in 1910. 2010 is the year of the big bicentennial celebrations. Wikipedia has to change their wrong and disrespectful point of view. In 1821 the Spaniards (the ones from Spain, the ones from Mexico considered themselves Mexicans) finally gave up and signed, but for Mexicans, this doesn't mean that they were not a country since 1910. This is true not only for Mexico, but for many other countries in Latin America, and if you have any doubt of it, Spain is going to be present in the bicentennial of all these Latin American countries. Spain also acknowledges 1910 as the big date. Why the U.S. doesn't? This is true in many references to the History of Texas, the history of Arizona, and many more, where they state that Arizona became independent from Spain in 1821. Mexicans had their own congress long before, even if the Spaniards repeteadely killed their leaders. That should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean 1810, not 1910? Moncrief (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

2009-2012
Typo noted:

"In the 2009-20012 Congress of the Union, seven parties are therein represented; four of them, however, have not received neither in this nor in previous congresses more than 4% of the national votes.[80]"

Should be changed to: "In the 2009-2012 Congress of the Union, seven parties are therein represented; four of them, however, have not received neither in this nor in previous congresses more than 4% of the national votes.[80]"


 * ✅ &mdash;  The   Earwig   @  17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

im jimmys friend \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.111.6 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Export partners is wrong
No way 30% of Mexican exports go to Brazil. That has to be corrected because that information is false.--88.24.242.195 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Old history of this page
The old history of this page from 2001 and most of 2002 can be found at Talk:Mexico/Old version. Graham 87 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico's official name is in Spanish
I am very confused and frustrated. One user is replacing the official name of Mexico to a strange version in Náhuatl language. I have reverted his changed twice but he seem not to understand. The infobox requires the official name of the country. The official name given in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", in Spanish.

On the other hand, this "issue" has been discussed in the past and the resolution has always been that the official name is in Spanish, even if it is a de facto language not officialized in any part of the constitution. There is no other official name for the country.

 Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm the person you mentioned as "One person", and I'd written the reason in the "edit summary". Again there's no federal official language of Mexico, even though Mexican Spanish is the current lingua franca. But lingua francais is by no means the official language. There're 63 government recognized "native languages", so the "|native_name = " should be filled the 63 native languages. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, no official language, but there is de facto language, the primary language and that is Spanish. But the most important thing here is that THERE IS an official name of the country IN SPANISH and it is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". There is no other official and native name. The name is in Spanish because it IS the native language, the mother language of present day Mexico.  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the Constitution of Mexico written is Spanish (or Mexican Spanish, as you may want to call it), or is it written in 64 (63 plus Spanish) languages? what is the official name in that document? Was it written (and approved/signed) in one of the native languages and then translated into Spanish and (possibly) the other 62 languages? what is the foficial name in that doc? Is it translated into 63 other languages or is it translated to 63 other langagues plus various others languages (such as English, French, etc) possibly without any other official approval? Maybe it was written in Spanish and then translated into the 63 other languages. what is the official name in those docs? You may want to call the original document the Constitution was written and signed/approved on, the official document, and work from there for what constitutes the official name of the country.

Consider also that, as it is the case with other countries, there may be more than one official language and, form there, more than one official name of the country, that is, an official country name in Spanish, an official country name in Náhuatl, and (who knows?) an official country name in English, French, German, etc for the rest of the world. Consider then what consititutes "official", Is official only something that is put out by the Federal Mexican government? Or is official also if some other official body says so? the Federal Mexican Judicial branch? the federal Mexican executive branch? or because it is the name for Mexico in the Int'l World Court of Justice? Or the UN???... maybe the United Nations has an official name for Mexico (in each of its 7 authorized languages)...?

Consider also that to the rest of the world the de facto language in Mexico is Spanish. I am not going to take the time here, but I believe we could easily find most (all?) international organizations state Spanish is the official language in Mexico IF they had to pick one from its 63 languages, just based on the fact it is the one most widely used there. This may help work out your differences. Just population the infobox field "Official county name" with one the country name in one of the 62 other recognized languages of Mexico just to make a point (in particular when Spanish is the lingua franca) doesn't do anyone any good.

Also if the issue has been discussed before, and resolved in favor of Spanish, you may want to show the wiki diff for such resolution. Issues that have received consensus among editors are very rarely changed again.

Further, be sure everyone understands (and agrees on) the difference between lingua franca (de facto) language, recognized language (or recognized native language), and official language.

Finally, I'd suggest you don't lose focus of the fact that the issue here is not, What is the official language of Mexico, but instead, what is the official name for Mexico. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Mercy11's approach is correct. As we know, Mexico does not have an official language, and all 63 languages are (at least in theory) equally valid. So the question is what is the official name of the country.


 * Let's keep in mind that the Constitution was written in Spanish. In fact, Mexico has had several constitutions through its history, and all of them have been originally written in Spanish. The Constitution refers to the country as "Estados Unidos Mexicanos".


 * I don't know if you could even find the Constitution written in all 63 languages. A search for Nahuatl suggests that a Nahuatl version will be published (for the first time?) this month: http://www.publimetro.cl/nota/noticias/publicaran-en-nahuatl-constitucion-mexicana/CPIjaB!Sx@zAynsSOSURIDRYug73g/


 * In summary, if there is such a thing as an "official name", it would be Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in Spanish. Wikipedia's own article on the Name of Mexico states as much. So Alex Covarrubias seems to be right. JorgeAranda (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can make a compromise and publish both. While Mexico's most spoken language by far is Spanish, the name Mexico is in fact derived from it's Nahuatl name, Mēxihco. The nation info box does not ask for the official name but for the native name so both can and should be present and if anything the Nahuatl has a more valid reason to be there but for the sake of reality Spanish must be included as well. And yes the Indigenous names all are equally as valid by law. The Spanish name should go under the common long name category of the Infobox. If i was to go to a government office and request official paperwork but i didn't speak Spanish and only Nahuatl then the government is legally obliged to provide me with those papers in Nahuatl, even though this dosen't happen many times it is law and these languages and their names for Mexico share just as much equal validity as Spanish. To answer another statement,the constitution has been published in Yucatec Mayan, Zapotec and it has been translated into Nahuatl before, so i don't know why they're making a big thing about it in that article, probably because it's the offial copy of the document translated by the Federal government. Regarding the comment that most people know Spanish to be the offical language of Mexico: Wikipedia is meant to explain true things not reinforce incorrect information even if most poeple incorrectly think that it's common knowledge. Based on the fact that Mēxihco is the native name given to Mexico i think it should be included. There are multiple names which can legally be regarded as legal official names fo Mexico, the same way that there are eleven legal official names for South Africa, in English, Afrikaans, Venda, Tsonga and other languages. And you can't say that Mexico's de facto official language is Spanish because there is no government odcument that says it is and many Mexican people still don't use Spanish as their main "de facto" language with some not even knowing how to speak Spanish. Rahlgd (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't there an issue of undue weight when you insist on adding the Nahuatl name but not the name in other native languages? You also frame the issue in a strange way, suggesting that providing the Spanish name is a magnanimous concession of some kind. Spanish is nothing less than Mexico's principal language. Nahuatl comes nowhere near the importance of Spanish in most areas of Mexican life. SamEV (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, "native name" means the local name, since that might differ from the English name. To give you an example: in English we refer to a particular country as "Germany", but its "native name", i.e. its local name, is "Deutschland". Why would we ask for a country's name in one of its indigenous language(s), but not the principal local name, if this happens to be in an introduced language? SamEV (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually in all honesty and fairness, I do think we should have the name in as many languages as possible, with a drop-down list as is used in the South Africa article, so yes if i did know what the name for the country was in other indigenous languages i would use them. The fact of the matter is that the original name that Mexico is derived from is it's Nahuatl name and i do think we should have the Spanish and Nahuatl names (I don't have a problem with leaving the Spanish name there as well. I am not the user that keeps removing the Spanish name.) I see no reason to remove the Nahuatl name if the Spanish name is kept. Spanish is the most spoken language in Mexico and therefore must be kept and the original name for Mexico is the Nahuatl name, Mēxihco so it should be kept as well. Rahlgd (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is shown to be merited for the country's name be given in all 63 languages (a big "if", IMO), then a drop-down list seems like the best solution. But until then you can't give so much undeserved weight to the Nahuatl name, even if Nahuatl is the most spoken of the native languages and the language of origin of the name "Mexico". And again, you seem to deliberately misunderstand what the "native name" parameter calls for. You're making a very specious argument. Nor can you equate the Mexico of today with the Aztecs's. SamEV (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I just want all of you to notice that despite the fact that the issue is still on discussion, Rahgdl has introduced again his personal POV, reverting not only my edit, but Jorge Aranda's and SamEV's. That's just plainly uncivil and very childish. Some points:


 * 1) This is not an "official language" discussion. There's a discussion about Mexico's official name.
 * 2) The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States is, and has been through history, the most important legal document regarding Mexico's political ordianance. It has always been discussed, written and approved by the members of the various congresses in Spanish. The Official name of the country has always been given in Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos or Estados-Unidos Mexicanos (in the older constitutions).
 * 3) Native language refers to "local language" as brightly pointed by SamEV. It differs from the Spanish primarily conception of the word "nativo" (because it can also be understood as it is in English). So we're not discussing about what language is the "origin" of the Spanish word México. Clearly that was Nahuatl, but the Official Name of the country was given in Spanish and in Spanish only, using the Spanish adjective "Mexicanos". So it may be derived from Nahuatl, but the native and official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The other "versions" in the varied indigenous languages are translations, and that doesn't mean there's 63 "official names". In that case, one should include Mexico's official name in German, Italian, Russian... because I'm sure there is translations to those languages too.
 * 4) There is an issue of Undue Weight when, as already noted by SamEV, user Rahgld tries to give the impression that Nahuatl is near the percentage of use of Spanish, when clearly it is not. That's a fact. So let's not fall into the hypocritical "poticial correctness". There's no need to include translations of the only official name of the country into 63+ languages, just because this user wants to include a Nahuatl translation. He seems to be willing to include all that many language just to conquer his personal agenda.

Thanks for reading and sorry if I'm a little agressive, but to be honest, I'm very desperated and frustrated. Why should one person change the stability gained in YEARS of honest work by several users, just based in loose arguments? Pardon me. =(  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to apologize. Your tone seems appropriate. And I agree that Rahgld may be enlisting the PC sensitivies [sensibilities] that most of us at WP have. But PC is something to avoid in our editing. SamEV (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the following points:
 * Mexico's native languages includes 63 official recognized national languages
 * Here, we're NOT talking about the "primary language", "official language", "de facto language" or "lingua franca" (even if we're talking about that, Spanish is not a "official language" of Mexico, merely a "de facto official", we need a de jure one). Native languages, means all language origined, developed and used in Mexico. Spanish is a language developed and used in Mexico, but not origined in, so it's a half-native language, and we placed it in the last place. The 63 official recognized national languages are origined, developed and used in Mexico, they're the real native languages. Till now, I mentioned nothing about "native name" - we should clear what is native language first, and then the concept of native name can be easily derived.
 * We should fill the native name, and "native name"="name in native language"
 * In the previous discussion, AlexCovarrubias explains that we shou use the "native name", which does not equals to "names in native language". But in Infobox country it explains "|native_name" as "Long-form name in native language", so we ARE talking about native LANGUAGE, for native name is EXACTLY name in NATIVE LANGUAGE according to Wikipedia rules. We need to follow the Wikipedia style - if there're a "|lingua_franca" tab I will straight out fill Mexican Spanish.
 * --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. There is no official language, nor 63 official languages. No legal document gives any language the status of "official". Indigenous languages are considered only "national" languages just as Spanish. However, Spanish is by far the most used (98% +) and the lingua franca or de facto language.  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Nahuatl translations of the Mexican constitution the official name of The United Mexican States is given as Mēxihcatl Tlacetilīlli Tlahtohcāyōtl which translates literally into "Mexican United States" this proves that the Spanish name is the official name only in Spanish not in all languages. And for some reason you seem to have the concept that the Spanish name is the only "local language" which is incorrect as all languages which are legally national languages are local languages. The reason that the country's Spanish name was given in the constitution was because the document was written in Spanish. I am not trying to say that Nahuatl is as widely spoken as Spanish but i am saying it is just as valid a name to add. And you said "Why should one person change the stability gained in YEARS of honest work by several users, just based in loose arguments?" well just because something is stable dosen't mean it's correct and even if there is only one user trying to change something than they have a right too if they have a credible reason to change something. And by the way there are multiple editors arguing for this not only me. Things shouldn't be left the way they are just because they have been like that for a long time. If that was the argument given than no progress would ever be made. And please don't give the argument that i am being uncivil by reverting edits because you do the exact same thing to me and 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) and i provided reason and explanation of my changes. Rahlgd (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right that stable doesn't mean right, necessarily. But stability means something, and Wikipedia etiquette asks that in a situation where your position is not the majority position or is controversial you refrain from unilateral changes and try to achieve consensus via discussion, instead of edit warring. SamEV (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, nobody has provided a link or scan to see the Nahuatl translation of the Mexican Constitution, just to see if the name is given in Nahuatl or Spanish. And however and most importantly, if they translated the name that doesn't mean it is "another" official name (used in legal documents, the Seal of the UMS, coins, bills). Should we consider the name "United Mexican States" an official name, because of the English translation? .  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  07:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep an even position while we figure this out by keeping both the Nahuatl and Spanish but you keep deleting the Nahuatl and Yucatec Maya therefore not giving a fair balance for the time being. Please leave both until we all reach a consensus. Rahlgd (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On replying to SamEV: Stable means "something", something that this article was once be in a consensus among the initial contributors, but this means by no means the article will be forever stable. Wikipedia is not a patent of initial contributor, and articles are not eternal. As the time elasps, when someone find a flaw, we need to put it into discussion. So give your comment to "I have the following points: " on the talk page before revert my edits. Thank you. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found nothing of substance in your previous comments; that's why I didn't reply. I only saw the same misunderstanding of "native name" that Rahgld has.
 * Sure, consensuses change. But right now you guys are clearly outnumbered, so it behooves you to respect the majority and seek to sort this out via discussion with us. (Have a look at Consensus) I repeat: it's not as if you can claim to represent consensus or even the position of most of the editors who are discussing this matter, so you have no business acting as you are. SamEV (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to disentangle this. There are two sets of edits going on simultaneously here. The first is about the "native name" of the country in the infobox. The second is the list of names and pronunciations of the country in several of its languages in the first paragraph of the article.

Regarding the infobox edits, a comparison with other countries is useful. The articles on Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, among others, show their names in English and Spanish only, even though they have other official languages as well. The infobox on the United States article does not acknowledge any native languages. The article on Spain has the name in Spanish (Castillian), but not in Basque, Catalan, or any other of its languages. For the People's Republic of China we get what I think is Mandarin and Cantonese, but not any of its other recognized languages. The article on South Africa, as has already been pointed out, has the name in English and a drop down with the other ten official languages of the country.

I think the example of South Africa is the most enlightened: by default the list of names does not distract from the content of the article, but readers can easily see the name of the country in its other official languages if they wish to. So, considering that significant minorities of Mexico speak Nahuatl (about 1.5%) and Yucatec Maya (about 1%), perhaps we could reach a compromise by including the name of the country in those languages in a drop down list, as with South Africa. We could also include the name of the country in its other commonly used languages. If the list becomes unwieldy (at 63, it would), a separate page with the list of names could be created.

Regarding the first paragraph of the article, can we agree that it has become too cluttered with the latest additions? None of the articles of the other countries that I listed include the name and pronunciation of the country in more than one of its official or recognized languages. Considering that Spanish is the lingua franca in Mexico, I see no reason to clutter the paragraph with all of the other names and pronunciations. JorgeAranda (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SamEV (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree only with including the pronunciation on lead paragraph in Spanish (because of linga franca fact), because with other languages it'll be too cluttered. As for the drop down list, I don't agree. Just because the name of the country is translated to other languages, that doesn't mean they are "official" names. Also the drop down list in the article South Africa does have a reference that shows that all of the 11 names are official. That can't be proved for Mexico's name. The only official name, used in legal documents, coins, bills and the seal of the UMS is in Spanish. Should we also include Mexico's name in German, English, Chinese or Korean? Because there's also translations to those languages. Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuation...
Hello everyone, I just read the whole discution, and IMHO I don't think it's a good idea to put all the Amerindian languages in a list form either. Mexico's de facto language is Spanish, it is spoken by more than 97% of the population and it is indeed almost the "native language" of the country if you will, for better or for worst it has been the main language of Mexico ever since its creation (back in the New Spain). I'm all in favour of mentioning the other amerindian languages that exist in the country in their respective section, but trying to put them in the same level as Spanish is realistically speaking not true. If there were just a few Amerindian languages (such as South Africa's case) I could agree to put them in a list, but there are 62 of them, we just can't put them all, and selecting some of them over others is completely arbitrary and "unfair" to the rest of them.

As Jorge Aranda mentioned above, let's look at the examples from other articles, Spain for example does have a real linguistic diversity, almost every region has its own language and its inhabitants do speak that language along with Spanish, nonetheless the Spain article only shows Spanish in its infobox. Now Mexico unlike Spain does not have a real multilinguistic society, almost all of Mexico's population speaks Spanish only, don't you think it's a bit too pushy trying to over highlight these Amerindian languages despites the fact that they don't play a bigger roll than say Welsh does in the UK or Alsatian does in France? Again for better or for worst that's just the way it is. Supaman89 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think it's too pushy to bring Nahuatl and other Amerindian languages front and center, and particularly to give the impression that they are at similar levels of usage in Mexico as Spanish is. I liked the South Africa example because it is not intrusive ---although, as Alex points out, South Africa differs from Mexico in that it recognizes those eleven languages as official--- and because it could serve as a guide to solve this. Personally I am OK either with the article as it was before this discussion or as it would be if the South Africa example was followed. JorgeAranda (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind. I have throughout remained convinced that so far the other side hasn't shown that any of the Amerindian languages should be treated on a par with Spanish in Mexico. So I vote to show only the Spanish name and the English translation in both the lead and the infobox. SamEV (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think that we should only have the Spanish official name (after all it is the only official name) in the lead and in the infobox. I just found in the website of the Presidency of the Republic an English text in which it is clearly stated that the official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (in Spanish, not translated to English). I have added that source to the article and to me, that source ends the debate. Adding translations to Nahuatl and other indigenous languages is too pushy and a problem of undue weight.  Alex  Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving for somedays, and these days I'll not edit the article. But this means nothing for my attitude of this issue, that is, I keep the right of state "still not consensus" and edit this article when I'm back in Feb. 23rd GMT+8. Have a good day! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncivil threats like this will not be welcomed. You have the right to disagree but you do not have the right to threat us with an edit war saying that no matter what the sources say, or the majority say, you will edit because of your personal opinion. Opinions are subjective and do not count as a source. In fact Wikipedia rejects them.


 * So far there is a source indicating that the official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Adding other translations to other languages will be considered undue weight and most importantly, will be unsourced changes. So we keep the right to state the notion of unsourced changes, vandalism, edit warring and acting against majority, unless a reference indicating directly that the official name of Mexico is in a certain language or languages. I urge my fellow editors to say something about this threat.  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Alex. 虞海, it seems to me that your objections have been properly and thoroughly discussed, and that instead of acknowledging this discussion you are threatening to plow ahead and try to impose your opinion. Please refrain from doing so ---consensus is not supposed to be established through bullying, but through good will and debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeAranda (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean, Alex. Let's keep it as it currently is.
 * Excellent source! I forgot to say so in my comment 12 hours ago.
 * I urge Yú Hǎi to be reasonable and take back his threat. No way should he expect to accomplish anything with that attitude. And in fact, the source Alex added actually says that Spanish is the official language of the land, so if anything Yú Hǎi and Rahlgd should credit Alex and the rest of us with moderation for not adding that as well. SamEV (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Uncivil threats" is merely your subjective assumption, distortion or attack to me, because I did never claim an edit war, and I'm nobody here for you to point. I said "keep the right" just in case any ulterior man (if exist, it's reasonable to beware the worst case that can be predicted) say I've reached the consensus with you. Now I'm back here in time at 9:29 Feb. 23rd GMT+8 and will post my points after I have a rest. And of course, I'll post my edit to the article after I refute and point out the flaws your points about native languages. Perhaps, someone will then refute me, then the state of the article will be kept in his/her edit from his edit to my next refute posted. The edits of the article should never stop unless all members in one side are persuaded. This is by no means a edit-war imposed by somebody, but all constructive edits - the presentative switching back and forth should not cover the essence renewing of the article: to make the article always represent the latest point, the up-to-date debating result and opinions with the time to the readers.--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply but the issue has already been solved. The official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Don't even bother to play the "card" of "native language", because accordingly with the other country articles, "native" means "local". Everybody can see that, at least, the editor involved in this past debate.  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  09:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a second citation (CIA World Fact Book) that indicates Mexico's local name is the Spanish language Estados Unidos Mexicanos. This brings to 2 the number of sources complying with WP:RS that attest that Mexico's official local name is the Spanish language Estados Unidos Mexicanos vs. 0 for the number of reliable sources attesting the official local name is the Nahuatl language Mēxihcatl Tlacetilīlli Tlahtohcāyōtl. I am of the opinion that this is now a closed matter. I am also of the opinion that any further discussion here will most likely be an exercise in futility. Should further discussion be warranted I remind everyone that there are other options available: wp:dr, wp:an, and wp:civil. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I consider the issue to be resolved. Further activity should be a matter of providing reliable sources, by the other side, since Alex and Mercy already have on ours. Reversion of the current content is absolutely not justified without RS. SamEV (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I post that comment just in case such statement "I consider the issue to be resolved" occurs, but it still happens. That's ok, I've had a sleep for a whole day and now I'm energetic and refuting your statement now. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuation_2
Now I'm interpreting my "I have the following points" and giving a response to SamEV's "nothing of substance" inference, AlexCovarrubias's "most used (98% +) - lingua franca - non-official" point (it's just one of my points), JorgeAranda's amount-otherstuff argument and other comments that may exists. And after --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) My "I have the following points" and SamEV's "nothing of substance" inference: There is substance-support for my previous comments: my first point "Mexico's native languages includes 63 official recognized national languages" is strictly based on English Wiktionary "native language" explanation 1. It explains native language is the language of a native or aboriginal people. It's not to deny that this meaning is used "often capitalized", but "often" is by no means "must", the meaning itself is used more frequently than the second explanation "one's first language, learned in early childhood" even when not capitalized. Capitalization in English is not strictly-used: if I wrote "MEXICO'S NATIVE LANGUAGES INCLUDES 63 OFFICIAL RECOGNIZED NATIONAL LANGUAGES" you can never tell me whether it's capitalized, and I didn't do that because I needn't to be so unconfident to emphasize everything by capitalization. Anyway, the fact here is the first explaination should be considered before the second one, so a native language means the language of a native or aboriginal people and thus Spanish is not a native language of Mexico. My second point is also based on a Wikipedia articles or rules, which I've already mentioned as Infobox country "|native_name" before. My standpoint is: unless the anybody modified "Infobox country '|native_name'" or "native language" to a "native language is Spanish"-friendly version without any controversy (I'll dispute that first if someone change them, so you need to convince me first), then those articles in Wikipedia support my point and the state of this article should be kept as my edits.
 * 2) SamEV's "outnumbered" statement: What's this? Polling? Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. So please don't say "it behooves you to respect the majority", and I have no obligation to "respect the majority". Also, your "majority" is not convincing enough: remember there is WP:LEADER effect and many potential supporter for my points - those real native Americans who live where Internet is unreachable (of course, they're a part of native Americans, who keep their traditional lifestyle, not all native Americans). So don't revert my edits due to "no consensus".
 * 3) AlexCovarrubias's "most used (98% +) - lingua franca - non-official" point: I did never say the 63 native languages are 63 official languages, it's needless and no-motivation on me to do that. I said they're "63 official recognized national languages". And I did never deny that Spanish is the most used (98% +) - lingua franca of Mexico, on the contrary, I directly accepted that by saying "even though Mexican Spanish is the current lingua franca". However, marking a language as lingua franca can do nothing to our native language discussion, unless you can change the English Wiktionary "native language" the definition of "native language" here without any controversy.
 * 4) JorgeAranda's amount-otherstuff argument: It's true that other stuff exists, for example, the People's Republic of China, but irrelevant to this article. See: Other stuff exists. By the way, it would be grateful if you modify the article People's Republic of China - if you do that, I can provide you some information you might need: In "中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法", it says "国家机关以普通话和规范汉字为公务用语用字. 法律另有规定的除外. ", that is, Standard Mandarin is "language and script of official business" (公务用语用字), but "except as otherwise provided by law". So you can add minority languages. I'll thank you if you do that change for publicize China's regional autonomy for minorities policy. 
 * 5) other comments that may exists: Any body has any other opinions here, just paste here.


 * Very clever of you to change your initial points once you saw they were unsustainable, because you first told us that there were 63 "official languages". Now you play the card of "native language". Althought "native" may mean "aboriginal" it also means "local". Everybody can see this except you.


 * The infobox is not a historical or linguistic infobox, but a general information box. That means that "native" means local in there. The way it has been filled in the several other country articles proves this. In the case of South Africa, they included the official name in other languages because the name of the country IS official in other languages. That's not the case of Mexico. Also I'm shocked how you used the presidency reference to support your own assertions, but failed to read the part where it states that Spanish is the official language of Mexico.


 * I think it is Original Research and mostly Undue weight to have a selection of languages in the lead, especially when they do not represent Mexico's reality. As Jorge said it is too pushy, it's undue weight. Everyone accepted this fact, so you're basicly pushing your POV and bias being "bold". You are just being disruptive.


 * So basicly: in the infobox native means local form, the official name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos in Spanish and having a selection (out of 63!) of barely spoken languages is just undue weight and highly inaproppiate for a lead paragraph. Your changes are being reverted. You proved nothing.  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not make attack, I didn't change my initial points! Even though I won't reply for your other refutes today, I ask you to either find the exact place where I says 63 native languages are official language or apologize for your definition of my last comment by imposing - "to change your initial points once you saw they were unsustainable". For other comments you posted, I'll reply anotherday, so now I won't revert your edit temporarily. Again that I have never say those 63 language are official language. Here's a list of what I have said:
 * There're 63 government recognized "native languages"
 * Again there's no federal official language of Mexico, even though Mexican Spanish is the current lingua franca.
 * Mexico's native languages includes 63 official recognized national languages
 * Those all are what I said, and I don't think it's a good way to impose other a definition. This is a talk page, not a denigrate place. You can have different opinion and you can refute me, but not imputation me.
 * --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)(UTC)

Yú Hǎi, it seems that the source of the disagreement is that you interpret native language in the Infobox as language of Aboriginal people, whereas we, and the great majority of editors for the rest of the Country articles where this box appears, interpret it as local language. We've tried to explain this several times. The role of the Infobox is to provide some basic demographic information about the country, not to give a lesson about where the name "Mexico" originally comes from, nor to highlight the linguistic richness of the country. The edits you propose detract from the goal of the Infobox. They are even more out of place in the lead paragraph of the main article. JorgeAranda (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jorge makes an excelent point. The infobox was modeled after the CIA and other encylopedias info boxes, where there are several parameters such as the common name in English, the long-form name or official English name and the local names. Most importantly, all of the other country articles use the "native name" as "local name": it was ment to be that way!. Mexico's official name is in Spanish, period. The origin of the Spanish word "México" is the Náhuatl word "Meshico" and it is very well described in the subarticle and the article dedicated to that linguistic and very interesting fact.


 * Now, there's no official and no Náhuatl origin for "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". There is a Náhuatl origin for the Spanish word "México", but not for the official name. Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yú Hǎi,
 * 1. That looks like pure original research to me.
 * 2. I didn't mean that you should have abandoned your position. I meant that you should have left the majority's version up until the issue was resolved by discussion. Also, Don't revert due to "no consensus" doesn't apply, because we'd given you reasons, and what that essay says is that "no consensus" shouldn't be the only reason given.
 * Now if you're so kind, Yú Hǎi, allow me to quote from WikiProject_Countries. In regard to the infobox parameters, it reads (with my emphasis added): "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s)." And "The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article."
 * Yú see? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) And as you (Y.H.) seem to acknowledge, there are no other official languages beside Spanish in Mexico. SamEV (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your info. Very enlightening. It is very clear now that the only official name of the country is in Spanish and that the infobox was created to display that name, not the "aboriginal" name. However, there's no "aboriginal" name for the United Mexican States. Only the Spanish word México has Náhuatl origin, but not "Estados Unidos Mexicanos".  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It has taken me a lot of time to read the discussion, and I hope I didn't miss anything. I just want to give my two cents:
 * First, Wikipedia is the only source (to my knowledge, and excluding wiki-mirrors) to claim that Spanish is simply a de facto language in Mexico, simply because some users could not find an article in the Mexican constitution that declare it as the official language. In their logic, if it is not in the constitution it is not "official", and therefore not de jure. I haven't found any printed reputable publication that says that Spanish is just a de facto official language. Yet, I have found plenty of reputable sources that state that Spanish is the official language in Mexico (of which Britannica is one). As a side note, the German constitution does not declare that German is the official language of Germany, and yet, it is the official language of Germany.
 * Secondly, the term Mēxihcatl Tlacetilīlli Tlahtohcāyōtl is a neologism created in the Nahuatl Wikipedia. You will not find it in any other reputable printed or electronic source (excluding wiki-mirrors). Moreover, this neologism is written—as is the nah.wiki—in Classical Nahuatl, an extinct language. (In fact, the decision of using Classical Nahuatl instead of one of the living Nahuatl languages in nah.wiki was not without controversy). Even before the conquest and with the passage of time, Nahuatl split into several mutually unintelligible dialects which are so different that according to some linguists they actually constitute different languages (more than 20). Until very recently, there was no institution that regulated the Nahuatl languages, and several different spelling conventions have been used for the different languages. (For example, the Bible has been translated into different Nahuatl languages using different spellings—in fact, in some cases the Bible remains the only published book in some Mexican languages, due to the small number of speakers). The Ministry of Education recently came up with a "modern" spelling convention to be used by all Nahuatl languages, that did away with the Classic hu and cu, replacing them with w and kw respectively (e.g. nawatl or nawat [Nahuatl]). Unfortunately, the use of the modern convention has not become widespread, and there is some confusions, and in some regions, if Nahuatl is written at all, they would use whatever "traditional" convention locals can understand. If an official document is ever translated into a Nahuatl language (and I would love to see one) it will not make use of the neologism Mēxihcatl Tlacetilīlli Tlahtohcāyōtl of the Classical Nahuatl, but something much different depending on the Nahuatl language. Please note what the government calls "Nahuatl" is actually a group of languages, not one.
 * Finally, the Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was former president Fox's attempt meet some the zapatistas demands in 2003. Its main purpose was to ensure that individuals from indigenous communities would not be discriminated against, especially in a judicial process because they couldn't speak Spanish. The Law states, literally, that "the indigenous languages that are recognized in the terms of this Law, and the Spanish [language] are national languages due to their historical origin, and have the same validity in their territory, location and the context in which they are spoken" (art. 4, emphasis mine). The validity of the indigenous languages is limited to the territories in which they are spoken (i.e. they are not declared official languages of all 31 states), and in the context in which they are spoken (which, if you continue reading the law, these "context" refers to any judicial process or whenever they need to request specific documentation or to when they need communicate with government officials ).
 * To reinterpret this law to prove that a non-official translation (or rather a loose translation done in an extinct language by a Wikipedia user) of the official name of the country must be official borders on WP:OR. To accept such a claim we need an official document in a Nahuatl language so that we can prove that (a) the official name of the country is translated (I've seen some documents that do not translate "Mexico" ) and if so, (b) what is the actual way of saying "the United Mexican States" in that particular Nahuatl language. If the translation is provided for all national languages, then the proposed drop-down list will not contain 63 official names, but rather over 200 possible official names. Remember, just as "Náhuatl" groups several mutually unintelligible languages, each of which will have a different translation, so will be the case of many of the other 61 indigenous languages. (Please refer to the link I provided above about the indigenous languages of Mexico, and how they are classified).
 * -- the D únadan 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome. SamEV (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dúnadan for your comments. Very interesting and in tone with the sources already presented aswell with the thoughts of all the users (minus one).  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  21:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You commented after my unfinished reply, and consequently I'd have to move my unfinished reply here before finish it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Till now, <!--You argued that the infobox is not a historical or linguistic infobox, but ＃ Your inference seems without a reference. The infobox itself did not say it shouldn't contain any historical or linguistic information. And to define the usage of the infobox is not what we can do - it needs a more wide discussion, a discussion that not only those who're discussing Mexico should join, but all those who're discussing a certian country should join. ＃ Even if this infobox shouldn't contain any historical or linguistic information, your logic is untenable because local language, or lingua franca, is linguistic and ethnical.

And you mentioned South Africa, that's still irrelevant. In fact as the same logic I can refer USA: English is the lingua franca but they did only fill "none at federal level" on "official language".

Here's a group of expressions from you, and since those expressions are not systematic enough to be a point, I'm replying those by sentences:

"Undue weight": You also say to choose 3 most common aboriginal languages is unfair. That's right. But why to choose a most common language is fair? Moreover, I'm adding those languages one by one, and I didn't say I'll only add 3. So the undue weight problem does not exist - at least after I add them one by one this problem does not exist.

"Original Research": <Big>This claim seems quite strange: I cited reference for every my inference, but you always point at me without reference, such as "change your initial points", "'native' means 'local'", etc. </Big>

"no official and no Náhuatl origin" for EUM: Sorry, but we're not talking about the origin language, but the native language.

"the great majority of editors for the rest of the Country articles where this box appears, interpret it as local language": that's a

"Wikipedia:Don't revert due to 'no consensus' doesn't apply, because we'd given you reasons" that's right! So do not complain when i revert your edits because I did also give reasons.

"o I'm shocked how you used the presidency reference to support your own assertions, but failed to read the part where "

"The WikiProject Countries quotation" seems somewhat persuasive, and I'll reply in following paragraphes.


 * 1) The WikiProject Countries is a third party project and it's not a substitute for the original explaination of the original documentation of the template, nevertheless a WikiProject can be an assistant explanation for a template. And since the efficacy of that explanation is hard to debate and will bring us to a deviate domain, it's the last choice I would like to use. Here I'd like to point out a far important reason as follows.
 * 2) "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption" is what I did. The statement did not say we should use only "official long-form name", it merely point out a special case of native language - it tell us the a language that is both official name and local language IS a native name without ruling out other languages. And for those languages, since the..., other... is required, and as a result ... You proved Spanish is a native language, but failed to prove any native language must be Spanish, while I proved those language of a native or aboriginal is native language.

Still, you're emphasizing "official name" even though you do no longer emphasize "official language". Again the native name is name in native language and you fail to prove here we should use the second description of native language. So the first explaination - language of natives or aboriginals - should be used.

...writing-styles...Replied carefully...time elapsing...July

Pending... Please do not archive it this year.

-->...not finished (unfinished reply)...--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)