Talk:Poverty in Mexico

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drizzlestein, Lexicajilig. Peer reviewers: Conghuiw, Jjcarhar2024.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
I have found many neutrality issues such as irrelevant comparations that tend to be written to give a bad image, weasel words and some figures that are very different from other sources. So the neutrality tag has been added. I'll try to read the whole article again, verify sources and correct whatever need to be corrected.

If somebody else can help it would be greatly appreciated.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
~Before you decide to edit another person's article with "says who", take the time to read the citations that the author took his or her time to include. I think this will clarify "who" said what. It is annoying removing a second party's remarks from an article that I plan to use. I think we are smart enough to figure out what is opinion, and we know to double check figures for accuracy. To the author, thank you. The article will be used to spark classroom discussion about the issue, and to promote good reader strategies. 8.225.215.154 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, 8.225.215.154, and congratulations on your first edit. To answer your question, the main issue isn't the citations; it is that the statements must conform with WP:NPOV to be included in Wikipedia. Concisely, WP:NPOV is the official consensus that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." The author of the article provides a detailed assessment of the topic, but opinions shouldn't be presented as facts without presenting opinions and conflicting findings in a neutral tone. The opinions that the author presents in the article should be attributed to their sources because the point of references is to verify the source's factual accuracy. Wikipedia isn't about a "classroom discussion"—it's about providing objectivity so that the reader is presented with facts instead of bias. --Apollo1758 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in this article
As stated in WP rules and the template itself, it must not be removed: :"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

This article is plagued with a very limited POV that must be fixed. More additions and fixes are upcoming. Dear editors, follow WP rules and avoid violating them.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  22:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You will have to actually say what the issues you perceive to be biased are and give suggestions to how to solve them. Otherwise there is no way for the dispute to be resolved. Unless you try to formulate what it is you see as problems in concrete terms - the tag has no reason to be there since then it basically just means that you take exception to the notion that wikipedia should describe the existence of poverty in Mexico. Wikipedia is not censored. I will proceed to remove it again - and if you reinsert it with out giving concrete examples of the bias you perceive I will report you for disruptive editing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm responding to a 3rd opinion request. I looked at the article, and I agree that it has significant WP:NPOV issues.
 * For instance the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph attributes poverty in Mexico to "tardiness in establishing social development as a national priority." This is a value judgment that is not clearly labeled, and it almost certainly reflects a particular political point of view, rather than a consensus among informed experts. The way I understand the NPOV guidelines, this statement would have to be clearly marked as the opinion of a specific party in order to conform, rather than being represented as a simple fact.
 * The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph, which begins "some economists," introduces a weasel word. The first sentence of the section "regional segragation" reads "As reforms have taken place, the southern states have remained forgotten." This also seems be a political opinion that suggests questions like "forgotten by who?" and "how can this be cited?"
 * the 2nd sentence of "causes of poverty" reads "There is a consensual agreement that a combination of uneven distribution of wealth and resources sponsored by economic and political agendas to favor the rich and powerful is a major contributor to the millions left behind." This is clearly the point of view of a person writing from the left of a political debate. I'm sure if we looked into this we would find people writing from the right who attribute Mexico's poverty to state ownership of important industries (PEMEX, etc.) and overregulation.
 * In my opinion the article needs a good deal of attention to clear up these and similar issues, and the tag should stay up. However, since the tag directs people to the talk page to see what the issues are, the talk page should probably include some description of the specific issue. I would describe that issue as language that reads more like a political speech than an encyclopedia article. Hope that helps. Carinae986 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, but am reinserting the tag since at least you have formulated a concrete concern instead of just a general statement of disagreement. For the record by the way I have not contributed to this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is very outdated
I was revising the sources used in this article and i've found that several data as back as 2008 and some even 2003, with no mention that many don't exist anymore, these poverty figures don't apply to Mexico anymore, first there is this that comes from the CONEVAL it is an study that asserts that 44% of mexicans live in poverty, however, in the 3rd paragraph it says that 17% of mexicans live in Mexico's own poverty line, to make things more confuse it says that in 2008 mexico's poverty was of 33%, which is 11% less than what the very first sentence says, it's rather inconsistent and weird. Now, that source's more recent figures are from 2008 so it's outdated as of now, it is also contradicted by studies realized by the UN (picture in the right) that asserts that less than 2% of mexicans live below the international poverty line set by the UN. A newer study made in 2013 the INEGI (Mexico's National Institute of Geographical Statistics) sorts the economical classes of Mexico as the following :

Upper class: 2.50%

Mid class: 42.42%

Working class: 55.08%

Aditionaly the mexican goverment figures regarding the number of mexicans suffering of extreme poverty (food insecurity included) as of 2013, are of 7.4 millions (6% of Mexico's total population)

I'm replacing the old study with this one because it is more consistent and seems to match with the numbers that UN has for Mexico. Czixhc (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't replace that study with this one. They are showing different things. The other one is about poverty where as this one is about class structure which is not the same. We'll have to include both.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course this study can replace the old one, this document adresses the poverty in the same way that the old CONEVAL one does: as a thing different of social classes, this study covers both areas, the socioeconomic levels and the poverty in a updated manner accord to Mexican census, in fact, one of it's conclusions (in page 7) is that "Poverty isn't a social class, but a condition that is more proclive to be present in the lower class, which may be caused by catastrophic events in a home such as the dead of the leader of the family" therefore, the article adresses poverty in the same way that CONEVAL does, while aditionaly adressing the size of the social classes. The meditions you refer to regarding the 42% doesn't mean that these persons are below the poverty line, but that in case of a catastrophic event these people would be more proclive to fall in poverty. These are two completely different things and the misinterpretation of these has been what has led to this article to sugest that nearly a half of the mexican population is living in huts, which is nowhere near the truth, and the UN maps prove it. Czixhc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't replace the old one, it doesn't claim to either. In fact it doesn't even claim to be a finished study but very clearly describes itself as a preliminary result.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You also appear to be misrepresenting the INEGI study on class structure. You are giving the numbers of homes not of people, 2.5% of the countrys homes are upper class homes, but only 1.7% of the population live in those homes. On the other hand 55.08% are lower class (not working class) homes but 59% live there. And the middle class lives in 42.2% of homes, but only constitutes 39,2% of the population. INEGI stress that being defined as lower class in this study is not defined in relation to poverty and that the number of people living in poverty is not strictly correlated with the variables they used to define the class structure. The point of this study is about the growth of the middle class not about poverty. The only figure in the report that seems to give a number related to poverty is the one on page 7 which looks as if it is saying that 42.6 percent of the population lives in poverty which seems entirely consistent with the 2008 numbers from CONEVAL - poverty may simply have fallen 2% from 2008 or they use slightly different ways of calculating. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we can't include both meditions, the one regarding homes and the one regarding people (though the one regarding homes would be way more accurate.) Again, the study in page 7 in no way "looks as if it's saying that 42.6 percent of the country lives in poverty" it says that 42% of the population would be proclive to fall in poverty in case of a catastrophic event, in no way it is the same thing than these people living on poverty and you assuming what things mean instead of looking up for their real meaning so it can fit with what you want is wrong. Czixhc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right it is not the same thing. But the study doesn't give an actual figure for people living in poverty, but only for people in the lower class who they mention are more prone to fall into poverty. The degree of actually poor people coudl be the entire lower class or just a couple of percent of it - based on this study we can't tell.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And the Milenio article is not a reliable source for any of this. We have no idea what study the "functionary of Sedesol" is citing when arriving at the number 7.4 millions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Milenio article is reliable, it's the equivalent of CNN prestige-wise in Mexican media, and SEDESOL is a governmental dependency, therefore the numbers that are being given are the numbers that the federal government itself has calculated. Finally, not sure what you mean when you say that the method to get the 7.4 millions number was not stated, in fact it was. Milenio has prestige and is a reliable source. Again, is not up to you to decide what is reliable and what is not. If it's reliable for wikipedia policies and guidelines then it's reliable, no further discussion is needed. Czixhc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The UN map is based on a completely different poverty criterion than the one used by the government of Mexico and is not really informative in comparison.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The map of UN is necessary to show the contrast of the poverty line that the mexican government has set and to compare it with the international poverty line. It isn't replacing the information given by the mexican government but cpontrasting it with international criteria, there is no reason to notinclude it. Czixhc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In conclusion this document is not only new, it's also more complete and explains with detail how poverty is measured in Mexico and how society has progressed. It might result rather surprising for you or another editors that aren't living on Mexico, but the country has improved much in 4 years, in 2012 it acheived Universal healthcare, and nowadays it's one of the countries with the lowest unemployment rate , the country has progressed, and this article don't reflects it, it's stuck with 2008 data. The changes can't wait and there is no real reason to not update this article. Czixhc (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may add the data if you think it is useful, but don't remove the data that is already there because it is not comparable and it doesn't provide detailed information about poverty levels.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The World bank, using INEGI data from 2010 (the same year your INEGI study uses) gives a poverty rate of 51,3%. Mexico consistently comes out on top when it comes to income inequality with Chile and Brazil the only real contenders. These maps of course should also be featured prominently in the article to give balance. We can't just present one particuklar study in the map because it happens to paint Mexico in the same color as the US.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that would be good to merge data from more than one source, i searched for World bank figures and i found the results on which the map i posted above was based upon they seem to be correct, so, while mexico's national poverty line (or, to be better said, people on risk of falling in poverty) is of 40-50%, the world bank ranks Mexico very well in regards of population living below the international poverty line. Due all of this i believe that an apointment regarding this differences has to be included, alongside the map. Another issue i have is the chart at the beggining of the article, things such as total population, health care coberture, school dropout rate and extreme poverty numbers aren't the same anymore. I believe that we have to design a new chart based on data from the 2013 INEGI's study regarding social class and use INEGI's figures (33%-44% or 42% for 2013 which as you said is consistent with CONEVAL's numbers) but it's very important to specify that Mexico's poverty line have always been measured as the number of people on risk of falling in poverty if the leader of the home dies, not people already living in poverty. We have to include world bank's data and map too. there is also dead links that have to be removed, opinions before starting? Czixhc (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be weird if it is true that INEGI has always used the risk of falling into poverty as the criterion of poverty, because in the study you presnet (which is not an official report, but a preliminary one) they clearly distinguish between the two categories calling the latter "poverty" and the former "lower class". The chart should not be changed until there is a study of comparable quality which the preliminary INEGI study is not. It states quite clearly that it is based on 2008 numbers and shouldnt confuse anyone.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's in fact how INEGI measures poverty, the study i present is not preliminar (don't be confused with the statements in the first page, it says "...with the objetive of share information regarding topics of interest for the public opinion, that as of now couldn't be considered official statistics" not "...with the objetive of share information regarding topics of interest for the public opinion, this as of now can't be considered official statistics") what this sentence really means is that the information previously aviable was unofficial and open to speculation (CONEVAL included), not that this study is not official. It's the result of multiple investigations through the first decade of the XXI century, and INEGI is a direct governmental dependency, in the same sentence it also discredits previous national studies such as the CONEVAL ones, and as i told you above, it don't measures poverty as a social class, If you were able to read it clearly with full understandsing of spanish you would see that in Mexico, poverty is considered an event that has a chance of appear in the lower class, and that has to be remarked. Finally, i don't know where do you see the quality in the CONEVAL one, it's only two pages and didn't fully explained the parameters they used. Czixhc (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quite able to read it clearly and with a full understanding of Spanish thank you very much. Please stop making assumptions about what I know and don't know. They are unfounded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Second, looks like the one who is making assumptions is, in reality you, you keep assuming that the study is preliminar, when in fact it isn't, if it were preliminar it simply would say that it is preliminar. To say that the study is not definitive doesn't mean that it's not preliminar, it means that there might be variants and that the statistics shown on it can as well change in the future, because to get definitive results in the real world is simply impossible, don't be confused with this, if the study don't refers to itself as preliminar it's because it isn't, also, how does it screams preliminar? have you read it full? have you checked the complex methodology the INEGI used to get the results is showing? i think that you obviously haven't, and it results even more enigmatic to me that while you try hard to dismiss this 27 pages long study you consider a two page study that it's inconsistent on it's own numbers, it's outdated as of now in more than two ways and that don't even explains it's own methodology to have more quality, it lacks as much quality that the INEGI itself declared it and any previous study unofficial. An important remark is that while the information regarding the size of the social classes can change (either a class grow or shrink) with the time (therefore to make a "definitive" study about it is scientificaly impossible), the definition of poverty (or risk of poverty to be more precise) used in Mexico don't changes, it remains the same through the time, and this, this is the most important topic in this article and the priority in regard to what has to be fixed here, i don't see why you worry so much over the extention of "x" social class when the "poverty" is the main issue in this article. I'm being very comprehensive and patient with you here. Czixhc (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Se trata de una aproximación al estudio de las clases medias en México, que no pretende ser definitiva, sino que busca contribuir al análisis del tema." This very clearly states that it should not be considered a definitive study but simply a preliminary contribution to the analysis of the emergent middle class in Mexico. And the first pargraph states that "que de  momento no pueda ser considerada estadística oficial." This is NOT an official study and should not be treated as such. I have read plenty of official INEGI reports and this is not one of them. It screams preliminary release all over.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing assumptions, you fail at understanding spanish clearly, the sentence "que de momento no pueda ser considerada estadística oficial" refers to previous studies made by other organizations that aren't the INEGI itself, explained in detail, the difference is on the word "pueda" which is used to make reference "to another" or "to that", the word "puede" is the one that is used to make reference to oneself, what the sentence "por primera vez elabora un boletín de investigación para los medios de comunicación con el objetivo de compartir información sobre temas de interés para la opinión pública, que de momento no pueda ser considerada estadística oficial" means is that previous studies aren't considered official statistics, not that this study isn't official, it in fact is, if the study weren't official the sentence would say "por primera vez elabora un boletín de investigación para los medios de comunicación con el objetivo de compartir información sobre temas de interés para la opinión pública, que de momento no puede ser considerada estadística oficial" see the difference? the context and the words being used in that sentence refer to previous statistics (such as CONEVAL) as unofficial, the study in no way is calling itself unofficial. I hope this finaly make you get it: In short, CONEVAL is unofficial.
 * I quite clearly am understanding it correctly Czihx, and you are misunderstanding it whether or not you are a native speaker or not. The other studies you seem to believe that passus refers to are not mentioned in the source at all and the relative clause clearly refers back to the boletin. Furthermore the statement that this is a preliminary survey is repeated below. Finally it is very clearly published as a weekly bulletin and not as an official report, which can be seen both from where it is located at the INEGI website and from the fact that its formatting is clearly a draft type document that has none of the sophisticated formatting that official INEGI reports have. The one who is being patient is me, but I am about done with that. You are either willfully misrepresenting the source, or perhaps your own obvious lack of English abilities which I have not mentioned previously out of courtesy is hindering you from expressing yourself. We are not going to resolve this between the two of us, and we will need some outside opinion. Frankly I have found your attitude highly offensive from the outset.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A short summary of my argument
User:Czihx claims that the article is seriously outdated because it uses poverty statistics from 2008. He then proposes to replace it with a preliminary study of the Mexican middle class that has no actual statistics on poverty and which based on data from 2010 which doesn't seem to differ considerably from the 2008 data, except in that it introduces the concept of "lower class" which was not used in the 2008 study which was about poverty and not class structure. He also claims that the preliminary study is not preliminary but fully official, which I claim is contradicted by the study it self and by the fact that INEGI hasn't released it as an official report but as a weekly bulletin. Finally INEGI is not the institution charged with measuring poverty in Mexico, they are simply the statistical office. It is CONEVAL that is responsible for defining and measuring poverty using data collected by INEGI. CONEVAL has released annual reports so the right thing to do would be to simply update the article using newer data on poverty from CONEVAL, not a preliminary analysis of the middle class by INEGI, a much poorer source. Czihx is also claiming that poverty has declined in Mexico since 2008, but this is incorrect and is contradicted by newer studies by CONEVAL which say that it has in fact risen.. Some figures have improved, such as access to health care which improved a lot, but the overall indicators of poverty have risen both percentually and in absolute figures.. The CONEVAL studies are clearly of better quality and more sophisticated both in their methodology and presentation than the bulletin suggested as a source by Cihzx.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, for the XXth. time: stop saying it's preliminar, that is never said anywhere on the 27 pages of the study and stop saying it's unofficial when in fact what the study clearly does is to call unofficial any previous statistic data about it, CONEVAL included second, it's not a weekly boletin, it's the first official bulletin ever made for it's difusion on the media by Mexico's official dempgraphig statistics institution, so, from where you get the "weekly" adjetive is beyond me. If you were bothered to read it you will know that it took data from over ten years to be made. Third, it's not a study exclusively about the middle class, it's a study of all the social classes in Mexico who aditionally adresses the poverty and explains how poverty is defined and measured in Mexico, to not include information about how the poverty is defined on Mexico on an article titled "poverty in Mexico" is beyond bizarre and plain wrong. You say that CONEVAL has more relevance, despite that it uses INEGI's numbers itself and when it's last study was released early 2012 than INEGI whose study was released more than one month ago and clearly explains how poverty is defined and what lower class means, which are things that have to be incorporated in this article as soon as possible. You are the one misinterpreting my source, not me and if you consider that outsiders opinion is necessary it's ok for me, because i'm the one that has the most recent and official sources, but i don't think it is necessary at all as explained on the summary to my argument below. Czixhc (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The summary of my argument
I want this article to be updated because t shows figures from back to 2008 and only to 2008, to do so i hava brought an study by the INEGI (Mexico's National Institute of Geographical Statistic) which is, as it's opening pages state: "The first official study ever released to the media regarding the social classes and poverty on Mexico" it also goes as far as to consider any statistic previously released to be unofficial. This study is very important for the next reasons:
 * Fisrt: It gives simple and well explained definitions and extensions of the social classes in Mexico


 * Second and the most important: It explains clearly how poverty is measured in Mexico and what it does mena here: It also does the important remark that low class, and poverty aren't the same, and that the poverty in Mexico is defined by the "chance of a catastrophic event happening in a low class family (such as the death of the main provider) that might led them to live in a multidimensional poverty situation". This clarification it's abscent on this article and that leads to serious misinterpretations by national and international media, INEGI is aware of this, that's why it goes as far as to call any previous study and data unofficial.

What I want with this discussion
I have to be very clear here: I don't want the information that the user Maunus so bravely defends to be removed of the article, I want it updated with 2013 data and i want it to be complemented with data that is abscent from here (such as the information regarding the low class and the real definition of poverty), what i want out is dead links and the table at the beginning of the article, why? because all it's info it's outdated and to explain something as complex as how poverty is measured in mexico in that format is impossible (because anybody can come here, see 44% on the chart and go thinkig "Wow, half of Mexico lives in huts and rides donkeys" without knowing that in Mexico, what these number means is the chance of people falling on poverty due adverse situations, and it's clearly explained in the page 7 ), i'm for designing a new chart whose format permits to give an idea of how poverty is treathed on mexico and the respective numbers for social classes, and if it results too impractical to not include any chart like the Poverty in the United States article does. Finally i want the map i linked above to appear in this article to complement the information, somehow like the article Poverty in India with it's respective pocket chart in. this all i'm in for, i don't think i'm asking too much, i'm just asking for a middle point for his view and mine. Czixhc (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Several improvements and updates have been made, but there's still much work to do, many things are outdated such as per capita figures from 2002, minimum wages, etc. it's still a long way. sugerencies are welcome. Czixhc (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oversimplification
I think there may be sections of this article that graze over issues with simple black and white answers. For instance, the first sentence of the background sections claims, "Mexico's unequal development between the richer urban zones and the considerably poorer rural zones have been attributed to the fast economic growth that took place during the so-called Mexican miracle..." While this did in part contribute to disparity between the peripheries and urban centers of Mexico, there are several other factors as well. What about the 1985 earthquake? The power distribution between the PRI and the common man? It appears that there are viewpoints that are underrepresented and information that can be added. Efoxman42 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Poverty in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622104940/http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/sectur/?contenido=36817 to http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/sectur/?contenido=36817

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Poverty in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html#TitleIChapterI
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Mexico/Background.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080626105021/http://www.nber.org:80/papers/w11027 to http://www.nber.org/papers/w11027/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120417050542/http://www.uia.mx:80/actividades/publicaciones/iberoforum/3/pdf/gabrielap.pdf to http://www.uia.mx/actividades/publicaciones/iberoforum/3/pdf/gabrielap.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Poverty in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721224749/http://mexidata.info/id1731.htm to http://mexidata.info/id1731.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724154342/http://bcjournal.org/2007/the-political-impact-of-nafta-on-the-mexican-transition-to-democracy-1988-2000/ to http://bcjournal.org/2007/the-political-impact-of-nafta-on-the-mexican-transition-to-democracy-1988-2000/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722225427/http://sedesol2006.sedesol.gob.mx/publicaciones/CuadernosyDoctos/PDFs%20SEDESOL/PDFs%20Cuadernos/12%20Cuad.pdff/ to http://sedesol2006.sedesol.gob.mx/publicaciones/CuadernosyDoctos/PDFs%20SEDESOL/PDFs%20Cuadernos/12%20Cuad.pdff/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: GWSS 1101 Introduction to Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies
— Assignment last updated by MNmagistra (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Biased views in Changing Citizenship section
I believe that the section "Mexicans' changing citizenship" is a bit biased. I would love for an expert to have a look at it. 187.217.126.194 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)