![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Perhaps more could be written in the economy sections regarding income disparity and the effect it has on generating crime? Also I think the picture used to represent how the poor in Mexico live could be improved. Most poor people in Mexico do not live as the image would indicate although they still don't live well. I think more accurate image with description would be something like what I have provided as an example. I think this better represents the scope and scale of poverty in Mexico and the breakdown between poor and impoverished provides better insight then the general 46% statement and an image of a few shacks of which only one appears to be used as a residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.202.175 ( talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps more could be written in the economy sections regarding income disparity and the effect it has on generating crime?
Should Spanish be mentioned as an official language in the infobox in spite of the fact that the only legislation that mentions the status of the Spanish language calls it a "a national languages with equal validity".(Article four of Law of Linguistic Rights passed in 2001) And in spite of the fact that there is currently a political movement in Mexico seeking to give Spanish official status? If it should be included in the infobox should it be mentioned that it is only "de facto" official and not "de jure". [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Spanish is the official language of Mexico. The Secretariat of Foreign Relations and Encyclopaedia Britannica (both reliable sources) [6] [7] are used as references at the article Mexico. Both mention Spanish as the official language.
On the other hand, the indigenous languages are never mentioned as official,i heart ""mexicans"" not even co-official. They are simply called "national languages" and accordignly with the law, they have the same validity as Spanish in the "context in which they are used". The General Law of Linguistic Rights for the Indigenous Peoples recognizes all Amerindian minority languages as national languages and equally valid only in territories where spoken. [8]
I'd like to see a source indicating that the indigenous languages are official. This has been previoulsy discussed at the talk page and the outcome has always been the same: Spanish official, indigenous lang. regonized as national languages. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You make some valid points above. Rather than debating "loose-cannon" style, maybe we should first consider the following questions (the same can be considered for the other languages of Mexico):
Also,
This should be helpful in achieve some common understanding and common ground. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
On Britannica: It wouldn't surprise me if sources that are talking about Mexico in general and mention official language in passing (perhaps as part of a standard part of the article) might get this wrong. This is no knock on Britannica which in general is great source, but occasionally it gets passing items wrong, and this might be the case.
In any case, it seems like there are laws on the book that say it is not the official language, I would go with "None" with maybe a footnote on the subject. Although as a footnote on the United States infobox pointed out there are differing definitions of "official" when it comes to these matters. Jztinfinity ( talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I think the editors most involved in this conversation should take a break or summarize their points and wait for input from others. This discussion here seems to have reached a point of where there is a lot of repetition which, among other things, is making it difficult for editors coming here for the RfC to get up to date.
Here is my $0.02: User:Maunus (and others) has provided pretty good legal documentation (i.e., Mexican laws) that Spanish does not enjoy an official status within the law. The fact that he/she has found laws and other primary sources which document this fact does not mean we will qualify it as original research just because had to do work to find it. It's also quite clear that Spanish is the only de facto national language and this should clearly be noted.
A good template for this might be the United States article which has a similar situation of no single de jure language but a strong and clearly recognized de facto language. You can find tons of embassies and articles that say English is the official language of the US too; they are simply wrong and Wikipedia would be wrong to report their mistakes.
In the absence of a better idea, the best option would be to follow the example of the United States article and to list official language as something like "None at federal level" and the national language as Spanish (de facto) with a similar silly little footnote in the info box explaining the whole situation. — mako ๛ 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
True, but Wikipedia is not a democracy... one wise man by himself can drown out a server load of fools in this forum. The very fact that the discussions have been dragging on for months displays a common set of symptoms here on Wikipedia. calling for an RFC is not going to work at all if those symptoms and attitudes continue to persist. Sonarclawz ( talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Does Mexico have an official language? NO. This is a very, very complex question. I think that even academicians and legal authorities in Mexico would argue over this, so it's not surprising that it's provoking fits and starts among WP editors, many of whom probably are not in Mexico and are not intimately familiar with Mexican law and customs.
The first problem, as noted by Mercy earlier, is that we don't have clearcut definitions of “official language” and “national language.” Before you can make an informed decision on what to put in the infobox, you need to establish the meanings of those two terms. Do they mean the same thing? If they do not, what is the difference between them?
The second question is, Is WP's use of the terms “official language” and “national language” the same as the usage of those terms by the authorities whom we are planning to cite as sources?
Experiences in other countries show that these are not merely academic questions.
Take the case of India, for example, a country that has long been described in travel guidebooks and the like as having two official languages (Hindi and English). An Indian state high court recently ruled that there's no national language in India. A plaintiff had sought to require manufacturers to label products in Hindi. As reported in the Times of India, “the court asked whether there was any notification saying Hindi is India's national language, for it's an 'official language' of this country. No notification ever issued by the government could be produced before the court in this regard. This is because the Constitution has given Hindi the status of the official language and not the national language.” The court denied the plaintiff's request. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-25/india/28148512_1_national-language-official-language-hindi
Or consider Singapore: The Constitution of Singapore states, in section 153A Official languages and national language: “(1) Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the 4 official languages in Singapore. (2) The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script: Provided that – (a) no person shall be prohibited from using or from teaching or learning any other language; and (b) nothing in this Article shall prejudice the right of the Government to preserve and sustain the use of the language of any other community in Singapore. (emphasis added) (you can Google the Constitution of Singapore to read the section text in context)
So it is evident that “official language” and “national language” are not necessarily the same thing, in legal terms. What do we mean by these terms for WP purposes?
There is a scholarly book edited by Kirsten Süselbeck entitled Lengua, nación e identidad: la regulación del plurilingüismo en España, y América Latina, published in 2008, that offers a number of observations directly relevant to this discussion. (Unfortunately, there is no copy available in my local library, so I am limited at the moment to reading a few excerpts from it that are available online. I think it would be prudent for the editors who are most committed to addressing this topic on WP to get a copy of this book to review, and/or to get in contact with some of its authors to see if they can offer further suggestions or sources for WP.)
On page 243, in a chapter on “La 'defensa' del español en Hispanoamérica,” author Silke Jansen includes Mexico as one of 6 Latin American countries that do not list Spanish as an official language (the table also shows countries that do list Spanish as the sole official language, and other countries that list Spanish as an official language in addition to indigenous languages that share official status with Spanish).
In a footnote on page 265 from the same chapter, there is this comment on Mexico: “Hasta la fecha, ha habido tres proyectos de ley para declarar el español la lengua oficial de la nación, pero todos han fracasado por la resistencia de las institucionales indigenistas (Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista), que pretenden que la oficialización del español perjudicaría a las lenguas indígenas.” (my loose translation: “To date, there have been three attempts to legally declare Spanish the official language of the country, but all have failed in the face of opposition from advocacy institutions for indigenous peoples [Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista], who claim that bestowing an official status on Spanish would discriminate against indigenous languages.”)
Something else noted in the book (see for instance p. 258-263) that is especially interesting and relevant is that despite declining to establish Spanish as the “official” language of the country, the Mexican government has enacted laws that mandate that specifically Spanish be used in product labeling. See also: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=708514&fecha=01/06/2004
Maunus has throughout this discussion made reference to the fact that Prof. Jaime Labastida, the director of the Mexican Academy of Language, has been saying that Spanish is not the official language of the country and that he wants legislation enacted to make it so. There are quotes from a number of others in this article discussing Labastida's proposal who agree that Spanish is not the official language: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/65191.html
There is testimony as well from Senator Pablo Bomez Alvarez, who only 3 weeks ago said in remarks in the Mexican Senate: “Yo creo que en México no hay una lengua oficial, y cualquier persona se puede expresar y hemos hecho reformas para que en el aparato de justicia, por ejemplo, la gente pueda defenderse en su propia lengua.” (“I believe that in Mexico there is no official language, and any one can express him- or herself, and we have made reforms so that in the justice system, for example, the people can defend themselves in their own language.”) http://comunicacion.senado.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3281:sesion-ordinaria-de-la-h-camara-de-senadores-celebrada-el-martes-20-de-marzo-de-2012&catid=47:version-estenografica&Itemid=178
So my take is that no, Spanish is NOT the official language of Mexico and should not be so described by WP. (Official language in this usage meaning a language explicitly declared in the Constitution or in other statute as the “official” language of the country.)
I also agree with others, such as Angr and kwami, that the term “official (de facto)” is not appropriate here. Either a language has been explicitly declared official, or it has not. De facto is inappopriate with "official." (De facto could be used appropriately in some cases with "national," though.) In this case, the Mexican legislature has multiple times voted down attempts to pass laws making Spanish the official language.
On the other hand, Spanish is clearly a National language. It is so recognized in the law. It is the most commonly used language for business, the arts, and legal proceedings (eg the national legislature, courts, and executive branch). Product labels must be written in Spanish. And for even those who speak an indigenous language, the majority have some knowledge as well of Spanish.
However, the law also recognizes all those scores of other indigenous languages.
For these reasons, Option 2 (ie, Official Language: none; National language(s): Spanish [default] and 60+ indigenous languages) is by far the most accurate and the best of the options. A footnote or a link to an expanded discussion of some of the nuances would be appropriate, in addition. Dezastru ( talk) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"declaring English the official language means that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings. While Official English legislation declares English as the language of government.... U.S. English continues its work in several other states to urge the introduction of Official English. We also lobby Congress in support of H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act—a bill that would make English the official language of the United States."By "declaring English the official language," U.S. English, Inc. specifically means having Congress pass legislation that declares English the official language. So by the very criteria laid out by your own source -- namely, (a) requiring passage of federal legislation declaring that a language is the official language and (b) requiring that all official government business be conducted solely in the official language -- Spanish cannot be said to be the official language of Mexico. No one here has yet shown any law that has declared Spanish to be the official language; and the Law of Linguistic Rights requires that government must allow official business to be conducted in languages other than Spanish within the territories, localities, and contexts in which they are spoken, as Maunus has shown.
Dezastru, there is no such thing in Wikipedia as an "otherwise-reliable source" that I am aware of: a source is either reliable or it is not reliable. And the sources that you and the other opponents are citing are not reliable -- certainly, not when compared to a source as reliable as the very top of the executive command of the country of Mexico, and, in particular, when such high-level source leaves NO room for speculation or ambiguity when it states, in black and white, that Spanish IS the official language of Mexico and that the official language of Mexico IS Spanish. There are no if's, and's or but's about it... as there are in the sources presented by the opposing side.
The arguments from the opposing side are:
As for the Spanish Wikipedia reference in your last paragraph, that is an example of the invalid
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
[comment by Maunus; no it is not, it is the same argument as above where you can see that the wikiepdia with most active Spanish speaking and Mexican does not recognize the doubt that you are tyring to sow. The legal statsu of Spanish in Mexico is absolutely crystal clear. It is a National language - the National language that happens to be used by the government for official affairs.]
My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
As per my comment above, here is where contributors appear to stand on this issue:
United Mexican States (1) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
National languages | Spanish (default) and 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (2) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
Official languages | none |
National languages | Spanish (default) and 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (3) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
Official languages | Spanish |
National languages | 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (4) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
National languages | Spanish ( de facto official) and 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (5) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
Official languages | Spanish ( de facto) |
National languages | 68 indigenous languages |
As I noted above, my apologies to any editor whom I may have misplaced. Please reposition your name under the correct position header if necessary. Some users admitted not having a good comprehension of what the arguments on both sides were, and some others admitted either to being only passers-by (paraphrasing) or were early contributors who didn't benefit from more recent "evidence" presented by both opposing sides. Thanks for understanding if you were initially misplaced, but please do reposition your name as/if needed!. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
After months with this open RfC, and well over a month in the Resolution mode, in my opinion these are true: (1) The two opposing groups are as polarized as ever over the question of whether Spanish is Mexico's official language, and (2) the RfC appears to be moving into a stale period for little, if any, activity is taking place: old contrubutors have said nothing for weeks, and no new contributors have approached here to make their opinions known. I am wondering if any one else feels like this too? My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I've been reading an hour-old version of this discussion, and hadn't noticed that NW has offered to close this already; I was about to do so, but actually ran into a similar problem. It is clear to me that "Official language: Spanish" does not have consensus, but there is no clear consensus choice among the others. Since NW has already offered to close, rather than step on his toes and close it myself with what I consider a reasonable compromise, I'll just suggest it instead:
That's my uninvolved take. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In Mexican usage "etnia" and "etnicidad" refers to membership of cultural groupings, (ethnic groups), not to racial groups as in US usage. The data inserted is about self-identified racial classification (respondents were asked "a que raza se considera pertenecer"). Listing it as "ethnic group" misrepresents the data. Also many other countries don't have race or ethnicity breakdowns in the info box. This is such a contentious issue that I don't think there is any reason to have this information in the infobox - it requires ample explanation of the meanings and usages of terms - which can only be given in the body of the article. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe that Mexico has such a poor article representing it here on Wikipedia! Many of the sections look like they were were translated on Babel Fish. Over the next week or so, I'm going to devote some time to make the article readable. Profe DB ( talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Profe DB
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Changing category from "Category:North American countries" to "Category:Northern American countries" as all other countries.
SemanticMan ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
From Portal:Current events/2012 June 6 ...
found on Talk:Politics of global warming
99.181.141.238 ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an easy one. One user is replacing pictures on the tourism section. We had 1 archeological site picture and then 2 pictures of Mexico's beach resots icons Cancun and Acapulco. This user replaced the latter with another 2 archeological sites pictures. That's redundant. So I reverted him and it seems that he disagrees so he reverted me back.
I don't see any problem with my revert. We surely do not need 3 pictures showing almost the same aspect of tourism in Mexico. Thanks. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Several users besides me, have reverted user "Enemyusuar". He's resumed his edit-warring activity. I just reverted one of his edits. Please keep an eye on this user. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mexico is predominantly of african and amerindian descent. The study about the mexican population is not realistic. the study is: A study by the National Institute of Genomic Medicine, Mexico reported that Mestizo Mexicans are 58.96% European, 35.05% "Asian" (Amerindian), and 5.03% African. More africans than europeans landed in mexico. so this makes no reasonable sense. According to book:African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation. By Marco Polo Hernández Cuevas, Richard L. Jackson mexico is really an majority indian and african country. This book reads: on Pg. 95 History shows that African Mexicans, the infamous mezclas, became the majority of today's mestizos (Aguirre Beltran 276). The bibliography is: Bibliography: Cuevas, Marco P. African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation. Lanham: University Press of America, 2004. Mwest2005 ( talk) 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Some help can be used on the article Iceland–Mexico relations to find Spanish language references. and it can change http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mexico&action=edit§ion=2# http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mexico&action=edit§ion=2# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.104.3 ( talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The precedence of words in spanish for "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is not correctly translated. The exact and correct translation is "Mexican United States" and that's what the article should use. Explaning this:
- The states (Estados) are united. They are first than all united, united states (Estados Unidos), that's an unbreakable unit, and then they are mexican, Mexican United States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).
Take into account that precendence of adjectives in spanish is somehow inverted to the english logic. While in english you say "The red car", in spanish you say the car is red after the "car" word: "El carro rojo" or "El auto rojo". In the title "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", the exact precedence is:
If we use "United Mexican States", than that translates in spanish to "Estados Mexicanos Unidos", which implies the following precedence in english:
There's no ambiguity here. "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" has only one translation that respects the same importance and order of words in english: "Mexican United States". They may seem the same thing, but it's not. Consider this example:
"Papel enmicado mojado", which is spanish for paper, laminated and wet. Following that precedence in spanish to english:
If we invert the precedence in the same way as the article does with "United Mexican States":
Those two would be completely different ideas. The first case, you could just dry it with a towel. The second case, you cannot, it's already laminated.
I cannot edit that myself (I have not access). That's why I started this section. Please someone fix it. Thanks.
Fzarabozo ( talk) 11:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Francisco Zarabozo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fzarabozo ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a country's name in another language has nothing to do with translation or the rules of grammar. It has to do with how the government of the country in question wants to be known as in that other language.
With that said, according to the Mexican Embassy in the United States (Washington, DC), the government of Mexico wants to be known as "Mexico" and it further states that "The official name of Mexico is United Mexican States." [1]
That's what matters and everything else is inmaterial.
As additional aid, check out the CIA World fact book at [2](under Government>Country Name>Conventional Long Form.) and it shows that teh US Government has honored the name that the government of Mexico wants to be officiall known by in the English language.
Again, UNITED MEXICAN STATES, and I have edited the article to reflect this.
My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Utter nonsense! The first two paragraphs of the section seem to paint a misleadingly rosy view of the country's official name that is sadly out-of-date. Surely the headline facts are the name, the fact that the USA has recognized the name, the unemployment rate and the prelidiction for senseless talk in this particular forum, rather than foreign influences of yesteryear? The problems are mentioned in subsequent paragraphs but should surely be high up in the first paragraph? Also there needs to be a prominent link to relevant clauses in the Mexican constitution which AFAIKT is entirely missing (perhaps the sre.gob.mx link should even share prominence as a joint Main Article along with "Official name of mexico"? Sonarclawz ( talk) 15:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hah, I accept that they are called whatever they want in English, but it's incredibly annoying that they chose to translate wrongly their own name ... 2620:0:1040:201:BE30:5BFF:FEE6:AF8E ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article because of this news story which says Mexico's president, who is shortly to leave office, wants to change the country's official name by dropping the "United States" because it's anachronistic (it was only used to emulate its neighbour in the 19th century). However this article says the country's official name translates into English as the "United Mexican States". The reference used to claim this title is the Mexican embassy website in Washington DC.
If the translation in this article is to believed, then the president's actions do not make sense as it does emulate the United American States. However if the translation as the article notes is more akin to the "United States of Mexico" or even the "Mexican United States", the decision to change the name makes more sense.
IMO the embassy website might have it's own diplomatic reasons for tweaking the name nevertheless, when it comes to names: the Mexican United States, makes more sense, given the proposal by the president of Mexico.
I think more investigation needs be done to clarify this. 86.161.148.145 ( talk) 10:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this CNN story, published today, as a citation immediately after the words "United Mexican States" in the opening sentence of the article. To make it easier for you, here's the completed cite, which you can simply copy/paste from the Edit page of this comment. [3] Thanks. -- 76.189.101.221 ( talk) 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Economy section: "The Mexican economy is expected to nearly triple by 2020". This is not supported by the reference, which forcasts about 4% growth per year, implying 35-40% growth by 2020. An economy tripling in 8 years is also obviously way too high, implying 15% growth per year. This sentence should just be removed. 69.110.234.242 ( talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There are some dubious statements in the article that cite unlinked sources. There is simply a last name, a year and a number. No publication is listed, no link to the source. This gives the impression that a statement is reliably sourced when in fact there is no way to ascertain the credibility of the source or if it even exists.
For example, under the section "demographics", we see:
"The word "mestizo" is sometimes used with the meaning of a person with mixed indigenous and European blood. This usage does not conform to the Mexican social reality where a person of pure indigenous genetic heritage would be considered Mestizo either by rejecting his indigenous culture or by not speaking an indigenous language,[188] and a person with a very low percentage of indigenous genetic heritage would be considered fully indigenous either by speaking an indigenous language or by identifying with a particular indigenous cultural heritage.[189]"
The references in question simply state:
188. ^ Bartolomé (1996:2)
189. ^ Knight (1990:73)
Who are these people? What is the publication? It seems to me that the claim that whether a person would be considered mestizo or not is based more on language than genetic heritage is rather surprising and one I would like to see a credible reference that supports it, not simply two surnames with a what is presumably the publication date and page number of some unspecified journal. These are but two examples; the article is full of similarly ambiguous, worthless references. What's to stop someone from adding a section called "Monsters of Mexico", and writing:
"Mexico is home to several species of monsters. Of these, only Q is indigenous to Mexico[350]. Godzilla and Rodan immigrated from Japan in the 1950s[351], and King Kong arrived some time later from Africa.[352]"
350. ^ Johnson (1996:2)
351. ^ Davis (1990:73)
352. ^ Jones (1996:2)
Ambiguous and unverifiable citations should be corrected to adequately indicate what is being cited or else removed, along with the questionable article items they are intended to support. CannotFindAName ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SORRY, I COULDN´T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT THERE IS A PART WHERE IT SAYS THAT MEXICO IS THE SECOND MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT TRUE, MEXICO IS THE SECOND MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRY FROM THE 34 MEMBERS IN THE OECD. 148.228.120.73 ( talk) 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Done I changed to it to indicate that it is the second most unequal country among the OECD countries.
Ssbbplayer (
talk)
19:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.233.237.30 ( talk) 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please change Capital
and largest city Mexico City
19°03′N 99°22′W to 19°28´N 99°08´W
because the first coordinates are wrong and nearest to the city of Cuernavaca.
The last paragraph of the first section, the introductory one, is in my opinion not necessary at all.
This paragraph should be either removed or added in a subsection, for example Mexican Economy.
This is the paragraph: "According to Goldman Sachs, by 2050 Mexico is expected to become the world's fifth largest economy.[34] PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimated in January 2013 that by 2050 Mexico could be the world's seventh largest economy.[35]"
The main editors of Wikipedia (if any) should realize that multinational corporations, including and particularly banks and management consulting firms, but also lawyers and increasingly NGOs with great focus on lobbying and the so called advocacy organizations(chiefly political and economic influence), are interested in promoting their services and serve their interests, and one just has to read and see the "Economy" section of many countries in Wikipedia to realize how they have been changed over the last years clearly by interested parties. I believe there should be an awareness of this because it would be clearly in detriment of Wikipedia's mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.4.134 ( talk) 09:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This article used to correctly state in the intro that the official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in English United Mexican States. Now however it seems to suggest there are both two Spanish and also two English official names, the other name being in Spanish: Estados Unidos de México or in English United States of Mexico. Just to point out that no reliable citation supports the name Estados Unidos de México as a second official name, a single citation (the New York Times article) suggests "United States of Mexico" might be an alternate translation of of Estados Unidos Mexicanos (alongside the more usual "United Mexican States"). The one citation that does use the term Estados Unidos de México is an infographic, not a reliable source. And as shown in the other citations in the intro, both the Presidency of Mexico website and the CIA World Factbook describe the countries official name only as Estados Unidos Mexicanos, or United Mexican States in English.
Not sure why this alternate official name was added to the intro, especially the Spanish Estados Unidos de México, the intro should be reverted to how it was. Yes, the former President of Mexico did state he wanted to change the name because it was similar in style to the United States of America, not because it was identical in style.-- 90.199.141.189 ( talk) 23:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to add the change to the intro was made on 5 September this year by AbelM7.-- 90.199.141.189 ( talk) 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
hi im living since always in mexico and yI will tell you that the biggest companies in telecomunications are :
1º telmex 2º unefon 3º Telefonica (movistar)
and right now other companies are getting on the business companies that began as cable companies as:
1º megacable (is more common than unefon) and is getting to be the first rival for telmex in mexico. 2ºtelecable (is being purchased by megacable little by little by sectors) and more
well the point of this is to tell you that Axtel and Maxcom aren't players on comunication in mexico
Q: What did the Mexican firefighter name his two sons? A: Jose and Hose B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.225.68 ( talk) 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I live in Mexico and I'm pretty sure we drive on the left. Watersoul99 ( talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Watersoul99
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Perhaps more could be written in the economy sections regarding income disparity and the effect it has on generating crime? Also I think the picture used to represent how the poor in Mexico live could be improved. Most poor people in Mexico do not live as the image would indicate although they still don't live well. I think more accurate image with description would be something like what I have provided as an example. I think this better represents the scope and scale of poverty in Mexico and the breakdown between poor and impoverished provides better insight then the general 46% statement and an image of a few shacks of which only one appears to be used as a residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.202.175 ( talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps more could be written in the economy sections regarding income disparity and the effect it has on generating crime?
Should Spanish be mentioned as an official language in the infobox in spite of the fact that the only legislation that mentions the status of the Spanish language calls it a "a national languages with equal validity".(Article four of Law of Linguistic Rights passed in 2001) And in spite of the fact that there is currently a political movement in Mexico seeking to give Spanish official status? If it should be included in the infobox should it be mentioned that it is only "de facto" official and not "de jure". [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Spanish is the official language of Mexico. The Secretariat of Foreign Relations and Encyclopaedia Britannica (both reliable sources) [6] [7] are used as references at the article Mexico. Both mention Spanish as the official language.
On the other hand, the indigenous languages are never mentioned as official,i heart ""mexicans"" not even co-official. They are simply called "national languages" and accordignly with the law, they have the same validity as Spanish in the "context in which they are used". The General Law of Linguistic Rights for the Indigenous Peoples recognizes all Amerindian minority languages as national languages and equally valid only in territories where spoken. [8]
I'd like to see a source indicating that the indigenous languages are official. This has been previoulsy discussed at the talk page and the outcome has always been the same: Spanish official, indigenous lang. regonized as national languages. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You make some valid points above. Rather than debating "loose-cannon" style, maybe we should first consider the following questions (the same can be considered for the other languages of Mexico):
Also,
This should be helpful in achieve some common understanding and common ground. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
On Britannica: It wouldn't surprise me if sources that are talking about Mexico in general and mention official language in passing (perhaps as part of a standard part of the article) might get this wrong. This is no knock on Britannica which in general is great source, but occasionally it gets passing items wrong, and this might be the case.
In any case, it seems like there are laws on the book that say it is not the official language, I would go with "None" with maybe a footnote on the subject. Although as a footnote on the United States infobox pointed out there are differing definitions of "official" when it comes to these matters. Jztinfinity ( talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I think the editors most involved in this conversation should take a break or summarize their points and wait for input from others. This discussion here seems to have reached a point of where there is a lot of repetition which, among other things, is making it difficult for editors coming here for the RfC to get up to date.
Here is my $0.02: User:Maunus (and others) has provided pretty good legal documentation (i.e., Mexican laws) that Spanish does not enjoy an official status within the law. The fact that he/she has found laws and other primary sources which document this fact does not mean we will qualify it as original research just because had to do work to find it. It's also quite clear that Spanish is the only de facto national language and this should clearly be noted.
A good template for this might be the United States article which has a similar situation of no single de jure language but a strong and clearly recognized de facto language. You can find tons of embassies and articles that say English is the official language of the US too; they are simply wrong and Wikipedia would be wrong to report their mistakes.
In the absence of a better idea, the best option would be to follow the example of the United States article and to list official language as something like "None at federal level" and the national language as Spanish (de facto) with a similar silly little footnote in the info box explaining the whole situation. — mako ๛ 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
True, but Wikipedia is not a democracy... one wise man by himself can drown out a server load of fools in this forum. The very fact that the discussions have been dragging on for months displays a common set of symptoms here on Wikipedia. calling for an RFC is not going to work at all if those symptoms and attitudes continue to persist. Sonarclawz ( talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Does Mexico have an official language? NO. This is a very, very complex question. I think that even academicians and legal authorities in Mexico would argue over this, so it's not surprising that it's provoking fits and starts among WP editors, many of whom probably are not in Mexico and are not intimately familiar with Mexican law and customs.
The first problem, as noted by Mercy earlier, is that we don't have clearcut definitions of “official language” and “national language.” Before you can make an informed decision on what to put in the infobox, you need to establish the meanings of those two terms. Do they mean the same thing? If they do not, what is the difference between them?
The second question is, Is WP's use of the terms “official language” and “national language” the same as the usage of those terms by the authorities whom we are planning to cite as sources?
Experiences in other countries show that these are not merely academic questions.
Take the case of India, for example, a country that has long been described in travel guidebooks and the like as having two official languages (Hindi and English). An Indian state high court recently ruled that there's no national language in India. A plaintiff had sought to require manufacturers to label products in Hindi. As reported in the Times of India, “the court asked whether there was any notification saying Hindi is India's national language, for it's an 'official language' of this country. No notification ever issued by the government could be produced before the court in this regard. This is because the Constitution has given Hindi the status of the official language and not the national language.” The court denied the plaintiff's request. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-25/india/28148512_1_national-language-official-language-hindi
Or consider Singapore: The Constitution of Singapore states, in section 153A Official languages and national language: “(1) Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the 4 official languages in Singapore. (2) The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script: Provided that – (a) no person shall be prohibited from using or from teaching or learning any other language; and (b) nothing in this Article shall prejudice the right of the Government to preserve and sustain the use of the language of any other community in Singapore. (emphasis added) (you can Google the Constitution of Singapore to read the section text in context)
So it is evident that “official language” and “national language” are not necessarily the same thing, in legal terms. What do we mean by these terms for WP purposes?
There is a scholarly book edited by Kirsten Süselbeck entitled Lengua, nación e identidad: la regulación del plurilingüismo en España, y América Latina, published in 2008, that offers a number of observations directly relevant to this discussion. (Unfortunately, there is no copy available in my local library, so I am limited at the moment to reading a few excerpts from it that are available online. I think it would be prudent for the editors who are most committed to addressing this topic on WP to get a copy of this book to review, and/or to get in contact with some of its authors to see if they can offer further suggestions or sources for WP.)
On page 243, in a chapter on “La 'defensa' del español en Hispanoamérica,” author Silke Jansen includes Mexico as one of 6 Latin American countries that do not list Spanish as an official language (the table also shows countries that do list Spanish as the sole official language, and other countries that list Spanish as an official language in addition to indigenous languages that share official status with Spanish).
In a footnote on page 265 from the same chapter, there is this comment on Mexico: “Hasta la fecha, ha habido tres proyectos de ley para declarar el español la lengua oficial de la nación, pero todos han fracasado por la resistencia de las institucionales indigenistas (Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista), que pretenden que la oficialización del español perjudicaría a las lenguas indígenas.” (my loose translation: “To date, there have been three attempts to legally declare Spanish the official language of the country, but all have failed in the face of opposition from advocacy institutions for indigenous peoples [Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista], who claim that bestowing an official status on Spanish would discriminate against indigenous languages.”)
Something else noted in the book (see for instance p. 258-263) that is especially interesting and relevant is that despite declining to establish Spanish as the “official” language of the country, the Mexican government has enacted laws that mandate that specifically Spanish be used in product labeling. See also: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=708514&fecha=01/06/2004
Maunus has throughout this discussion made reference to the fact that Prof. Jaime Labastida, the director of the Mexican Academy of Language, has been saying that Spanish is not the official language of the country and that he wants legislation enacted to make it so. There are quotes from a number of others in this article discussing Labastida's proposal who agree that Spanish is not the official language: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/65191.html
There is testimony as well from Senator Pablo Bomez Alvarez, who only 3 weeks ago said in remarks in the Mexican Senate: “Yo creo que en México no hay una lengua oficial, y cualquier persona se puede expresar y hemos hecho reformas para que en el aparato de justicia, por ejemplo, la gente pueda defenderse en su propia lengua.” (“I believe that in Mexico there is no official language, and any one can express him- or herself, and we have made reforms so that in the justice system, for example, the people can defend themselves in their own language.”) http://comunicacion.senado.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3281:sesion-ordinaria-de-la-h-camara-de-senadores-celebrada-el-martes-20-de-marzo-de-2012&catid=47:version-estenografica&Itemid=178
So my take is that no, Spanish is NOT the official language of Mexico and should not be so described by WP. (Official language in this usage meaning a language explicitly declared in the Constitution or in other statute as the “official” language of the country.)
I also agree with others, such as Angr and kwami, that the term “official (de facto)” is not appropriate here. Either a language has been explicitly declared official, or it has not. De facto is inappopriate with "official." (De facto could be used appropriately in some cases with "national," though.) In this case, the Mexican legislature has multiple times voted down attempts to pass laws making Spanish the official language.
On the other hand, Spanish is clearly a National language. It is so recognized in the law. It is the most commonly used language for business, the arts, and legal proceedings (eg the national legislature, courts, and executive branch). Product labels must be written in Spanish. And for even those who speak an indigenous language, the majority have some knowledge as well of Spanish.
However, the law also recognizes all those scores of other indigenous languages.
For these reasons, Option 2 (ie, Official Language: none; National language(s): Spanish [default] and 60+ indigenous languages) is by far the most accurate and the best of the options. A footnote or a link to an expanded discussion of some of the nuances would be appropriate, in addition. Dezastru ( talk) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"declaring English the official language means that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings. While Official English legislation declares English as the language of government.... U.S. English continues its work in several other states to urge the introduction of Official English. We also lobby Congress in support of H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act—a bill that would make English the official language of the United States."By "declaring English the official language," U.S. English, Inc. specifically means having Congress pass legislation that declares English the official language. So by the very criteria laid out by your own source -- namely, (a) requiring passage of federal legislation declaring that a language is the official language and (b) requiring that all official government business be conducted solely in the official language -- Spanish cannot be said to be the official language of Mexico. No one here has yet shown any law that has declared Spanish to be the official language; and the Law of Linguistic Rights requires that government must allow official business to be conducted in languages other than Spanish within the territories, localities, and contexts in which they are spoken, as Maunus has shown.
Dezastru, there is no such thing in Wikipedia as an "otherwise-reliable source" that I am aware of: a source is either reliable or it is not reliable. And the sources that you and the other opponents are citing are not reliable -- certainly, not when compared to a source as reliable as the very top of the executive command of the country of Mexico, and, in particular, when such high-level source leaves NO room for speculation or ambiguity when it states, in black and white, that Spanish IS the official language of Mexico and that the official language of Mexico IS Spanish. There are no if's, and's or but's about it... as there are in the sources presented by the opposing side.
The arguments from the opposing side are:
As for the Spanish Wikipedia reference in your last paragraph, that is an example of the invalid
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
[comment by Maunus; no it is not, it is the same argument as above where you can see that the wikiepdia with most active Spanish speaking and Mexican does not recognize the doubt that you are tyring to sow. The legal statsu of Spanish in Mexico is absolutely crystal clear. It is a National language - the National language that happens to be used by the government for official affairs.]
My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
As per my comment above, here is where contributors appear to stand on this issue:
United Mexican States (1) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
National languages | Spanish (default) and 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (2) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
Official languages | none |
National languages | Spanish (default) and 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (3) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
Official languages | Spanish |
National languages | 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (4) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
National languages | Spanish ( de facto official) and 68 indigenous languages |
United Mexican States (5) Estados Unidos Mexicanos (
Spanish) | |
---|---|
Official languages | Spanish ( de facto) |
National languages | 68 indigenous languages |
As I noted above, my apologies to any editor whom I may have misplaced. Please reposition your name under the correct position header if necessary. Some users admitted not having a good comprehension of what the arguments on both sides were, and some others admitted either to being only passers-by (paraphrasing) or were early contributors who didn't benefit from more recent "evidence" presented by both opposing sides. Thanks for understanding if you were initially misplaced, but please do reposition your name as/if needed!. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
After months with this open RfC, and well over a month in the Resolution mode, in my opinion these are true: (1) The two opposing groups are as polarized as ever over the question of whether Spanish is Mexico's official language, and (2) the RfC appears to be moving into a stale period for little, if any, activity is taking place: old contrubutors have said nothing for weeks, and no new contributors have approached here to make their opinions known. I am wondering if any one else feels like this too? My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I've been reading an hour-old version of this discussion, and hadn't noticed that NW has offered to close this already; I was about to do so, but actually ran into a similar problem. It is clear to me that "Official language: Spanish" does not have consensus, but there is no clear consensus choice among the others. Since NW has already offered to close, rather than step on his toes and close it myself with what I consider a reasonable compromise, I'll just suggest it instead:
That's my uninvolved take. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In Mexican usage "etnia" and "etnicidad" refers to membership of cultural groupings, (ethnic groups), not to racial groups as in US usage. The data inserted is about self-identified racial classification (respondents were asked "a que raza se considera pertenecer"). Listing it as "ethnic group" misrepresents the data. Also many other countries don't have race or ethnicity breakdowns in the info box. This is such a contentious issue that I don't think there is any reason to have this information in the infobox - it requires ample explanation of the meanings and usages of terms - which can only be given in the body of the article. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe that Mexico has such a poor article representing it here on Wikipedia! Many of the sections look like they were were translated on Babel Fish. Over the next week or so, I'm going to devote some time to make the article readable. Profe DB ( talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Profe DB
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Changing category from "Category:North American countries" to "Category:Northern American countries" as all other countries.
SemanticMan ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
From Portal:Current events/2012 June 6 ...
found on Talk:Politics of global warming
99.181.141.238 ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an easy one. One user is replacing pictures on the tourism section. We had 1 archeological site picture and then 2 pictures of Mexico's beach resots icons Cancun and Acapulco. This user replaced the latter with another 2 archeological sites pictures. That's redundant. So I reverted him and it seems that he disagrees so he reverted me back.
I don't see any problem with my revert. We surely do not need 3 pictures showing almost the same aspect of tourism in Mexico. Thanks. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Several users besides me, have reverted user "Enemyusuar". He's resumed his edit-warring activity. I just reverted one of his edits. Please keep an eye on this user. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 07:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mexico is predominantly of african and amerindian descent. The study about the mexican population is not realistic. the study is: A study by the National Institute of Genomic Medicine, Mexico reported that Mestizo Mexicans are 58.96% European, 35.05% "Asian" (Amerindian), and 5.03% African. More africans than europeans landed in mexico. so this makes no reasonable sense. According to book:African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation. By Marco Polo Hernández Cuevas, Richard L. Jackson mexico is really an majority indian and african country. This book reads: on Pg. 95 History shows that African Mexicans, the infamous mezclas, became the majority of today's mestizos (Aguirre Beltran 276). The bibliography is: Bibliography: Cuevas, Marco P. African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation. Lanham: University Press of America, 2004. Mwest2005 ( talk) 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Some help can be used on the article Iceland–Mexico relations to find Spanish language references. and it can change http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mexico&action=edit§ion=2# http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mexico&action=edit§ion=2# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.104.3 ( talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The precedence of words in spanish for "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is not correctly translated. The exact and correct translation is "Mexican United States" and that's what the article should use. Explaning this:
- The states (Estados) are united. They are first than all united, united states (Estados Unidos), that's an unbreakable unit, and then they are mexican, Mexican United States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).
Take into account that precendence of adjectives in spanish is somehow inverted to the english logic. While in english you say "The red car", in spanish you say the car is red after the "car" word: "El carro rojo" or "El auto rojo". In the title "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", the exact precedence is:
If we use "United Mexican States", than that translates in spanish to "Estados Mexicanos Unidos", which implies the following precedence in english:
There's no ambiguity here. "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" has only one translation that respects the same importance and order of words in english: "Mexican United States". They may seem the same thing, but it's not. Consider this example:
"Papel enmicado mojado", which is spanish for paper, laminated and wet. Following that precedence in spanish to english:
If we invert the precedence in the same way as the article does with "United Mexican States":
Those two would be completely different ideas. The first case, you could just dry it with a towel. The second case, you cannot, it's already laminated.
I cannot edit that myself (I have not access). That's why I started this section. Please someone fix it. Thanks.
Fzarabozo ( talk) 11:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Francisco Zarabozo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fzarabozo ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a country's name in another language has nothing to do with translation or the rules of grammar. It has to do with how the government of the country in question wants to be known as in that other language.
With that said, according to the Mexican Embassy in the United States (Washington, DC), the government of Mexico wants to be known as "Mexico" and it further states that "The official name of Mexico is United Mexican States." [1]
That's what matters and everything else is inmaterial.
As additional aid, check out the CIA World fact book at [2](under Government>Country Name>Conventional Long Form.) and it shows that teh US Government has honored the name that the government of Mexico wants to be officiall known by in the English language.
Again, UNITED MEXICAN STATES, and I have edited the article to reflect this.
My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 23:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Utter nonsense! The first two paragraphs of the section seem to paint a misleadingly rosy view of the country's official name that is sadly out-of-date. Surely the headline facts are the name, the fact that the USA has recognized the name, the unemployment rate and the prelidiction for senseless talk in this particular forum, rather than foreign influences of yesteryear? The problems are mentioned in subsequent paragraphs but should surely be high up in the first paragraph? Also there needs to be a prominent link to relevant clauses in the Mexican constitution which AFAIKT is entirely missing (perhaps the sre.gob.mx link should even share prominence as a joint Main Article along with "Official name of mexico"? Sonarclawz ( talk) 15:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hah, I accept that they are called whatever they want in English, but it's incredibly annoying that they chose to translate wrongly their own name ... 2620:0:1040:201:BE30:5BFF:FEE6:AF8E ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article because of this news story which says Mexico's president, who is shortly to leave office, wants to change the country's official name by dropping the "United States" because it's anachronistic (it was only used to emulate its neighbour in the 19th century). However this article says the country's official name translates into English as the "United Mexican States". The reference used to claim this title is the Mexican embassy website in Washington DC.
If the translation in this article is to believed, then the president's actions do not make sense as it does emulate the United American States. However if the translation as the article notes is more akin to the "United States of Mexico" or even the "Mexican United States", the decision to change the name makes more sense.
IMO the embassy website might have it's own diplomatic reasons for tweaking the name nevertheless, when it comes to names: the Mexican United States, makes more sense, given the proposal by the president of Mexico.
I think more investigation needs be done to clarify this. 86.161.148.145 ( talk) 10:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this CNN story, published today, as a citation immediately after the words "United Mexican States" in the opening sentence of the article. To make it easier for you, here's the completed cite, which you can simply copy/paste from the Edit page of this comment. [3] Thanks. -- 76.189.101.221 ( talk) 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Economy section: "The Mexican economy is expected to nearly triple by 2020". This is not supported by the reference, which forcasts about 4% growth per year, implying 35-40% growth by 2020. An economy tripling in 8 years is also obviously way too high, implying 15% growth per year. This sentence should just be removed. 69.110.234.242 ( talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There are some dubious statements in the article that cite unlinked sources. There is simply a last name, a year and a number. No publication is listed, no link to the source. This gives the impression that a statement is reliably sourced when in fact there is no way to ascertain the credibility of the source or if it even exists.
For example, under the section "demographics", we see:
"The word "mestizo" is sometimes used with the meaning of a person with mixed indigenous and European blood. This usage does not conform to the Mexican social reality where a person of pure indigenous genetic heritage would be considered Mestizo either by rejecting his indigenous culture or by not speaking an indigenous language,[188] and a person with a very low percentage of indigenous genetic heritage would be considered fully indigenous either by speaking an indigenous language or by identifying with a particular indigenous cultural heritage.[189]"
The references in question simply state:
188. ^ Bartolomé (1996:2)
189. ^ Knight (1990:73)
Who are these people? What is the publication? It seems to me that the claim that whether a person would be considered mestizo or not is based more on language than genetic heritage is rather surprising and one I would like to see a credible reference that supports it, not simply two surnames with a what is presumably the publication date and page number of some unspecified journal. These are but two examples; the article is full of similarly ambiguous, worthless references. What's to stop someone from adding a section called "Monsters of Mexico", and writing:
"Mexico is home to several species of monsters. Of these, only Q is indigenous to Mexico[350]. Godzilla and Rodan immigrated from Japan in the 1950s[351], and King Kong arrived some time later from Africa.[352]"
350. ^ Johnson (1996:2)
351. ^ Davis (1990:73)
352. ^ Jones (1996:2)
Ambiguous and unverifiable citations should be corrected to adequately indicate what is being cited or else removed, along with the questionable article items they are intended to support. CannotFindAName ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SORRY, I COULDN´T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT THERE IS A PART WHERE IT SAYS THAT MEXICO IS THE SECOND MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT TRUE, MEXICO IS THE SECOND MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRY FROM THE 34 MEMBERS IN THE OECD. 148.228.120.73 ( talk) 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Done I changed to it to indicate that it is the second most unequal country among the OECD countries.
Ssbbplayer (
talk)
19:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.233.237.30 ( talk) 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please change Capital
and largest city Mexico City
19°03′N 99°22′W to 19°28´N 99°08´W
because the first coordinates are wrong and nearest to the city of Cuernavaca.
The last paragraph of the first section, the introductory one, is in my opinion not necessary at all.
This paragraph should be either removed or added in a subsection, for example Mexican Economy.
This is the paragraph: "According to Goldman Sachs, by 2050 Mexico is expected to become the world's fifth largest economy.[34] PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimated in January 2013 that by 2050 Mexico could be the world's seventh largest economy.[35]"
The main editors of Wikipedia (if any) should realize that multinational corporations, including and particularly banks and management consulting firms, but also lawyers and increasingly NGOs with great focus on lobbying and the so called advocacy organizations(chiefly political and economic influence), are interested in promoting their services and serve their interests, and one just has to read and see the "Economy" section of many countries in Wikipedia to realize how they have been changed over the last years clearly by interested parties. I believe there should be an awareness of this because it would be clearly in detriment of Wikipedia's mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.4.134 ( talk) 09:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This article used to correctly state in the intro that the official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in English United Mexican States. Now however it seems to suggest there are both two Spanish and also two English official names, the other name being in Spanish: Estados Unidos de México or in English United States of Mexico. Just to point out that no reliable citation supports the name Estados Unidos de México as a second official name, a single citation (the New York Times article) suggests "United States of Mexico" might be an alternate translation of of Estados Unidos Mexicanos (alongside the more usual "United Mexican States"). The one citation that does use the term Estados Unidos de México is an infographic, not a reliable source. And as shown in the other citations in the intro, both the Presidency of Mexico website and the CIA World Factbook describe the countries official name only as Estados Unidos Mexicanos, or United Mexican States in English.
Not sure why this alternate official name was added to the intro, especially the Spanish Estados Unidos de México, the intro should be reverted to how it was. Yes, the former President of Mexico did state he wanted to change the name because it was similar in style to the United States of America, not because it was identical in style.-- 90.199.141.189 ( talk) 23:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to add the change to the intro was made on 5 September this year by AbelM7.-- 90.199.141.189 ( talk) 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
hi im living since always in mexico and yI will tell you that the biggest companies in telecomunications are :
1º telmex 2º unefon 3º Telefonica (movistar)
and right now other companies are getting on the business companies that began as cable companies as:
1º megacable (is more common than unefon) and is getting to be the first rival for telmex in mexico. 2ºtelecable (is being purchased by megacable little by little by sectors) and more
well the point of this is to tell you that Axtel and Maxcom aren't players on comunication in mexico
Q: What did the Mexican firefighter name his two sons? A: Jose and Hose B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.225.68 ( talk) 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I live in Mexico and I'm pretty sure we drive on the left. Watersoul99 ( talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Watersoul99