Talk:Mexico/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

United Mexican States -or- United States of Mexico?

I just want to make sure that no one made a mistake.

-G

United Mexican States; also see Toponymy of Mexico. Corticopia 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The official name of the country in Spanish is, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the more accurate translation would be, United Mexican States --Raulmb 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The original official name of the country is Estados-Unidos Mexicanos. That would mean Mexican United-States. (read below for more information). Aldera 11:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

population figures

The table shows 19 million people in Mexico City, but the Mexico City page says 36,720,916. That's an awful lot more! On the Mexico City page, that 19 million is just the suburbs ("greater Mexico City"). I wonder which one is correct? And are the numbers for the other cities correct? Xezlec 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the figures shown in this page are those reported from the 2005 Census. Of course a mischievous user can change them arbitrarily, and it might take a while before someone notices the changes and reverts them back to the official figures. In any case, you may want to follow the link provided to INEGI's Conteo 2005 report. --the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Xezlec 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

maná the most known mexican band?

what? which is the source? ive searched but there isnt a source that show that this statement is a fact.

Its probably just an opinion. Nevertheless it is one of the most influential bands of the country. Should we chage it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegofrgc (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 June 2007

It is really (and thats a shame) the most known mexican band. They are considerable popular in Germany for example, where their latest CD was reviewed in many of the most important specialized magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.86.108 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the mention of African Ancestry in Mexico?

It's hidden, until the second moon returns. Still isn't Mexico's black population more like 3-5% at least of the country?

I do believe there is a significant mixed black population specially in the coastal areas of Mexico, unfortunately, INEGI does not have any reports on ethnicity, except for indigenous peoples in Mexico, so we cannot give a precise percentage, but we can briefly mention the fact. --theDúnadan 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked in the INEGI and although it is true that they had no significant reports on ethnicity, while I was in there we tracked back for all racial minorities, actually the asian are a far superior in numbers, while the black population without been mixed doesn't even reach the 1%, mixed caucasican/black and amerindian/black population barely reached the 2% this data might find you odd but the natives of coastal México have pretty dark skin confusing and giving the idea that it may be an amerindian/black case, hope this helps

Economy

I deleted a claim about the muncipality of San Pedro in economy section, due to the fact it has not a source the source it used to have; source Doesn't content the right caraceteristics to be considered as a source. And the first source; 2004 UNPD Mexico Report on HDI source 2 specifies clearly the first claim and never specifies the second claim, wich is probably true but as i said the source doesn't the caracteristics to be considered as so since you need an Spanish account to get the information. If somebody has a source wich specifies the claims i deleted please paste as soon as possible. Cheers--Raveonpraghga 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before... A newsgroup of wide circulation (like Reforma) is a reliable source and is allowed to be referenced in wikipedia. In fact, this sort of sources are recommended over blogs and other unreputed websites. You are attitude throughout the last few months makes me suspect that you are in a personal vendetta against Monterrey and/or in favor of Guadalajara. This has motivated you to make vandalistic edits instead of constructive ones (with proper english and reputable sources). I again encourage you to increase the level of your edits, and not be moved only by regionalistic emotions with no wikipedic quality. Hari Seldon 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hari is right. Reforma is a perfectly valid source. And the report that says San Pedro Garza García has the second HDI in Mexico is true. It was in the news also. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Graphical material that might be needed

As some of you know, I am a web designer and I started contributing here in Wikipedia because I wanted to improve the quality of the graphics used (I started with the Mexican Flag). So I would like to a make a list of the graphical material that might be needed to improve the article. Please, help me make a list. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, not for this article, but I would certainly appreciate a graphical revamp of Pipo. I would do it myself, except that I am not in Monterrey and graphics offshore are hard to find. Hari Seldon 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have any picture about Pipo, but I think I can do something about it, just tell me exactly what you need. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing it myself, but I am not an expert in Graphic Design (as my low-quality maps show). But can you make a map of the world highlighting in any color (say green) the countries with which Mexico has a free trade agreement? You can review the list of countries at: Economy_of_Mexico#Trade. Just don't forget that the European Union must include all 27 members (including the recently admitted Bulgaria and Romania; for a list of all 27 members see: EU#Member_states). --theDúnadan 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I included the FTAs map in the article Economy of Mexico. I also created a new map with the HDI of each state. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

North America as a region of America (continent)

As all of we know, there are two basic models applied to the American continent:

1. America is a single continent, divided in North, Central, Caribbean and South.
2. The Americas, with two separate continents, North America (Can, US, Mex and Central America) and South.

I created the article North America (Americas) that is about the region/subcontinent of the American continent. It was nominated for deletion because they say it is the same as North America (meaning continent). Both articles are about different subjects.

Please READ the evidence, comment and vote here. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution

Is prostitution legal in Mexico? What exactly are the laws, what is allowed and what isn't? -Mike Payne 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not legal but not strongly enforced. In fact in major cities throughout Mexico there are whore houses which identify themselves by having a red light bulb. Thus the light bulb is on when its open for business. Police have been known to take bribes in order not to shut this houses down and some cases receive personal favors as well.

Serio 310 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)serio_310Serio 310 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 0410, 25 March 2007 (India)

This is not true. Prostitution is legal in Mexico. In Tijuana, for instance, prostitutes must be registered and pass periodical medical exams. --FateClub 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Like in the United States, prostitution is regulated locally. It is illegal in some States, and legal in others. However, in Mexico, laws are often enforced discretionally, in all States. Hari Seldon 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution is in fact legal. What is illegal is white slavery. Andy Rosenthal 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that and prostitution of children. --FateClub 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation of the page "Mexican United States"

The user that tried to change the translation of United Mexican States has created a page titled Mexican United States, which is clearly a POV forking, due to the fact that that is an incorrect translation. I think we should nominate that article for deletion.

Why "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" is not translated as "Mexican United States":

• In spanish, there are two forms of constructing sentences. One is called "enunciado sintáctico-lógico" (sintax-logic sentences) and the other is called "enunciado lógico-sintáctico" (logic-sintax sentence).

• • Sintax-logic: Basicly, the spanish sintax says that the noun should be listed first, then the adjective (e.g. "El vestido rojo", meaning "The red dress"). This is nowadays prefered way of writing in spanish, following the sintax rules.
  • Logic-sintax: However, a person can write following the inverse order, listing first the adjective(s) and then the noun. This style of writing is very used in poetry and literature, and was specially in common use in old spanish. It is considered an elegant way of speaking. Every day usage is not common nowadays. (e.g. "La señorita de rojo vestido se sentó", meaning the same of "La señorita de vestido rojo se sentó", both sentences translated as "The miss of red dress sat".

By the time the official name of the country was coined (19th century), the logic-sintax style was highly common. The official name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", which is exaclty the same as saying "Estados Mexicanos Unidos", meaning the union in a federation (political system of Mexico) of all the Mexican states. It was not coined to mean the "Mexican United States" which would sound like they wanted to name the country the "Mexican" version of the "United States".

English translation must not be literally taken from the name in spanish. It is a common mistake because in english, the sintax rules state that the adjective should be listed first and then the noun. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion your syntax-logic and logic-syntax explanation doesn't bring much to the point here because it only refers to the combination noun + adjective and not to the combination noun + adjective + adjective. The main problem here is that you have one adjective after another adjective; it is not "Mexicanos Estados Unidos" or "Unidos Estados Mexicanos" but "Estados (noun) Unidos (adjective) Mexicanos (adjective) and that's exactly the point where it seems to be problematic. Does Mexicanos refer to both Estados and Unidos (I think it does) or just to Estados? Does Unidos refer to both Estados and Mexicanos even if it is between both of them (I don't know any adjective which has a double directional reference, i.e. to the word before and the word afterwards; in that case it would be wrong to say United Mexican States because United would refer to both Mexican and States and it can't work like that if it is between the two words in Spanish). On the other hand, I think most of the "new" countries in Latin-America were inspired by the French Revolution and the USAmerican Independence War and their ideals of freedom, brotherhood, equality, etc. In that case, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Mexican government decided to name the country after their liberty ideal: US. I don't see the problem there. The comment below (theDúnadan) also seem to go in that direction. Aldera 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just nominated the page for Speedy Deletion. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a common problem, a redirect makes more sense than a speedy. WilyD 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had brought up the same issue several times, as well as several other users [see above, or archive], for whom mexicanos is the qualifier of the Union of Mexican States (ergo, the proper translation would be Mexican United States). In fact, in both the 1824 and 1857 constitutions the name of the country was shown dashed: Estados-Unidos Mexicanos, in which case "Estados-Unidos" does function as a compound noun which is qualified by the adjective mexicanos.

In other words, Mexican United States would be a valid translation of the name. However, in English the name of the country has always been translated as United Mexican States, probably because in English, as Alex pointed out, the "literal" translation might be misinterpreted. It is because ALL (well, at least to my knowledge) political and geographical authorities in English use the translation "United Mexican States" (and occasionally United States of Mexico), that we should use this translation in this article (otherwise we would be doing OR). However, I would have no problem in keeping "Mexican United States" and have it redirect here as proposed above, because that is a literal translation of the name.

--theDúnadan 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here is that this official translation wasn't surely made by a Linguist nor a Historian and so it might not be really correct but it has just become the official one. My humble opinion says that whoever translated Estados Unidos Mexicanos as United Mexican States just tried to avoid calling Mexico a Mexican variant of the United States. That may also be valid but as a linguist myself (and after reading the interesting comment by User:Dúnadan) I don't think it is the best solution to delete a literal and historic correct translation just because it is not official. For me that's like saying that the world is plain because the church said so, even if you know that it is not like that. Why not keep both? Maybe even with the observation: official translation: United Mexican States, literal translation: Mexican United States. Aldera 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect it (to Mexico): otherwise, it's begging for someone to (re)create it. There are 402K online notations of UMS (and I have not seen translations in English publications to be anything but this), as opposed to 52K for MUS. If the argument that MUS is valid, I'm sure it can be reliably sourced (and I see none as of yet); if so, this can be included in the 'Etymology' subsection/article. As D. indicated, the 1824 constitution includes both "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (upfront) AND "Estados-unidos mexicanos" (see sections 52, 74, 101, 110...), so a redirect seems prudent. To recreate and build on it, though, constitutes a fork and promotes confusion. Corticopia 13:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete review of North America (region)

Administrator took a dubious decision about the debate about the deletion of this article. The result should have been no concensus. This article was about the region of the Americas named "North America". All of the other regions within the Americas, under the various geographical models to divide it, have their own article: Middle America (Americas), Central America, Northern America, Caribbean and South America. Please, read carefully the AfD page and the reasons provided to undelete the article. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he did not -- an apparent consensus of 65% supported the admin action and the nomination. Comments at AfD. Corticopia 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, just let it go. You've been at similar discussions for over three months now. Is this issue really so important? Alex, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Learn from both experiences. How about, next time, you provide more sources?... And Corticopia, why is this precision in geography so important to you? I really cannot understand how such a minor point has developed into this ridiculously big war between two otherwise sane editors. It has gotten into the point where I would suspect both of you are just doing it to spike the other party. Lets just let this go! Hari Seldon 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I tell you why. The Americas are divided using the following concepts (most of them geographical) and each of them have their own article:

Linguistically:

• Latin America
• Anglo America

Continentally:

• North America
• South America
• Americas

Regionally:

• North America (Americas) <--Deleted article
• Central America
• Caribbean
• South America
• Northern America
• Middle America (Americas)

Central America, the Caribbean, Northern America and Middle America are said to be part of North America as a continent. Then, should we also delete all of those articles and merge them into "North America"? Because that's the rationale they are using for the deletion of NA.

However, and most importantly, the debate was closed and the opinions were highly divided, between keep, delete and merge. So, no consensus was reached. They say it was not a votation, so why are they giving more weight to the delete votes? It is just unfair.

About the win/lose situation, as you said, it is not about that, at least, it is not to me. It is a question of accuracy and now, justice, since the article was unfairly deleted. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Based solely on the numbers, 'delete' votes outstripped 'keep' votes in a clear majority (56%), coupled with votes to merge to North America or redirect (which clearly don't mean 'keep'), a consensus of 65% clearly supported the admin action. As well: (1) the 'keep' votes were generally nothing more than sigantures that were ... (2) the result of canvassing which said editors engaged in throughout to 'stack the deck'. The admin had other valid reasons to affirm the decision, so the article was fairly and equitably terminated. My future comments regarding this will be there.

And, yes, HS: it's not about conflict and it's regrettable -- but read the definition for what an encyclopedia is, which demonstrates why we should (and I continually) be both precise and comprehensive. Ta!Corticopia 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Precise and comprehensive? What about economic regions? I mean, there is a valid point of view that NAFTA is a region of the Americas. It is frequently used in Canada, the United States (particularly in the south) and Mexico (particularly in the bigger cities). It is, with the EU, the only region in the world in which banking systems are so interrelated that there is a near free flow of capital, deposits and financial instruments. It is also a region with the most international economic activity and border crossings (both legal and illegal) in the world. It is controversial, economically important, intense, and, most of all, valid. I think that if an article pursuing North America as an economic region, as a result of NAFTA, but also due to other causes and a 200 year old history would be perfectly valid. Perhaps, this would please both editors? Hari Seldon 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If those territories comprise an economic region, is there any reason why information cannot properly reside in either NAFTA or North America? This still has not been dealt with or glazed over, nor have the concerns expressed throughout the AfD regarding reliable sources about NA as specifically being a 'region' as opposed to a sub/continent (unlike the other regions cited above), so an article about what some may consider an original concept appears a fork. Also note that 'North America' is frequently used to refer to just the US and Canada together (which have a shared history, British (and French) roots, political/military/economic integration, border) -- compare with Anglo-America and Northern America -- but were treated in the article as an aside, which is more indicative of that article's agenda than anything. Corticopia 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As for NAFTA, that article is about the treaty which is part but not the entirety of the economic region. About North America I don't see why not. I know that in the north of the United States and pretty much all of Eastern Canada, North America usually refers to USA and Canada only. Indeed, when many companies advertise "all of North America", they mean only the continental US and Canada, without Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and sometimes even without Alaska.

However, the same is not so for Vancouver (at least not while I was there), most of southern US (particularly Florida, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and California), and definetly not so for urban Mexico (though some leftist do disagree and tend to place Mexico with "Latin America" instead).

The trend of economic integration is growing and, no, this is not original research on part of this editor at least. As a business student I frequently encounter sources that refer to the "North American region" as Mexico, USA and Canada. Indeed, Times Magazzine has done articles, and even front pages on the subject since 2000.

Because this POV is valid, and there is a trend to its more frequent use in the three countries in the region, I don't see why it shouldn't have a section or sub-section in the article North America for NPOV, with the additional precision that anglo-america (i.e., US and Canada) have a shared history.

By the way, just so you know, the history of Mexico and the US are also shared. It was due to Spain's success in Mexico that immigrants from England decided to embark in a dangerous enterprise to what is now New England. Additionally, it was the US who supplied weapons for Mexico's independence, who sponsored the liberal civil war of the early 19th century, and who conquered half of Mexico's territory (which is now "anglo-America"). Aditionally, at least one historian quoted by Isaac Asimov argues that the French Invasion of Mexico in the mid 19th century had the purpose of aiding the Confederation. During the Mexican revolution, US military involvement was frequent, and so remains today. Of course, other countries can claim that the US has shaped its history, but apart from Canada, none at the extent that Mexico can. Throughout all of its independent history it has, in one way or another, been determined by the US.

So, as a valid point of view with widely available, non-original-research sources, I move for it to be entered into the article North America. What do you think?

Hari Seldon 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

TY. Of course, one cannot deny US-MX integration, but the topic matter is not being dealt with properly in the existing articles (perhaps a result of edit warring) -- that's why this fork is arguably a farce. I have maintained throughout that said notions (if applicable) should be included in North America (if not already, e.g., usage section) or elsewhere as needed (NAFTA) ... go ahead and add equitably, just remember to reliably and equitably source. :) Corticopia 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, agree with Hari. The integration "between the three nations of North America" (quoting US President George W. Bush) is not only enormous, but deepening. And this integration is not only in the economical sphere. However, that is another topic I guess. And again, Corticopia, read WP:POVFORK. The creation of the article was not a POV fork, since it was not created to avoid NPOV in the article North America, nor as a consecuence of disagreement there. In fact, there was not debate/edit war in the article (as I have said multiple times). No disagreement. The only thing that cheers me up is that educated Canadians and Americans, don't have that "anti-Mexican" feeling, and that most of the population of those two countries, think about North America as a region containing Mexico, of course. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex: this is not my issue and I frankly do not have time for this. I will add North America to my watchlist and aide as well as I possible can. However, I will not start these edits. Please go ahead and do so. It is obvious that you have the talent to seek out sources, so you might as well quote them there. If you encounter resistance, we can discuss it in the talk page.

About the forking accusations, I have no position on the issue. In any case, I really don't see how "North America (region)" elevated the quality of wikipedia. What is needed is a vast improvement of the article North America, which I urge you to commence.

Alex, your track record isn't exactly spotless, but neither is mine nor that of any editor. We all start making mistakes. This is your chance to show your wikipedia learning. When editing North America remember to follow the guidelines. If you need help with this, I will help. Lets just get this three-month old issue over us and close this chapter.

By the way, I take a course called "Regional Business Environment: North America", and the countries discussed are "United States, Canada and Mexico". The course is taught by an American teacher in an American business school. If you can find a way to reference my class notes (which are definetly not original research), I can contribute these as well.

Hari Seldon 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. However, I don't see how/where to start. The most important issue would be if all that information should go into a separate subarticle and how should we call it? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a section or sub-section of North America. Mexico should be added to the list of nations, and the section should be called "Economical Region of North America", and talk about the background (before NAFTA), then a paragraph about NAFTA and how it has intensified the region. Hari Seldon 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

HS; I'm unsure course outlines/curricula can be used to justify content in such a way unless there are reliable sources to support it (e.g., published and explicitly indicating those three countries are a region different from the continent, etc.): while your course might focus on just the three countries (and there's no disagreement about deepening integration among them), that may merely represent a topical focus which still doesn't exclude other constituents due to relative size/importance (e.g., Canada = 32 million, Greenland = 56 K, or 600x the population).

Other sensational comments aside, there should probably be a section in North America (and eventual subarticle) entitled 'Economy of North America' (like in country articles) -- elaborating about integration, NAFTA and all that -- AND discussed there beforehand. Otherwise, we're back to where we started with only the venue changing. Corticopia 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia: I believe that a class taught in a major business school, one of the top in the world, can be considered "reliable"... Otherwise, I should ask for my money back, don't you think?

Aditionally, I am not referring to class notes, I am referring to published material that is copyrighted and can be accessed only through the school. In any case, even a "tocial focus" represents a valid point of view that must be included in the article as NPOV. Of course, I do not intend to "exclude other constituents due to relative size/importance". But if some other editor is doing so, that still is no reason to invalidate this particualr point of view.

Finally, I don't know what you mean by "sensational" comments. I thought we were assuming good faith here. You seem to ask for it, then you should give it too... And yes, i do agree that the article North America requires a section about its economy. I further think that this discussion should be moved to said article's talk page.

Hari Seldon 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding course items: I'm neither here nor there regarding them, as long as they are Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And let me clarify points regarding reliability: if materials reliably assert something and they are verifiable and equitably presented, I have no issue with them. The challenge to date (in addition to others) is that the sources provided in the fork did not generally support the content, nor were they dealt with in the proper place (viz. North America). And, given the content therein, it still has not been demonstrated that this [{WP:NPOV|point of view]] is not equitably accounted for already in North America (e.g., talk of NAFTA, Usage section) nor in justifying a fork of that content.

Assumptions of this and that notwithstanding, the 'sensational' comment was not really directed at you but at other commentators (e.g., regarding forks, etc.). :) Agreed: discussion should resume there. Corticopia 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Poverty

This whole article is largley incorrect. It portrays mexico as a modern and prosperous economy with harly any poverty. If this were the case why would there be over 10 million people or roughly 10% of the entire population of Mexico, risk their lives crossing through deserts with hardly any water into the United States just to get away from the poverty in mexico.

"Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country."

This incredibly false statement generally summirizes the view on poverty in this article. How can anybody believe this hearing reports every day on the news of more people dying of thirst crossing the border to the United States to escape the poverty in Mexico. Whoever wrote this article is just like all the other people who try to shove the problem under the carpet and expect no one in the outside world to realize its there.

The phrase "Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country" actually comes from the World Bank Country Report, and so do their reports on poverty. I guess the World Bank is blind, incorrect and biased, just trying to shove the problem under the carpet and expect no one in the outside realize its there. --theDúnadan 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article menctions the problem of poverty extensibly. It also menctions international evaluations on the nations economy. Sure, Mexico has many in poverty, but also many in the middle class, and more billionaires than Canada. Mexico is far too complex to be summarized in one sentence. So, I think that what is biased is a reasoning that takes a statement that talks about average, and translates it into an accusation of absolutism. It is almost like listening to a left-wing Mexican politician talk... Hari Seldon 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hari, you were the champion of avoiding personal attacks, why say derogatory things like "almost like listening to a left-wing Mexican politician talk" I encourage you to avoid such statements. We have been through this road before, some people in Mexico are oblivious to reality and simply don't get it. I don't want to be harsh with anyone, but it is hard to be a judge of such things when you are not representative of the majority of people in Mexico. How many Mexicans speak english, or have higher education? How many of them are able to study an MBA abroad?. Not even 1%. That has an inherent bias, because those facts alone makes anyone realize that whoever is in that position, for sure has not been exposed you to the hardships that 40 million under the line of poverty have to endure. It is also worth noting that the third richest person in the world is Mexican. How he got there, is another story. (Perhaps we should review how competitive the Mexican telephone market is, and how government protection have gotten him where he is). I would even go as far to say that this has been the case for most of the richest people in the country, they have been favored by monopolies enforced by the state (look at Televisa and TV Azteca against Telemundo... when both own interests in the US market). Here is an interesting story from an anti-immigration website that reviews these and more. (http://www.vdare.com/awall/060510_memo.htm).

Without being an expert in the subject, it seems that the social and economic policies that the country currently has are a manufactured consensus from the higher authorities in world economics: i.e. the world bank and the IDB. I would not expect less than praise from them when it comes to analyzing the situation the country is in. However, it is no secret that the situation of the country is largely unequal.

Also, I keep reading that you spell mention with a C in the middle. Mention, not "menction". Andy Rosenthal 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I recommend that you read the reports of the World Bank, the IMF and the OCED on Mexico, and you'll find they are not "praise" towards the economic policies Mexico has pursued. It is an undeniable fact, and this article should portray it, that income inequality and poverty rates in Mexico are still high. In fact, while the percentages of poverty reported in this article are accurate, they refer only to extreme overty, whereas mild poverty, even according to the World Bank, still affects 45% of the population, something that is indeed not reported in the Economy section. But it is also true, whether it is due to the policies of recent presidents, or a macroeconomic trend, or simply due to the amazing increase in remittances, rural poverty has sharply decreased since 2000 (from over 45% to 27%). We would be misreporting by not portraying that there has been a reduction in poverty, in spite of the fact that it is still high.

Education attainment is still low in Mexico, compared to developed countries. While your 1% of MBA's seems to be only your personal opinion (which might be true, I haven't checked INEGI's report on higher degree education), it is also true that the percentage of overall master's degrees in developed nations rarely exceeds 3% of adult population (the US being the notable exception with 5.6% [1]).

Unlike other users who wish to see poverty only in the south but not in the north, from what I can see both in official reports, and physically when I travel there, income inequality and poverty affect all Mexico, not only the poor south, but even the industrious north, even if at smaller pecentages.

My point is, the article must be balanced without falling into extreme qualifications. Mexico is both the high income industrial suburbs of Mexico City and Monterrey, as well as the poor villages of Michoacan, Guerrero and Oaxaca. Failing to portray either reality is misleading. The article does speak about income inequality, but I agree that it should elaborate on poverty. But I wouldn't go too much into details, after all there is an article specifically about the Economy of Mexico, which was recently expanded.

--theDúnadan 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is well balanced in general, it can still be improved in demographics, culture, education and science. However, let's think about what can be said about poverty in Mexico? Most of it is already there: poverty rates and how this is mainly focused in the southern states of Chiapas, Oaxaca and Guerrero. I think that Mexico is a prosperous country and is also improving (falling poverty rates indicate this). The article is about Mexico in general so, it is obvious why the poverty problem looks "so small", because Mexico has a lot better things than only the poverty problem. That's what I think. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Andy, I didn't intend my comments as a personal attack. I did not want to focus on the personal moral quality of the person making the statement, but on the overall quality of his arguments (i.e., the arguments are as baseless are those made by leftists). There is a clear distinction between argumentation and personal attacks.

Now, I may not be representative of the majority of Mexico, but I also am not in the minority. I mean, the fact that I study abroad doesn't make me Carlos Slim, or Lorenzo Zambrano. On the contrary. Additionally, you might find it interesting that everyday, more and more young professionals from Mexico go abroad seeking for opportunities (by studying MBAs, some), and it is not just 1%, it is a much bigger number. You treat me like I was some kind of elite, and, granted, compared to the unfortunate minority of Mexicans who carry the heaviest burden of poverty, you and I might be considered that. However, when 30% of the population live in poverty, and only 10% live in extreme riches, that means that there is 60% of Mexicans stuck in the middle. That middle is the majority, and you and I are in that majority. That is also what this article states: there is a huge problem of poverty, and there is a huge problem of income inequality, but Mexico is, on average, a middle income country.

About your arguments, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft is a monopoly "enforced or protected" by the state. In the US, the "state" takes every chance it gets to fight Microsoft. That doesn't mean he is not a monopoly, simply that he is a monopoly the government doesn't like. The difference between Slim and Gates is that Gates's products are so popular that, no matter what the government does, people keep buying Windows and MS Office, and using explorer and Media player... On the other hand, people stay with Telmex because they have no choice, and because there is not enough economic freedom to provide for a choice. Same is true for Pemex and Mexican gasoline, by the way... My point is that, true, Mexico suffers from lack of economic freedom. More liberalism is needed. But the fact that some benefit from the current situation doesn't mean that all riches and all monopolies come through evil purposes. As for Microsoft, sure, it annoys us that it is such a big and dominant player, but Apple has 6% of marketshare and growing, and Linux is always a threat, and in the server market, Microsoft is no longer a monopoly, it is a minority player. So, in the end, when enough economic freedom exists, monopolies can always be overthrown by the freedom of consumers. That is not the case in Mexico, and eventhough it is wrong in this particular case, it doesn't necessarily follows that all riches are wrong.

Finally, the IMFs priority is to stabilize currencies, and the World Bank's is government investment in infrastructure development. Mexico does stabilize its currency, but by means that are frowned upon (i.e., "el corto"), and President Calderón has announced that Mexico will invest more in infrastructure, but through the private sector... So, despite leftist propaganda, the Mexican economy is a lot more complex than that, and understanding it gives us keys to critizice what is REALLY wrong, and try to solve it with tools that actually work. Criticizing something because our heart doesn't agree with it, and without a complete understanding, often times brings about innefective "solutions" (like those proposed by the left).

So, I think I answered everything, Andy. I did not intend this to be a personal attack, but an evaluation of the quality of the argument (i.e., argumentation and counter argumentation, in other words, debate). I am not an elite, rather, an ignored majority which doesn't fit into the country's poorers or the country's richest, and thus is ignored by policy makers, taxed heavily, and frowned upon by the other two dominant minorities. The article mentions all necessary data in the most objective manner possible (i.e., using reliable sources to data, and not to opinions), being rich is not bad, but being rich in an unfree market is, and Mexico's economy is not a formula of the IMF and World Bank, and it is more complex than what is described by leftist propaganda (or rightist propaganda, or any other form of political propaganda, for that matter)...

BTW, thanks for the precision on the "mention". Hari Seldon 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Hari. Rich people and people suffering poverty are not the majority in Mexico, there is a large and growing middle class. I don't know how the article can be improved about the issue of poverty. What else can be said about poverty in Mexico? I think that's the main question, and I also feel it is already answered when reading the article. That's my opinion. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you guys, but like I told Andy, what is missing is the recent report on mild or "moderate" poverty in which 45% of the population lives. It is a high percentage, and it could be argued that moderate poverty is the relative majority (not the absolute), and not necessarily the middle class. --theDúnadan 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, poverty is a very relative term... Any new information added must include the definition of poverty for whatever source. (I.e., x report defines poverty as anyone living with income lesser than 40K USD a year)... This should add context to the article. No doubt, poverty can be measured in many ways, and Lorenzo Zambrano can argue that he is 49 times poorer than Carlos Slim. Does this makes him really poor? I don't think so... Hari Seldon 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I really, really, really, really, and I insist, really doubt the World Bank uses definitions as relative as Zambrano vis-à-vis Slim to define poverty. I don't think their highly educated analysts are that naïve, do you really think so? But if you wish I will find out what they mean by "moderate" poverty. --theDúnadan 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the World Bank can use one definition, and the UN use another. So, if we are going to quote from multiple sources, it is best to add to this article what each source means by "poverty": less than a dollar a day? less than the amount needed to buy a "basket of basic goods" (which "basic goods" and at what prices)? You get my meaning? Hari Seldon 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mexico is clearly a middle income country, as it's per capita income is slightly above the global average. What such a measure does not account for is the high inequality of income distribution in the country. Therefore, it would be wise to balance the information concerning Mexico's relatively high per capita income with its high Gini coefficient reading of indcome inequality. Also, the segments of the Mexican population that immigrate to the United States do not represent the predominantly indigenous poor of southern Mexico, who generally live in deep poverty. 72.191.175.36

Estadio Azteca

Just wondering, which futbol stadium picture should we put in the Sport section, "Estadio Azteca or Monterey. I reckon Estadio Azteca should be the one, because it is the premiere and biggest staduim in Mexico. --Ramírez 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Estadio Monterrey, because it is a baseball stadium and not a soccer stadium. I would prefer no soccer stadiums depcited in the sport section. Why? Well, it is very easy to find information on Mexico's most popular sport, there are articles for each of the major teams, each of the league levels, and at least articles for 5 of the minor teams in Mexico. Simply mentioning (thanks Andy) that soccer is Mexico's most popular sport should suffice. I don't see why it needs even more publicity with a picture. Regardless, the rationale behind having the Estadio Tecnológico (note: not "Estado Monterrey") in this article was because it was the only one to be found, and because it is not in Mexico City, as said city already dominated virtually everything in the article. Remember, this article is about the whole nation, and not just one city. Estadio Tecnológico also has the advantage of being multi-use: its primary purpose is American Football, and it is only adapted to soccer because Club de Futbol Monterrey have nowhere else to play (and thus have been planning for a decade to build their own stadium, and for a time, that alternative stadium was going to be Arena Monterrey, but not anymore)...

So, as you can see, with regards to the sports section, we all agree that Azteca is the biggest soccer stadium in Mexico, however, it promotes mainstream topics (soccer and Mexico City) that already get enough attention. Mexico is a plural nation, and some of the editors here would prefer if other, not so mainstream topics were promoted. For example, a "Centro de Alto Rendimiento" in central Mexico, outside of Mexico City, or a baseball stadium for any of the teams in the Liga Mexicana del Pacífico would be nice.

Hari Seldon 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions Map

Hey guys, I was thinking that the table with all the states' info is kinda repetitive (and looooong), since the main article already has one. What about creating a more visual-appealing table, with the map of states and only the state name and extension?

It is just that the current table is really long, I don't know... I think I can do create a more beutiful table. What do you think? Or perhaps a clickable map with the name of the states? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, about the map... I really liked the colored map I recreated. The big problem about that map was that the regions highlighted were arbitraty (I just redesigned it!). What about highlighting the regions as traditionally used within Mexico? Here are some states I know for a fact are linked in regions:

This is the "new" regional map

• Northwest: Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Durango
• Northeast: Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamapulipas
• West: Jalisco, Colima, Michoacán, Nayarit
• Bajío: Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Zacatecas
• Southeast: Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo, Veracruz
• Center: Puebla, DF, Hidalgo, Morelos, Estado de México, Tlaxcala, Queretaro

My suggestion is to create a colored-clickable map as the one in the article Provinces and territories of Canada or Brazil. It look so professional. I know I can create a map like that for this article, it deserves it! AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Make two maps. One for the entire country, then a zoomed-in map for central Mexico. How on Earth am I going to be able to click on Tlaxcala, if Chihuahua is small as it is? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe, that map size wasn't the suggested size, I just put it there as an example of the old colored map. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the clickable map very much, it looks very professional, but I still dislike the idea of creating regions that simply do not exist. They do exist in the US, they do exist in Brazil, they do exist in Argentina, but not in Mexico and not in Canada. We will engage in endless debates with new users as they complain that their state should be located in such and such, but not in such and such, or why did we name a region like that and not differently, and anyone could be right because there is no definitive universal regional division in Mexico. And even if we all agree on the regional division, we would be engaging in WP:OR, something that shouldn't be done in Wikipedia. I would rather have a colored map of the states without grouping them by region. --theDúnadan 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I have noticed that even if there is no official regionalization of the states, the typical arrangement is not controversial, since there is a long tradition in Mexico about grouping states in a particular region. I have always lived in Mexico and with no doubt I can tell you that, for example, no people from Zacatecas would complain if their state is grouped in "El Bajío" region, because everybody know that. But they will complain if the region is included in "Northeast", because traditionally the state is not linked with this region. However I understand your concern and your opinion. Coloring the states could be another solution, but it will look wierd, because there are 31 states. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial states are usually at the center-south-southeast. For example, Puebla, which is often reckoned as an Eastern state (because it was the connection of the East with the capital, not because it was economically related to them; in fact, Autobuses de Oriente was headquarter at Puebla to service the Oriente of the country), and sometimes as a central state, more related economically to Hidalgo and Querétaro. El Bajío is usually a region, but I have never seen it as an administrative region (usually comes up as simply center, or center-north). Moreover if El Bajío is an administrative region, so is la Comarca Lagunera (Coah-Dgo) or la Huasteca (SLP-Ver-Hgo). Same thing with the southern states of Oaxaca and Guerrero in relation to the Yucatán Peninsula, which you grouped as a single southern region. I think the only more or less defined regions are the north and northwestern. Even the West is a little controversial, in that Aguascalientes is could be placed in the West along with Jalisco. See what I mean? We can open a poll if you wish, but I still think we would be bordering in WP:OR.

Now, I wouldn't worry about colors. See for example the map of the US states; just pick 5 or 6 colors, and use them for the states; simply do not use the same color for two adjacent states. I don't particularly like the layout of the US map, I think you would do a much much better job than they did. =)

Speaking of maps, would you be interested in doing a map of the municipalities of Mexico? (the whole country) I can provide you with a map (copyrighted) of the whole country divided into municipalities, if that helps you. I might be a tedious job, but we can use it for many purposes (economics, IDH, GDP, etc.). Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

--theDúnadan 01:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, I guess using regions could be kinda tricky. It is just that a colored map using regions looks more appealing. Well, I think I can think about something else about the coloring of the map, because I want it to be really professional looking. About the municipalities map, wow, it would be a really hard job (some states have more than 100), but I guess I can do it, patiently. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 02:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I just finished the clickable map! I have also added it to the geography section. I hope you guys like it. I wanted it a little smaller, but it would have been hard to add the links for the central states. There's still the issue about the regions. I haven't added any reference to them, but the map is colored according to the above regions. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 09:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though I like the map, I was very disappointed to see that you divided the country into regions in your final version. You will find no references to support them. The only temporarily "official" regional division (only for development programs) was that created by Fox of five "Mesoregiones", which do not even resemble the regions you made up and which worked [if at all] from 2001-2006. I don't know what to say man. I have already tried to explain why regions are not only subjective, controversial but also constitute WP:OR simply because they do not exist. Since we have already discussed this issue in January (see here) and it was decided by all users to eliminate the old map of regions, I think you should re-think this issue again, and if you still want to pursue this matter, at least open a poll in order to change what constituted a loose consensus in January. --theDúnadan 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The map can be changed. I will design a colored map with no region highlighting. It was very late and I was sleepy! Hey, I want to ask you, why you changed the map position? I think it looks better, more "book-looking" or "encylopedia-looking". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like the new map Alex created and I congratulate him for his work. The article is improving in quality and design. Thanks for your valuable contributions. --theDúnadan 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dúnadan, I appreciate it. I just finished a smaller version of the map that will fit the layout I want to give to the subarticle. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms (PNG vs. SVG)

I know that the SVG file is vectorial, so it can be resized. However, it is not a very extended file format and regular users can't really use it or edit it. Also the SVG version (a conversion, not an original file) has lower quality and the details of the COA are lost. Please comment/vote on this:

<-PNG <-SVG

• Should we use the PNG version until a better/equal quality image is provided?

Please click the images and take a look at the higher resolutions available. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mexico and Middle America

In order to avoid another bunch of edit reversions I open this debate and ask for a votation. I'll present the facts and suggested solution. Please comment.

FACTS

1. As all of we know, Mexico is in North America, a continent (or subcontinent) that can also be divided into smaller geographical regions:

• Continental NA: North America (Can US Mex), Central America, Caribbean.
• Continental NA: Northern America and Middle America (Mex, CA and Caribbean).

2. The current first paragraph of the section Geography, mentions that:

"Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America or also within Middle America."

This wording implies that the term Middle America is broadly used, in almost the same sense as NA is, which is not accurate. The paragraph also fails to report that Middle America is not the only possible geographic subdivision that can be used, since there is no reference to NA meaning the US, Mex and Can.

3. Most of the references and citations we have seen in the part months, define Mexico as a country in North America or at the south of North America. So far I have not seen any reference directly indicating "Mexico is a country of Middle America".

PROPOSALS

Simply edit the current paragraph in order to give the term the appropiate weight, to mantain accuracy. The fact that Mexico is also in North America (as a region) can be ignored, since the article North America already elaborates about it in the usage section, that's OK for now.

1. "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America (alternatively within the region of Middle America)."

2. "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America, alternatively within the region of Middle America."

Or, as an alternative:

3. "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of the south of the North American continent. Its territory can be described as within the region of Middle America or North America."

Please comment/vote about the proposals. Also feel free to add your own proposal. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is sufficient, and I will await comments from others before advocating any changes. The facts above merely represent a particular point of view. After some stability/agreement about content and (your) abortive forking of content, you first tag your 'rewording' as a minor edit without discussion and then instigate (in this case) a discussion of proposals when you can't get your way through persuasion. The order of terms in the sentence already implies importance (read: due weight) and the 1/2 proposals clearly indicate bias, since they do not indicate 'comprising much of the North American continent' too. [http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/NAmer.html One of the references -- for North America, the continent -- says:

• The term Anglo-America is frequently used in reference to Canada and the United States combined, while the term Middle America is used to describe the region including Mexico, the countriesrepublics of Central America, and the Caribbean. This is an overview article, with details in appropriate subarticles.

As well, alternatively implies MA is something completely different from NA (it's generally a region of it); if so, the only necessary change may be the removal of "or also". Number 3 is clearly wordy for not what. Lastly, initiating useless dialogue over here-nor-there proposals is a waste of our collective time. Give it a rest. Corticopia 19:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your Ad Hominem attacks... I'll just add that you were the only editor that reverted the changes I made. Other editors saw the changes and did not reverted them, which indicates they were OK with them. About the "minor edit" thing, I got checked the option to mark all my contributions as minor. All my contributions are automatically marked as minor. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what ad hominem means? Pot, meet kettle. Your edits are being challenged; your attitude is just gravy. Nor do I deny, given your behaviour, pointing a finger (sometimes the middle one) at you when needed. When you pass off edits as minor, things can be glazed over by editors. As well: even more time -- days/weeks? -- passed before you decided to change the text without discussion, during which no one objected. And I am one of the other editors clearly in disagreement regarding this -- so the first way to avoid conflict is to not initiate one. Until then ... Corticopia 20:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You said the first way to avoid conflict is to not initiate one. That's very hypocritical from you, since you give advices and you don't follow them. For weeks, the usage section of North America was not touched... then you came and edit it and add info about CA. Then after your changes, you waited for a debate. It's just funny... AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Spend your time on fruitful pursuits; this one is going nowhere. Corticopia 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place for personal comments. I commend you both for your valuable work and encourage you to debate peacefully. Having said so, in spite of considering that any changes to what has become almost a consensual version are, for the most part, minimal, I think the first sentence in the section does need a little rewording. As of now, it reads "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America[5][6] or also within Middle America.'" From what I can tell (and I might be revising my own perception, based on what I've been reading), Middle America seems to be a cultural or geopolitical region, whereas Central America (and North America) are also geographical or geophysical regions (clearly defined by geography, i.e. isthmuses, tectonic plates, or physiograaphically by changes in topography). The sentence, as it reads now, implies that Middle America is a geographical region defined by latitudes who also "happens to be" a cultural region. (In fact, none of the sources listed here define Middle America by latitudes but by "countries", i.e. [maybe] geopolitics, culture or linguistics).

In that sense we must be careful when defining implicitly Middle America here (or explicitly in Middle America (Americas)). While it is quite obvious that Mexico is located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (geographically) and according to some sources also in a region called "Middle America", that doesn't mean the two concepts are the same, or that one is the definition of the other. (Corticopia, if I am mistaken, and there is a source that does define Middle America exclusively by geographical latitudes, then could you please add a link to it?). So, I would accept any rewording that includes all locations of Mexico within the different geographical, geophysical, cultural and geopolitical regions, as long as we do not generate confusion. --theDúnadan 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article about Middle America (Americas), which contains a physiographic/'geographic' definition for the region (from Britannica). While not all sources define Mexico in NA, allmost if not all include Mexico in its entirety in MA (those that may not may equate MA with Mesoamerica). Corticopia 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but it doesn't define the region by latitudes (as it is implied here and in explicitly defined as such in Middle America (Americas)). While I cannot [?] argue against a reputable source such as Britannica, they are considering the whole country [Mexico] to be an "isthmus" south of the Rocky Mountains (while the Sierra Madre ranges are usually defined as extensions of the Rocky mountains with a different name). I guess this is the first time I've read that Mexico is defined as an isthmus. Anyway, that's a separate issue. Even if Middle America is defined (and even if only by one source) as a geographical and not a geocultural region, it is not defined by latitudes. In that sense, I still advocate for a [small] rewording here and in the other article. In this article I would include Middle America as a cultural region in which Mexico is located after the geopolitical definition of Central America. --theDúnadan 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How can one call MA just a cultural region, when other sources have been provided to say it is not just that? Only Dow (from what I've seen) says it is a cultural area subsuming Mesoamerica. And the notion of Mexico comprising the northerly, wider part of the isthmus adjoining the two Americas is probably the root of the confusion regarding its location. And yet other sources provided merely list MA (succinctly) as a region (with no qualifier) and Mexico within it (e.g., Geography section of its entry in CIA World Factbook). This is getting circular and frustrating. Corticopia 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Perhaps we should avoid the qualifier (any qualifier). I am just being a little strict when it comes to definitions, and sometimes no qualifiers are needed to be explicitly stated in the sources. For example, if a region, say Central America, is defined as Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama and El Salvador, then I understand it as a geopolitical definition, because a geographical or geophysical definition would include [part of] Mexico. Many of the definitions provided in Middle America (Americas) seem to be referring to a geopolitical (in that the borders of the region are the borders of the constituent countries, and not geophysical or geographical features of the continent).

True, Britannica also provides the geographical situation of Middle America, but I do think [and that is my personal perception], that given that the majority of sources provide a cultural or geopolitical definition of Middle America (even if they do not use that specific qualifier), (and I somewhat agree with Alex) that the cultural/linguistic [and geopolitic] definition probably preceded the geographical one. But we are digressing, and I don't think we should argue about which preceded what. We can't really prove either way.

In spite of that, a rewording is still necessary in that no source defines Middle America by latitudes (so far, maybe there is such a source). We can say that Mexico is also located in a region called Middle America that includes such and such countries (the most widely used definition: by countries), without giving it a qualifier. Just a region.

--theDúnadan 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems an overcomplication: it is probably better in this instance to be less strict, and let Wikipedians decide/learn by visiting linked articles. We know that the various regions of the Americas may not have strict 'boundaries' per se. Remember, Central America also has a physiographic definition which differs from the geopolitical one, which may explain issues regarding it. Even someone recently at Northern America keeps adding that Baja is part of it; this does make sense, but there's no source for it. Anyhow, I will source Mexico's mid-latitudinal location and this should remain, even though this line of argumentation (despite the prior lengthy debate and the neutral version to date) has been wholly frustrating and distracting. Corticopia 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was precisely my point, Central America does have a geopolitical and a geographical definition (and a historical and cultural definition as well), whereas Middle America (except for Britannica, even though I have expressed my concerns and interpretations of their definition) is a geopolitical and cultural definition. If Middle America is defined first and foremost as the region in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, then no rewording is necessary neither here nor in the other article. But until then (that is, until a source is provided that defines MA as the region in the mid-latitudes of the Americas), I still propose that we rephrase so that the definition of Middle America be given by its constituent countries first which also happen to be in the mid-latitudes on the Americas, and not viceversa. If you think the argument is getting frustrating we can just take a break and continue tomorrow. I undestand your frustration, and I know that it is better if we debate peacefully and amicably, with the aim of improving these articles. --theDúnadan 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's resume tomorrow, but just to point out a few things:

• (1) I am unwilling to discard the Britannica reference so handily; if so, why should we?
• (2) Per above, if it is agreed that Middle America is a geopolitical region as well, I will make appropriate edits over at Americas (terminology) when I can further research it.
• (3) AC's original discussion did not address its 'mid-latitudinal location in the Americas' (and all of his proposals above include it), as this is apparently obvious; despite this, you have since taken issue with that. Is it contraversial? It seems there is/was agreement that it is not and is conducive to the current IMO impartial intro for that section and elsewhere. Until it is contraversial, there's little reason to remove it.

Specific notions can be addressed on my talk page. Bye for now. Corticopia 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let's resume tomorrow, just let me point out a few things as well:

• (1) I don't propose that we discard the Britannica reference. I just propose that we interpret it and give it its due weight. If one source says "green" when a hundred say "blue", then we must not treat all definitions like if they are equally used. Like I've said in other articles, qualifiers such as "occasionally" or "rarely" are useful in these cases.
• (2) Yes, AC's original discussion was not related to the "mid-latitudes". Like I said, the changes he proposed were minimal (though they deserve to be heard and discussed). It was me who was concerned, since the very beginning, about the way we were implicitly defining Middle America in this article. Like I said, it is quite obvious that Middle America is in the mid-latitudes (even if its latitudinal location did not generate the concept in the first place). But, like you had pointed out in a previous debate (regarding Mexico being bounded by which countries), since this concept is controversial, we must provide a source even if it seems (to us) obvious.

I look forward to our talk tomorrow. Cheers!

--theDúnadan 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

More notes:

• (1) Britannica is a reliable source. Its description about Mexico being a isthmus is wierd (perhaps his OR), but the region of MA is well defined there.

The claim that any of this is OR is very objectionable, particularly with citations from reliable sources. If you can't comment judiciously, don't. Corticopia 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• (2) My second proposal was just that, a proposal. It doesn't have to be followed if nobody agrees. And, as you said, we are not defining MA, so nothing was agreed about it being a geopolitical region (which is not). After all, the discussion in Americas (terminology) still counts. MA is a region (as you said, just that, a region with no qualifiers) of the Americas. Politically it comprises Mexico, the countries of CA and the countries of the Caribbean. That doesn't mean it is a geopolitical region (no source indicate that).

Well, I am happy with this discussion, after all I think we're reaching a consensus. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the discussion over there and here may affirm the notion that MA is also a geopolitical region. You get what you take from this discussion, but any consensus in this respect is very premature, if not just malformed. Corticopia 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

False. Just read the discussion we had there. MA is not a geopolitical region in the sense as opossed to North America. NA geopolitically is opposed to CA, Caribbean and SA. However, I see what you're trying to do: claim false "agreements" and then you'd want to go to all the articles and add Mexico is "geopolitically part of MA", a statement not only ridiculous (since that geopolitical region doesn't exist), but also very OR. Most properly, MA is a region in the Americas, period. Oh and also a cultural region, according to you Dow reference. However, if you want to claim the opposite, then provide a reliable source that clearly and directly define Mexico as in the "geopolitical region of MA". You need to see the difference between present-day geopolitical regions and the fact that, anybody can select a group of countries from a geografical area and make a geopolitical study. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're (continuously) false. I am not denying anything: Dow (and Britannica, upon rereading) refers to MA as a cultural region, the latter definitely delineates it physiographically, other sources say nothing about it (merely indicating it's a region), and more research/information is needed. The article below already treats MA in a geopolitical context, which you are in denial regarding. You may want to jump to conclusions with insufficient information, but we know what that results in ... and that fork was deleted already. And, given everything here and elsewhere, who knows what you're trying to do. Further inappropriate commentary will be ignored. Corticopia 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read? Any researcher can set a group of countries in a determinated geographical area and conduct a geopolitical analysis (politics, economy even military). I can select Palestine, Israel and Lebanon and conduct a geopolitical analysis and call the "region" whatever I want. However, they simply don't make a real geopolitical region, simply because their political/economical not to mention military relations are simply non existen. The countries of MA don't share politics interests, nor economic interest between them. Such interactions and economic interdependency are present within the CA nations, and also are present within the Caribbean nations, but doesn't exist between Mex, CA and the Caribbean. They simply don't make a geopolitical region. MA is not a geopolitical region. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can read fine, but you seem to have difficulties reading and writing. Actually, I believe Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon are considered parts of the Levant -- and arguably comprise a regional unit for analysis, just a smaller one within the Middle East: even that article indicates this is sometimes the case. If you wish to disbelieve that those entities and the ones of this discussion (which should take place/resume there) have any commonalities/linkages in terms of human/political geography, then attitude is not the only thing that needs adjustment. And more information is required before jumping on any forks. Corticopia 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Two notes: MA is arguably already given due weight (not in intro, after other notations per prior discussion), and we are not defining MA -- a host of other sources have been provided that already do so. A bientôt. :) Corticopia 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so now you want to give less weight to the fact MA is a cultural region? You did the opposite when debating in Americas terminology and in Mesoamerica... AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No: what I am saying is that MA may be any number of regions -- geographic, geophysical, geopolitical, cultural... We cannot qualify it as one or the other when other sources have been provided or do not differentiate. For all I know: MA is primarily physiographic/geophysical because it is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas -- that does make sense. I also advocate for this in Americas (terminology). Corticopia 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, would you please suggest a rewording? If we are going to mention Mexico is part of the (cultural) region of Middle America, Latin America should be mentioned too. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin America is mentioned in the introduction. Corticopia 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

North America is also mentioned in the intro. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yet Middle America is not. Corticopia 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dúnadan. Remember our debate on Talk:Americas (terminology)? Middle America is for sure not a geopolitical region. It is a cultural (perhaps linguistical) region of North America (that of course, can be described in geographical terms, but it doesn't seem it was the primary base for the contruct of the term). It seems to me it was created to provide contrast with Northern America, another cultural area in the NA continent. NA as a continent is divided in Northern and Middle. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, nothing is for sure. MA may be in contrast to Northern America (usage of which dates back to 1755). I have tried to research the etymology of MA, but (given editing herein) haven't had the time as of yet. Also note, though, that the article regarding Middle America being a shatterbelt lends credence to it being a geopolitical region, too. Corticopia 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished reading that article. It divides the Americas in three groups: North (Mex, Can, US, and directly note this), Middle America (CA and the Caribbean, it mentions Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba...) and South America. In their explanations of the "shatterbelts" they never mention Mexico in the "Middle American shatterbelts". In fact, they do mention Mexico in the "North American shatterbelts". So, the article doesn't support the idea of Middle America being a "geopolitical region". The article never says that. At least, if anything, it elaborates a geopolitical historical study about Middle America, a region clearly defined as CA and the Caribbean, within the article. Anyways, good night Corticopia, I gonna take off. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point: you deny that MA is a region for geopolitical analysis, when it is clearly used in that context in that article. The fact that the article may exclude Mexico from MA is immaterial, since (as we know) most sources do not and yet other sources also exclude Mexico from the 'region' of NA. This, coupled with your misunderstanding of the terms at play and disbelief or ignorance of the fact that (for example) the countries of the Levant are not geopolitically connected somehow should raise the brow of anyone involved in this discussion. Good night! Corticopia 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can select a certain group of countries and start a geopolitical study, as is done in the article you provided. Geopolitical regions are defined in a different way, as we discussed in Americas terminology. I can select, for example, US, Mex, Guatemala and Belize and study their politics, economical and militar relations. However, it will be hard to see any geopolitical integration between them, so they are not referred as a geopolitical region. Middle America is a geographical and also a cultural term, used to subdivide North America. Also, note that the article you provided treats North America as Canada, US and Mexico. We're not asking to not use the term MA, jus for a different wording in order to accurately indicate what each term is.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are both advocating for slightly different things in this discussion. A read of that article clearly indicates that MA is one such region for geopolitical analysis -- i.e., a shatterbelt subject to strife, a field of contestaton by major powers, constituents accepting alliances nationally/externally. Yes, it may also treat those three countries in NA as a continent -- this is not in dispute and already dealt with in the NA article; furthermore, they appear to group the three countries together (and not inappropriately) to conveniently address contention over Texas/southern US. Corticopia 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Given the above discussion, I have another rewording proposal. No qualifiers for the regions and noting NA as a continent.

Mexico is situated in the south portion of the North American continent. Its territory lies in the regions of Middle America and North America. Physiographically, the lands east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec including the Yucatán Peninsula (which together comprise around 12% of the country's area) lie within the region of Central America. Geologically, the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt delimits the region on the north.[9] Geopolitically, however, Mexico is generally not considered a Central American country and its southern border with Belize and Guatemala delimits the region.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this: the first line was largely to accommodate for the fact that it is in the Americas above all and in its mid-portion (general to specific). Your prior proposals are more palatable. And, if this holds, the prior poll and consensus -- not to mention the time investment -- meant absolutely nothing. Again, this is wholly disconcerting. Bye for now. Corticopia 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this source (chapter of an e-book) published by Vincent Malmstrom, professor emeritus at Dartmouth College indicates the following:

• Mexico's rugged topography and its low-latitude location combine to produce a wide diversity of climates ... Lying between the parallels of 15 and 33 degrees north latitude ...

referring to its location in the low northerly latitudes of North America or, alternatively, the mid-latitudes of the Americas (which is particularly apt if one maintains that Mexico is a part of America). As well:

• Mexico's isthmian location between the landmasses of North and South America makes it a frontier [between two ecozones] ...

Anyhow, more later ... Corticopia 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you didn't get it. Above, I said it was just a proposal and that I did understand both yours and Dúnadan comments, in regard that this debate was not about the elimination of the line "Mexico is located in the mid-latitudes..." Ok? I did get it. That line is gonna be kept. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely 'got it' ... and stated as much above about 'slight differences' between the two of you in discussion points. Here, I merely consolidated my comments because (1) the one reference dealt with other points too (e.g., the (sic) 'wierd' isthmus assertion) and (2) latitude. :) More later ...Corticopia 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

After the break

I hope you guys enjoyed your Saturday. Welcome back. Concerning the concept of Middle America,

• I understood the definition of MA to be geopolitical in that it was defined by political borders and not by geophysical features. However, the concept of political geography or geopolitics, besides studying political borders, it also studies political, governmental and economical analysis, nationalism, voting,[2], ethnic conflicts, [3], and political preference[4]. So I understand Alex's opposition to considering MA a geopolitical concept. After all, just as geopolitics is concerned with the integration of countries in the European Union and its expansion, it is concerned about the development of the North American bloc (considering it goes beyond NAFTA after the Security and Prosperity Parternship, and, though remote, the possible creation of a NA community, as proposed by some politicians of the three countries). In this case, Middle America is not a geopolitical concept, but simply a cultural one in opposition to Anglo-America.
• Since Middle America could be considered a geopolitical term (if defined exclusively by borders) or simply as a cultural term (in that it cannot be extended to other aspects of political geography), I propose that we define MA as it is most commonly done: as a region in the Americas integrated by such and such countries. Other definitions, like Britannica, can also be included as occasional alternative geographical definitions.

Now, getting back to our main concern, which is the rewording of that sentence. I still believe we should not imply that Middle America is defined as the "mid-latitudes of the Americas" because I haven't found a reference to support that claim. I would leave the sentence as Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, comprising much of southern North America. And add the sentence about Mexico being in Middle America at the end of the paragraph.

--theDúnadan 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I kinda knew that you were using the term that way, no in the strict sense of what geopolitics are really about. As you said, let's get back to the main debate.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Well, I do disagree somewhat with the above, D., and believe the argument that it's unsourced to be somewhat troublesome. I am still trying to source it (related source above), but that doesn't deny the fact of the matter -- which is not in dispute? -- that Middle America is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (apt given its north-south 'length' and juxtaposed with 'North' and South America) and that the entry was an attempt to equitably incorporate all points of view. It is distressing that editors herein may first advocate for noting a solitary American continent here and elsewhere, and then challenge language and expansion which properly addresses it. It is analogous to defining and differentiating any region - e.g., Central America is a central region of {the )America(s), Central/Middle Africa the same (but each not the same), Eastern Europe is the eastern region or portion of Europe, etc. (as well many, of those regional articles are spartan and remain unsourced or lacking detail). In its essence, Middle America is the/a middle (or central) region of the Americas; in lieu of the current challenge solely by D. (which can't be anything but), I would advocate for that sort of rewording in the lead of that article and nothing less. Herein, I maintain the content does not need to be changed and -- perhaps in retrospect, the original proposals are looking more palatable and I'd choose #2 if any, then #1: after all, it's about what Mexico is, not what it isn't. In any event, I remain exasperated by this continual line of discourse for what may be not what. Corticopia 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you remain exasperated. Honestly, I do too, in that we seem not to be able to understand each other, and we find ourselves (or at least I find myself) repeating the arguments over and over, thinking that the other party did not understand our point.

Please, indulge me, in that I have to repeat an argument once again. I fully agree with you in that Middle America is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas. My concern is that MA is not defined as such even if it happens to be located there. AC has said that MA is a cultural region before a geographical region, and I agree. And even the old distinction between Eastern and Western Europe was first political (democracy vs. communism) and then geographical. Now things have changed, new countries have been born, and things get blurry now that EU has been expanded.

Middle America is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas: I fully agree with you. But no source defines it as such. We cannot say that we must include MA as being located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas to preserve NPOV or to include all POVs, because if no source has been found to corroborate the claim, then there is no POV to be incorporated, but our own opinion.

Given your history of referenced and solid contributions, I assume you found a source that defined MA as being located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas before you wrote the article. If that is the case, then simply add it, and this discussion is all over. Like you said before, we must add references even to that which seems obvious to us.

Also, I have a small petition. I have been mistaken before thinking that you were referring to me or talking to me when you weren't, and that confusion may cause unnecessary animosity. Could you please refer to the editors at all times by names (instead of "editors herein" and the sort), so that we might continue to discuss amicably? I would most ceraintly appreciate that endeavor.

--theDúnadan 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments (will ref editors hereafter). I understand you fine; I believe the jury is still out on whether Middle America is primarily a geopolitical, geophysical, cultural, and/or some other region. You will note that I have maintained it to be a cultural region (read Dow), but do not dispute nor discard other interpretations. However, when both Britannica and the CIA World fact book provide a physical description alone to note its location (the later explicitly stating MA), it must mean that it is also a geographic/geophysical region (also see recent Coney ref added at MA regarding physiographic development of MA). As well, I will continue to investigate but (again) the lead of MA was written to accommodate the various points of view regarding the Americas -- which is also corroborated by Merriam-Webster's definition for the region (Mexico, countries of Central America, often West Indies, sometimes Colombia and Venezuela) ... which would make it a region of political geography too.

I believe the issues here are two-fold:

• AC has taken issue with noting MA without a qualifier or other punctuation, while being copasetic with its mid-latitudinal location
• D has since taken issue with descriptions of Mexico and Middle America being in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, and that MA may be defined as that, despite parallelism elsewhere (e.g., Central America, Middle/Central Africa, Southeast Asia) and an equitable definition there that is (not?) contraversial

this seems somewhat intractable, since the alternates may yield an article that is partial in content regarding its location.

As for etymology: take a glance at Talk:Middle America (Americas)#Usage -- this is premature, but it may be that Middle America is a precursor term to (yes) Mesoamerica as I initially suspected. More information (to follow) is necessary before jumping to any conclusions ... Corticopia 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand Dúnadan's concerns about the lack of sources indicating the latitudinal location of Middle America. Corticopia, I am not opposed of saying Mexico is in the mid latitudes of the Americas, and I have never been opposed to it. I have to agree with Dúnadan's proposal, that the best solution is to write the line in a way it doesn't get confused with the first line about the Americas. And also I agree with adding no qualifiers to the term and simply add it as the references describe it: "A region of the Americas". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As above, again, one can argue that the definition (specifically, the lead) for Middle America needn't any extraneous source since it is rather descriptive -- middle region of America -- or (in MA) can simply be rendered a (re)iteration of the article title per the manual of style. And, I'm sorry to say: this discussion with all parties has mushroomed into a circular, frustrating, argumentative farce and apparently foregos the impartial framing arrived at and (in retrospect) the frankly useless poll conducted weeks ago and lengthy discussions throughout. Editors promote neutrality and then cast it off when it doesn't appear to suit them. Congratulations.

I maintain the current leads here and there are sufficient, with attempts to tweak it without discussion beforehand (surreptitiously, I might add) part of an overall campaign to insinuate a point of view regardless of source and perhaps to disrupt ... resulting in this. Anyhow, added research/sourcing notwithstanding, I will want the entire intro paragraph for the Geography section placed here for review and discussed before any changes are made, and any changes for MA discussed and proposed over there beforehand. If the changes here and there are not agreeable, they will not stand. And that's all I have to say regarding this. Corticopia 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I cannot believe what you said. It is obvious that you want to disrupt the dabate because it does not fit your expectations.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you changed your own comment while I was editing. I must say your previous (deleted) sentence in which you accused me (literally you said "you both", though now you revert back to what I asked you not to do, to refer to the ambigious "editors") of "promoting neutrality and then discarding it when it doesn't suit me" as well as that of just having an "argumentative farce", and doing things "surreptitiously", and I am not campaigning against a specific point of view. All of that was not only uncalled for, but extremely inappropriate.

In a previous argument you demanded sources for the logical, and now you disregard our petitions for sources for the logical. I, therefore, maintain that the current leads here and there are not sufficient, simply because the statement is unsourced. And I request sources to be added, or the statement to be deleted. I am not attempting to tweak anything without discussion (I haven't edited the section at all). If you are not willing to debate amicably, I wish to discuss no further. --theDúnadan 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean what I said: you both promote neutrality, and then cast it off when it suits you. Be this due to nationalism, denial, or some other reason, I cannot say. And arguably you, D., have taken sides given your stance in the AfD to support the fork, whose contents were consensually merged elsewhere and deleted. You probably would've done better to have remained ambivalent, as you've maintained throughout much of this discussion.

To clarify, D., while you have not edited anything, the other editor involved in this discussion has, precipitating everything.

Anyhow, I will continue to research and source worthwhile content when able, but any changes that are not consensual nor agreeable regarding the above points will NOT stand. And I am ending this tortuous discussion. (Other notions can hereafter be addressed on my talk page, if needed.) Corticopia 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not support the fork, but I did not support the decision of the administrator either since a full consensus was not achieved. I had rather extended the discussion before a final decision was taken. Please review the log to see my concerns, before bringing up your accusations. I didn't vote, but just commented on that. Given your personal attacks (nationalism, denial, and the sort), I wish to discuss no discuss no further with you. It seems you are also hypocritical in your own arguments demanding sources for the obvious, but unwilling to provide them when they don't suit you; you promote neutrality, except when we challenge your definition. I insist, either you present a source that clearly defines MA the way you want to, or the statements WILL be deleted because they cannot be sustained with sources or references, by policy of Wikipedia. And that is all I have to say. --theDúnadan 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a spade is a spade: You clearly opted to overturn the AfD, for reasons later discounted. I have indicated I will research and source the assertion -- which was perhaps lost in my verbiage -- but its premature removal would clearly highlight duality regarding facts that are supposedly not controversial. I will also retract any pointed statements, D., misconstrued as personal attacks. But really, these lengthy chats -- particularly over what essentially is an inappropriate comma -- are quite exasperating and seem to be rather counter-productive. Perhaps another break is in order? Corticopia 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if Corticopia wants to exclude himself from the debate, then let it be. We can always continue to debate, as we were. As Dúnadan said, you are the one that always ask for "reliable sources" here and there (as in South America where you erased my edits), so the same rule applies to you. Your threats about what is going to be kept or not, are just not welcome here. I guess we'll just have to wait for your sources, because you're entitled to add them, it's your right to sustain your edits or proposed edits. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment. Corticopia 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuation

Dúnadan, can we please resume this debate? I have implemented a contention solution (just separating the "mid-latitudes" line from the "Middle America" line with a period. However, it has been recentrly edited again, and again, it portrays the region of "Middle America" as equally used as just the NA continent. I think it is time to resume this and edit the paragraph. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? The recent edits to the second sentence were intended to address your concerns about its commonality. This is ludicrous. Corticopia 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we are still discussing it here, the debate has not ended yet. Secondly, your recent edit to the second line readed:

"Its territory comprises much of southern North America, within a region sometimes referred to as Middle America."

It doesn't address the concern of the the commonality of "MA". This particular edit makes one think, if the region is sometimes called MA, then, what is the name of the region Mexico is within when not called that? Also, the line only mentions one possible geographical region, MA, what about North America? Since it is not the only geographical model that could be applied. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about again? You first edit the statement without discussion and start everything off, then you assert it doesn't reflect an equitable state of affairs; you then complain when equitable edits are attempted. Again, this is rather senseless and going nowhere. Read the statement again: the first sentence clearly places Mexico in the Americas, the second in southern North America (whatever that may be) which also corresponds to what is (sometimes) called Middle America. What is the problem here? As for what the name of the region Mexico is within when not called MA is for the reader to decide or not, but that is not an implication or intention of the statement. We can always replace "a region sometimes referred to as Middle America" with simply "within (the region of) Middle America" or just "in Middle America". Please let's get on with it. Corticopia 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits

ok then, I'll mention my edits here, though I think it's very silly because people make edits all the time without mentioning them on the talk page (dividing the history section in two sections for example, the one I rolled back):

History and Etymology should be two different sections, because it are two different subjects. The "Pre-Columbian Civilizations and Origin of the Name" is not about Pre-Columbian civilizations at all, but only about etymology while "European Colonization and Independence" deals with the entire history instead of just the European colonization and independence. Also the article "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire" is not the main article about that subject, but only about a part of it (apart from that it's a non-functioning redirect).

Finally the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is simply not important enough to mention on the history section of this article. Out of all the things that happened during the Fox administration the SPPNA is really not one of the most important facts. Better mention it in the History of Mexico article, which needs to be revamped anyway. Mixcoatl 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. Thanks. --theDúnadan 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your edits, but the deletion of the SPP of NA. I think it is a political agreement that will play an increasingly important role in nowadays and future politics of the North American region. Perhaps it can be relocated, let me read the whole article again. For now, I added it back. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Biodiversity picture

Having a picture of a lepisosteus (pejelagarto) in the biodiversity section, just before the politics sections, is controversial at best. 1) there are other species that are endemic to Mexico 2) This particular species makes reference to another particular politician (el pejelagarto, Lopez Obrador) 3) The nearness of the picture with the politics section may lead some readers to believe that the article supports a particular political point of view. Because of the above, I would prefer if the picture of the lepisosteus was replaced. Furthermore, since the biodiversity subsection is so small, I don't really see it needs a picture. I have, therefore, removed it. Hari Seldon 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The image doesn't reference any politician. This makes your objection problematic ... WilyD 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an implicit reference. I would still prefer a more widely known and less controversial picture. Hari Seldon 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to provide more context and information, some reference that this seemingly innocuous image could be seen as contraversial, if you hope to establish a consensus that it should be removed/replaced. As it stands your whole argument consists of I don't like it which few editors are likely to find compelling. WilyD 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is that of a "pejelagarto". "Pejelagarto" is also the nickname of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the controversial politican who lost the highly contested 2006 Presidential Election. This same picture, or one similar to it, has also been featured at different points in time in the wikipedia article about Lopez Obrador (though I don't think it is featured anymore). The fact that the biodiversity section is placed just before the politics section also contributes to the controversial placement. What I am saying is that this picture may draw more attention to a current political controversy than to the biodiversity of Mexico. A better picture can easily be found, and said picture need not have the political content involved. The picture can be interpreted as "spineless, fish-like, politicans are part of the biodiversity" or a message from Lopez Obrador supporters saying "we cannot be ignored, we are here". Either way, it is controversial and may be interpreted as saying more than it intends. Because of these reasons, I don't think it is prudent to include this particular picture. Hari Seldon 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can you suggest a replacement image? An endemic Mexican species would probably be preferable. I'm not sure the issue is much of a problem, but good is always better than okay. WilyD 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for having deleted the pic without reading the talk page first; indeed you had provided a reason. I don't fully agree with you, but you still provided a reason.

I don't really link the image of a well-known endemic species in Mexico with López Obrador. When I added it, about a month ago [because it was me who added it on the biodiversity section, even if it had been used long before in a different section and then deleted], I wasn't really thinking about politics or surreptitious messages of the supporters. Since the article doesn't even mention Obrador's nickname, I don't think an external non-Mexican reader will make that connection. But I do understand your concern, and if a better image can be found, which will portray no political connotations, then that's better. I support the replacement of the image. --theDúnadan 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an external non-Mexican reader will make that connection - I certainly didn't. WilyD 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but there are plenty of Mexican readers here, and, i would really prefer to have this article as non-controversial as possible. We all know how it can get when little things create big fights and/or edit wars. Hari Seldon 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Mexican, and I know who López Obrador is (I study political sciences). However, I didn't make that connection, simply because I didn't know the formal name of the specie nicknamed "pejelagarto". I doubt any non-Mexican would make the connection between the image and AMLO. In fact, I liked the image because it was very colorful and look so professional. The new one is just OK. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still maintain my opinion, but since general consensus seems to be against me, then thats just the way it is. I find the current picture acceptable, but if you wish to put in the other picture, I guess that would be ok too, since I am the only one with reservations against it. Hari Seldon 01:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2000: the first time the opposition defeated the PRI?

In a recent edition, the first paragraph was changed. That change implied that the 2000 presidential election was the first time [ever] that an opossition party defeated the "ruling party" (PRI). That is totally wrong. The PAN and the PRD have already defeated the PRI in municipal and state elections before 2000. This year was the first time the PRI was defeated in a presidential race. That's all. Please, see the changes [5]. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, user FateClub let this message in my user talk:

[..]please realize that the article says "first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) at the national presidential race". It implies that in 1929 the PRI was the ruling party and it was defeated, neither is correct.[...] --FateClub 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't get his point. Or maybe it is that I haven't slept in 34 hours. Well, I just paste it here so other people can comment. The current introduction seems fine to me. Comments! AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to say that 2000 was the first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the ruling party in a presidential election. That would be more accurate. Hari Seldon 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To say that PRI ruled Mexico since 1929 is incorrect because it wasn't founded until 1946, and even if for non-specialist people the difference seems vain, actually PNR, PRM and PRI had particular features that made each stage of the develpment of the party very different from the others.I think the article must be corrected. --201.141.98.254 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Why was semi-protection removed? Vandalism to this article has increased. Please semi-protect this article again! Hari Seldon 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Articles like this should probably be left semi-protected, just like United States. It is wearing, tiresome and frustrating to be reverting vandalism all day long, and it discourages honest and hard-working editors from improving or even participating in Wikipedia. --the Dúnadan 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I agree as well. Keep the Semi-protection on. --Ramírez 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Just take a look at the history of this article and you'll see it has been protected so many times. It should be permanently semi protected. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as soon as it was left unprotected I had two revert two edits within minutes. --FateClub 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism has increased today, since the article got unprotected. Can somebody tell me if it is already listed in the Request protection page? AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, what we gonna do with this people, huh, Mexico is probably the second most hated country in the world after the USA, as you might have seen the vandals came from both North America and South America, this s..t simply proves my theory that US Citizens hate Mexico because of the illegal immigration issue and the wrong idea that they have about the country, and South Americans hate Mexico as well because they know that we're better than them in many aspects, oh.. What a situation we got ourselves into, isn't it? Supaman89 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Motivation for vandalism aside, how do we semi-protect the article again? Hari Seldon 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We just need to talk to an administrador and explain him the problem. Supaman89 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I'm back. I'll just request protection for the article in the appropiate page, I was so tired in the morning that I couldn't do it. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished asking semi-protection. Next time you want to do it, go here. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I can't believe they keep vandalising the page, even though have their user names. Supaman89 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mexican parties templates

In order to provide a fast way of showing the correct link to each political party article, and to show its initials and colors, I have created the following templates. Originally, the actual official logo was going to be used, but those logos were uploaded with a "fair use" license, and Wikipedia explicitly forbbids the use of such images in templates. So I created generic symbols, with the party initials and colors, as done in the Mexican press and media. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What to type	Result
{{PAN party}}	PAN
{{PRI party}}	PRI
{{PRD party}}	PRD
{{PT party}}	PT
{{PVEM party}}	PVEM
{{CON party}}	MC
{{PSD party}}	PSD
{{PNA party}}	PANAL

Congratulations! Excellent work! Your contributions will not only improve Mexico-related articles here, but in other wikipedias as well. --the Dúnadan 16:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally somebody reliped! Thanks Dúnadan, I hope people start using them. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sup guys, look at my new template

Hey, guys I just wanted to show you the new template that I just made for all users from Mexico, if anyone wants to use it, please feel free to do so, now we have two choices instead of just one. Supaman89 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the old one.

This user comes from Mexico.

Here's the one I just made.

This user comes from the
United Mexican States.
And they're proudly Mexican.

Man, I almost forgot to show you this one: Supaman89 16:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

es-
mxEste usuario puede contribuir con un nivel vernacular del español que se habla en México.

Photographic database (external link)

Hello members of the discussion board. I'd like to submit for consideration adding an external link to [www.esmexico.com], which is an external website that contains a photographic database of all Mexico. The photos are do not comply with the GNU license, so I'm not able to just add them to Wiki images, but given the number of photos that it has (currently 11,000), it makes for an excelent visual database.
I'm a new member in the English version of Wikipedia, but have been a contributor to the Spanish version of Wikipedia on articles related to Mexico and its geography (user name is the same as here) for over a year. This external link was discussed and aproved in the Spanish language article of Mexico, and it's included as Base de Datos de Fotos de México on the External Links.
As a final note I'd like to add that it features 11,000 photos of geography and culture related images and historical (antique) pictures of Mexico. On top of these, we feature over 4,000 antique Mexican postcards. Altogether there are more than 15,000 images. More than any other website around, including goverment and tourism pages.--Esmexico 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who unprotected this page

Did anyone request this page to be unprotected? This page gets constant vandalism everyday. Shouldn't it be permanently protected à la United States or George Bush?? --the Dúnadan 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But nobody unprotected the article. Last time an admin semi-protected it, used a temporary SP, and he said it will get unprotected by this date. All we can do is request SP again and make clear this article need permanent SP. I'll fill the request. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I reported and just minutes ago an admin granted indefinitely semi-protection. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very much needed Hari Seldon 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Filipino Mexicans?

I recently deleted the sources for Filipino Mexicans and added them to the list with other Asian peoples in Mexico (Chinese, Korean, etc.) One source read as follows:

( Following the Third World War and the Mexican conquest of the United States territories to its north, the liberal Mexican government resettled Hispanophone Filipino refugees from their camps in the East Indian Commonwealth to the promising if underpopulated northwestern states of greater Mexico. More quickly than Korean-Mexicans, the Filipino immigrant communities of the California and Sonora are quickly mixing with their native-born Mexican neighbours, due to the Filipinos' knowledge of Spanish and their Catholicism. )

First of all, who in the world really acknowledges that there has been a third world war? And when were the U.S.'s territories ever 'conquered' by Mexico??? These are not very good sources...just read them. They say nothing about what these people are trying to back up.

Also, the Filipinos mixed in quicker than Koreans because of prior Spanish skills? Filipinos have virtually no knowledge of Spanish...let's find some real sources, besides what's wrong with adding them into the list with other Asians..why not show how many Chinese or Japanese immigrants there have been...Such a small group like Filipinos really have no consequence in Mexico anyway. signed Cali567 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Do not be such an ignorant and have some common sense, Filipinos or East Timorese are a different oriental race compared to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc. Why are you comparing Filipinos to Chinese, Koreans, Japanese etc. when infact the Filipino mentality, language and culture do not matched up with other Asians. And also there are some Mexicans who are descendance of Filipino origin. Have some common sense the Philippines was part of the territory of New Spain during the colonial period. Filipinos, Spaniards or Mexicans have been travelling in the Manila-Acapulco Galleon between 1565-1815, assisting Spain's trade with Philippines and Mexico. There was some integration between the three groups in terms of population demography. I'm still researching on this article and gathering all the facts. It will expand soon, You have to have patients cali, Wikipedia is not a place for "Nuetral Point of Views", "Personal Attack" or "Racism", the next you make an attempt to racialy attack an ethnic group, "I will blocked you". I'm giving you one more chance.--Ramírez 10:17 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramírez, you might want to check your own language. Cali's comments are not racist, and you have attacked him by calling him "ignorant" and implicitly "racist". I think it is you who needs to be careful with the language and your choice of words. Besides, you are not administrator, so you cannot block anyone. Threatening to block other users is definitely a lack of etiquette; Cali has done nothing that would merit a block, but most importantly, you can't do it yourself. Wikipedia is the place of neutral point of views. Claims that cannot be sourced must be erased, especially if new sources contradict those claims. After you've done your research, then the information could be added to article. --the Dúnadan 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Philippines have always been present in Mexican history, as Mexico was the administrator of that territory, however, the 600,000 thousand figure comes from the worst source I've ever seen... I can go with the 200,000 that was in the other article but anyways, I think the number should be omitted (As per the number of different ancestries mexican have, it does not have such a relevance) and rewritten to say that there was this pihilippine immigration during the colonial period, that, I find relevant. and Ramirez72, you should check your english, maybe that's the reason you misunderstand your so-called "sources". And Cali, I'm no expert of the Mexico-Filipino relationship but, with some history, I want to believe that there was indeed some immigration of Filipinos to Mexico and that they blended the exact same way as spanish, or europeans (that nowadays we can only see the color of the skin but not certainly identify the origin). Really, Filipinos are a very similar to mexicans in religion, traditions, language (there's still a spanish creole spoken nowadays there). I believe they should have blended much better than other asians so today, we don't find enough relevance. Aldoman 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC) An Example of Mexico-Philippines-Spain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED17KtQmyAU Tagalog and some of Philippines' dialect was actually derived in Spanish language and yeah... Zamboanga and part of Cavite City spoke Chavacano spanish creole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.35.235 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam?

I find it interesting that the reference to the number of adherents of Islam in Mexico was removed as well as the Mexicans of African ancestry.

-Ken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.17.215.235 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

They were removed because they seemed to be personal estimations. Neither the census nor the demographics bureaus in Mexico classify population according to ethnicity, except when it comes to Indigenous peoples. So there is no official estimation whatsoever about the number of Afro-Mexicans. The last report on religion, by INEGI, does nor report Muslims (they might have been classified as "others", but that would include Buddhists as well, so we cannot tell how many (in number) people are Muslim in Mexico, at least, not officially. You might be able to find a reliable source on Muslims in Mexico from an external non-profit organization (maybe the UN, I don't know), and that could be cited as a non-official estimation. --the Dúnadan 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

President of Mexico not required to be Catholic

Given the implication in the lead of the paragraph that other Latin-American countries do require their presidents to be Catholic, why wouldn't this be a worthwhile point to make?

--Richard 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see any implication anywhere in this article that any country requires their President to be Catholic. Additionally, most civilized democracies do not have a religious requirement to hold the office of President. It isn't noteworthy in the article about France, or about the United States. Why should it be noteworthy here? Hari Seldon 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard is comparing the situation in Mexico with other Latin American countries exclusively. In fact the article on Demography of Mexico in the Religions section points this out. Now, as far as I know Argentina does require, at least nominally, the president to profess Catholicism. I do not know how exceptional the case of Mexico is; in other words, I do not know whether the majority of the countries in LA do require the president to profess Catholicism in which case Mexico is an anomaly to the rule and the comment seems appropriate if contextualized (i.e. compared) in LA. If Argentina is the anomaly, then I don't think it is that important to note it here. --the Dúnadan 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Mexico does not have an official religion would make it ironic to have a requirement of being Catholic for a president. Therefore, we do need to specify it even if other Latin American countries may have that requirement. --FateClub 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Argentine Constitution does not require the president to be a Catholic. That provision was removed in the 1994 constitutional reform.

Without a doubt, the case of Argentina must be the exception and not the rule. Liberal, civilized, modern democracies do not have a religious requirement in their Presidents. As FateClub notes, it would be ironic considering that most liberal, civilized, modern democracies protect the right to freedom of religion. Saying that Mexico is a liberal democracy suffices to say that there is no religious requirement to hold office.

In any case, this discussion should be in President of Mexico Hari Seldon 06:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse freedom of religion with religion of the State. In the UK there is freedom of religion, but the religion of the State is Anglicanism; the bishops still hold a place in the House of Lords. In Spain, there is freedom of religion, but the State provides funds for the Church. There are many other examples of modern, liberal, civilized democracies in which religions holds a prominent role within the government and yet ensure freedom of religion for all its citizens. --the Dúnadan 07:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but Mexico also does not have a "State religion". Additionally, even in Spain and UK, the Prime Minister or President is not required to have a specified religion. Other than monarchs, I don't think that liberal democracies in general have a religious requirement to their heads of state or heads of government. Hari Seldon 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not entirely true. The UK has an established church. And the head of state there is not the prime minister but the monarch, who is still prohibited, by law, from being Catholic (as is his/her spouse). A number of officials including the PM and Lord Chancellor would be deprived of their ecclesiastic duties if they were Catholic. As Dúnadan ably notes, there are still a good number of liberal democracies which have established religions but still manage quite well to allow religious freedom. Argentina, like Ireland, while not having an established or official Church, gives special constitutional recognition to the role of the Catholic Church. All of that aside, it is sufficient in the article to note that there is no established church or official religion. The rest is then apparent. We could prattle on endlessly in the article about what the constitution does not require. Mamalujo 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Catholic priests are not allowed to hold public office anywhere. However, that doesn't mean that they cannot vote. --Qompaq1 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of Religion Section

Unlike some other Latin American countries, Mexico has no official religion, and the Constitution of 1917 and the anti-clerical laws marked a great limitation on the Church and sometimes codified state intrusion into Church matters. The government does not provide any financial contribution to the Church, and the latter does not participate in public education. In 1992 Mexico lifted almost all restrictions on the Catholic Church, including granting all religious groups legal status, conceding them limited property rights, and lifting restrictions on the number of priests in the country. [38] Until recently, priests did not have the right to vote, and even now, they cannot be elected for public office.

Nonetheless, the Mexican population is predominantly Roman Catholic (89%[39]); in absolute terms, after Brazil, Mexico has the second largest population of Catholics in the world. About 6% of the population is Protestant, of which Pentecostals and Charismatics (called Neo-Pentecostals in the census), are the largest group. There are also around 250,000 active Mormons in the country.[40] Geographically, northern and central Mexico are mostly Catholic (where Protestants are usually less than 3% of the total population) whereas at the south-east, while still predominantly Catholic a little more than 15% of the population is either Protestant or non-religious. Forty-seven percent of the Mexican population attends church services weekly.[41]

The existence of Jews in Mexico dates back to as early as 1521, when Hernando Cortés conquered the Aztecs, accompanied by several Conversos. The Mexican Jewish population numbers, according to INEGI, more than 40,000.

This section is very outdated.

the Mexican population is predominantly Roman Catholic 89%

This is obviously grossly inaccurate. How is this defined?

6% of the population is Protestant, of which Pentecostals and Charismatics (called Neo-Pentecostals in the census), are the largest group Where does this number come from? It needs to be updated. It is probably at least 15% today.

There is no mention of the Anglican Church of Mexico, or the Presbyterian or Methodist Churches of Mexico, each of which have a long history and their own seminaries in Mexico!

Official website Anglican Church of Mexico http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=M2

There are many more than 250,000 Mormons in Mexico, and they are growing very rapidly.

All that information shown in the article comes from INEGI. If you believe it is "grossly inaccurate", then you should complain at www.inegi.gob.mx, not here. Your estimation of protestants and Mormons are a personal estimation, not an official figure. --the Dúnadan 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1 000004e94610aRCRD

Official figures

Argentina 348,396 Belize 3,079 Bolivia 148,630 Brazil 928,926 Chile 539,193 Colombia 149,973 Costa Rica 34,036 Ecuador 170,736 El Salvador 93,246 Guatemala 200,537 Guyana 1,845 Honduras 116,416 Mexico 1,043,718 Nicaragua 52,184 Panama 40,897 Paraguay 61,308 Peru 416,060 Uruguay 96,943 Venezuela 134,597

TOTAL 4,580,720 (36% of Total LDS Church Membership)

Does anyone moderate this site? There is no country in the world except Vatican City in which 89% of the population is Roman Catholic, and no country in Latin America in which practicng Roman Catholics are a majority. If the INEGI (whatever that is) says 89% of the population of Mexico is Roman Catholic, then the INRGI is obviously not a credible source.

INEGI is the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Data Processing. It is a very reliable source, and in fact, neutral (unlike LDS own statistics). Your opinions are just that opinions. Beware not to include my signature on your biased comments in the future. --the Dúnadan 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Demography of Mexico#Religion makes that distinction: it reports the 89% of nominal Catholics, as reported by INEGI, but a 46% of Church attendees, as reported by an international organization. I wouldn't dismiss INEGI as an unreliable or non-credible source that easily. For starters, it is not an estimation, the figure comes from a census, and it reports ascription to a religion not adherence. For the most part self-ascription to religion is a tradition even if a smaller percentage is practicing. INEGI reports self-ascription; they do not do any statistical analysis on whether those identified as Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, for that matter, do adhere to the principles of their religion. --the Dúnadan 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we might need to solve the apparent contradiction between INEGI's 2000 census reports with those of LDS. The difference (200,000 5 and older from INEGI) to an estimated million is far larger than simple statistical insignificance. Maybe we should dig a little into the data, both from INEGI and LDS to try to figure it out. --the Dúnadan 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Any organization that reports that 89% of the people of Mexico are practicing Roman Catholics, and that there are only 200,000 Mormoally in Mexico, is a totally unreliable source.

I am in no way associated with you or your comments about Mexico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.211.0 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

The source specifies more than 1 million members, I corrected that instead of the 1/4 million. The 89% is exaggerated because it is estimated that 89% of Mexicans are baptized Catholics at births. It does not imply they are active members (unlike the # of Mormons cited). It does not imply they still consider themselves Catholics or ever attend Church. --FateClub 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you (talking to the anonymous) cannot claim that either source is unreliable based on personal reasons. We have two sources, a census (not an estimation, but a person-by-person count) in which the population self-ascribed (i.e. the government didn't assume anything but asked them what they considered themselves to be) as Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, et al, and a Mormon organization that estimates their own membership. You claim INEGI is biased, but the argument can go either way, since LDS can be argued not to be fully impartial when estimating their own membership. Since we are not demography experts, we can't really dismiss any source, so the WP:NPOV version should include both.

The last time you edited, probably by mistake, you edited before my signature, thus it looked like if I had made those claims. I corrected the edits and moved my signature back to my comments; that is what I meant, I didn't mean that you were "associated with me" (sic).

--the Dúnadan 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Latter Day Saints Church registered more than a million church attendants in 2006, of which 205,229 are 5 year old or older members who identified as such in the 2000 census, which also reported more than a million members of the Jevoha's Witness faith.

This statement is implying that of the million registered at LDS only 205,229 self-ascribed as Mormons in the census. Besides being anachronistic (census was done in 2000 and the estimation is of 2006) it is also a presumption that the 1 million estimation is accurate, and that from this figure, only a fifth decided to be identified as Mormons. Too many WP:OR implications. We have two figures: both can be reported in the article and the source properly identified. To assume that one precedes the other, or that a Mormon chose not to identify himself as such in the census is WP:POV. --the Dúnadan 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not OR to cite a source. Those conclusions are included in the source which you did not bother to read and instead chose to revert. I do not understand your hostility towards anonymous. And I thought you were aware that revert should not precede discussion... which has ended on my end, you may edit this article as you please, as you appear to be doing anyways. --FateClub 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion at a professional level. I did read your source. I am sorry if you choose not to discuss anymore when a user disagrees with you. That is not the way to achieve a consensus. Consensus is built by discussing, arguing, rebutting arguments, and making compromises until a decisions can be taken that satisfies both parties, and not walking away.

The LDS source is estimating a million attendees. I do not disqualify it. I report it. However, the way you structured your sentence explicitly states that there are (affirmative claim) 1 million Mormon attendees of which only 205,000+ identified as such in a census. That is an WP:OR claim. You are not citing sources, you are interpreting the sources yourself. First you assume the first figure is right, the second wrong. Then to reconcile the two figures, you are assuming that some Mormons decided not to identify as such. WP:NPOV requires all points of view to be clearly identified. They are. That doesn't mean we must interpret and assume anything that is not explicitly stated in them. --the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also beware that you have reverted me three times. WP:3RR--the Dúnadan 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Never did I mention that any of the sources are wrong, in fact, I am implying the absolute opposite of what you claim I am. I am, in fact, using both data, giving the same value to attempt to describe a situation. The situation is that both numbers represent different groups, one of them of church attendants, the other ones of self-identified members.

If you had read the sources before reverting... twice you could have avoided a unpleasant situation. And still assume I am interpreting the source and place a {{POV}} tag: This is what the source says:

Retention At year-end 1999, the LDS Church Almanac reports 846,931 LDS members living in Mexico. This represents the most LDS members living in any country outside of the United States. While this appears numerically impressive, a sobering reality check was provided by the 2000 Mexican Census, as reported in the Arizona Republic: 'The current Mexican Mormon Church was established in 1961 and claims just under 850,000 members, Pratt said. However, figures from the 2000 Mexican census, based on self-reported data, place active membership at 205,229. [24%]' (Source:Arizona Republic, July 10, 2001, http://www.azcentral.com/news/0710mormons10.html). Indeed, while nominally identifying oneself as a Latter-day Saint does not necessarily guarantee church activity, it would be difficult to claim that those who do not even identify themselves as Latter-day Saints are active or contributing members. The LDS activity rate derived from a comparison of the 2000 Mexican Census to official membership data -- 24% -- is comparable to that cited in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: 'Attendance at sacrament meeting varies substantially. Asia and Latin America have weekly attendance rates of about 25 percent...'(Source: Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, 1992, 4:1527.) While there are some very dedicated LDS members in Mexico, these represent only a fraction of the total number of individuals 'on the rolls.' Much of this inactivity occurs soon after baptism, and many nominal members have never set foot in an LDS chapel more than once or twice. Adult male converts are especially prone to inactivity, creating serious challenges for local leadership. Lowell Bennion and Lawrence Young note: 'For the U.S. as a whole, only 59% of baptized males ever receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. In the South Pacific, the figure drops to 35%; in Great Britain, 29%. In Mexico (with almost 850,000 members) the figure is 19%.' (Source: Lowell C. Bennion and Lawrence Young, Dialogue, Spring 1996, p.19.) The number of wards and branches in Mexico have not increased as rapidly as LDS membership, due in large part to rampant inactivity. While mission policies are highly heterogenous, much of the problem stems from quick-baptize missionary approaches, which race individuals who have demonstrated little commitment to baptism within 10-day or 14-day target periods. Most individuals have read very little in the Book of Mormon at the time of baptism and have been to church only once or twice. Post-baptismal fellowshipping is also inconsistent. In light of these factors, it can hardly be considered surprising that up to 80% of converts are lost within two months of baptism, and 30-40% of baptizees never return to church again after baptism. Groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists which focus on consistent fulfillment of basic pre-baptismal commitments like church attendance and scripture reading have experienced retention rates of 70-80% and above, in contrast to LDS retention rates below the one-quartile mark. For a nation where Latter-day Saints have been proselyting for over 150 years, those trends are highly concerning. Pray for improved convert retention in Mexico, and pray that missionaries will have the gift of discernment to understand when individuals are truly converted as demonstrated by the 'fruits of repentance.'

Both the Arizona Republic and this church have determined that the census describes active members. --FateClub 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the discrepancies between official (INEGI) and the organization (LDS) figures; maybe the following phrases, from the same source (LDS) might help us sort things out:

• ... LDS Church Almanac reports 846,931 LDS members living in Mexico... While this appears numerically impressive, a sobering reality check was provided by the 2000 Mexican Census
• Indeed, while nominally identifying oneself as a Latter-day Saint does not necessarily guarantee church activity, it would be difficult to claim that those who do not even identify themselves as Latter-day Saints are active or contributing members.
• much of the problem stems from quick-baptize missionary approaches, which race individuals who have demonstrated little commitment to baptism within 10-day or 14-day target periods. Most individuals have read very little in the Book of Mormon at the time of baptism and have been to church only once or twice. Post-baptismal fellowshipping is also inconsistent. In light of these factors, it can hardly be considered surprising that up to 80% of converts are lost within two months of baptism, and 30-40% of baptizees never return to church again after baptism.

I think these sentences help reconcile the two figures better, instead of simply implying that a fifth of the 1 million active Mormons decided not to identify themselves as such in the census. The article is now saying that: "the Latter Day Saints Church registered more than a million church attendants in 2006.[41], of which 205,229 are 5 year old or older members who identified as such in the 2000 census."

I disagree with how this sentence is structured. Saying that there are a million "church attendants" contradicts the second and third bullets above. Moreover, it is an anachronistic comparison -2006 estimations with 2000 census. There were 800,000 estimated Mormons in 2000, according to the same LDS source. I am not arguing against the inclusion of the LDS figure. I am arguing against the way this figure is presented in the article.

--the Dúnadan 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the future, it is preferable to Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. (From Help:Reverting). I will replace "church attendants" for "registered members".--FateClub 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? You wrote in the article that there are 1 million church attendees (i.e. active members), whereas your own source says that active membership is actually much less. I agree with Arizona Republic and LDS: the census describes active members. Let me copy again, the bullets, that perhaps you missed:

• Indeed, while nominally identifying oneself as a Latter-day Saint does not necessarily guarantee church activity, it would be difficult to claim that those who do not even identify themselves as Latter-day Saints are active or contributing members.
• up to 80% of converts are lost within two months of baptism, and 30-40% of baptizees never return to church again after baptism.

LDS is saying that the estimated million is not including church attendants and that of these 80% are lost after baptism (i.e. registered membership).

Again, I do not oppose the inclusion of the estimation. I do oppose the way you are presenting the figures, whether it is "church attendents" or "registered members".

--the Dúnadan 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not. I was writing my response to the 2nd remark and when I tried to post it there was a conflict of versions. So in fact, I wrote it before these remarks above. --FateClub 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think we might be able to reach a compromise. Two thinks are bothering me: the anachronistic comparison and the inference implication. I have no problem with using "registered members" if the sentence is divided into two separate claims: one sentence that states that there were a million registered members in Mexico in 2006. And the other sentence that simply reports that in 2000 205,000 Mexicans identified themselves as Mormons. In other words, separate the two claims, and eliminate the phrase "of which".

--the Dúnadan 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The implication that both figures contradict each other would be OR. Two sources indicate the 2000 census correspond to the # of active members, so "of which" does apply. This is simply not the place to include such detailed explanations, the Catholic number did not even have the # of church attendees, only the nominal figure. There was no mention of Jehova's Witnesses, even when they outnumber Mormons. Including more faiths takes precedence over over-detailing the ones we have. --FateClub 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to review WP:OR. If one source says 5 and the other 4, then, by mere logic, they are contradicting each other. No OR necessary. However, please note that I never proposed that we use the word contradictory in the article. I used it here, but my proposal never included it. Secondly, the one million that you are reporting corresponds to the 2006 estimate, in 2000 there were only 800,000+ members, therefore, the "of which" does not apply (sic). Even if both figures were from the same year (which you might then need to change it to 800,000 to be consistent), "of which" implies that the first figure is a whole set, the second is a subset of the first. That is OR. --the Dúnadan 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I AM aware you did not use the word "contradictory", I am also aware that you put both figures side by side and put "however" in between, implying a contradiction. My edits were to avoid the assumption that two different numbers imply a contradiction, where two entities in the source YOU (or somebody else) provided do not find that contradiction. "Apply (sic)"... isn't that how it is spelled? Anyways, there is no reason to use the 800k figure when one six years more recent exists. Again, it is the sources YOU (or somebody else) provided that reach this conclusion based on the 2000 census (there is no 2006 census) and the 2006 number from church records. There is no mention on how many, if any, people became "unregistered" from 2000 to 2006 after declaring the belonged to that church in 2000. Assuming there were any when the sources does not mention that fact WOULD BE OR. --FateClub 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I didn't understand your comment above. Could you please rephrase? Like I said the contradiction is evident, no OR necessary. Reconciling figures from two different years based on personal interpretations of what Church attendance means in relation to "baptism" and "registered members" does constitute OR. The source of LDS provided a plausible explanation, based on baptism (not "registration") to reconcile the 846,931 figure with the 205,229 INEGI figure. (That is precisely how the whole section starts). It never provides an explanation for an anachronistic 1 million in 2006 of which 205,229 in 2000 identified themselves. The "of which" implies (OR) that those 205,229 of 2000, being a subset of the 1 million of 2006, are still "registered" in 2006. It is precisely that "of which" that is causing all the trouble. The word "however" (i.e. "on the other hand") simply presents two alternative figures, no assumptions or presumptions whatsoever are necessary, no anachronistic comparisons. Like saying "World Bank" says 6, however "IMF" says 5. No hypothesis of reconciliation are needed, we are not assuming one is right the other is wrong, they can be stated interchangeably (IMF says 5, however World Bank says 6), and we do not need to presume that one is a subset of the other across time. --the Dúnadan 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase what part? Now, the interpretation of both figures is not my own, but two entities in the sources YOU (or somebody else) provided, so it is not original research. People who are baptized, become "registered" members, and all registered members are baptized, so both terms can be used equally. You mention in your example that neither IMF nor World Bank are implied to be wrong, I am NOT either. However, THEY DO CONTRADICT. This case is different, since both figures represent different things, such as 4 apples, 10 vegetables = 10 vegetables, of which 4 are apples. From your own examples, the IMF says that there are 5 apples while the World Bank says there are 6 apples. So one of them cannot be a subset of the other one. --FateClub 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of mormons

How about this:

• "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members" (XXX in the 2000 census). --FateClub 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let's clarify. It is not my souce (no need to shout the YOU on that part), I didn't provide it. The anon user did, I rephrased the sentence. Secondly, I guess either I am terrible when it comes to explaining myself, or for some reason the debate is stuck, so that you can't understand me. The source offers a plausible (not categorical) explanation of the 800,000 number. Read how the section starts...

• At year-end 1999, the LDS Church Almanac reports 846,931 LDS members living in Mexico. This represents the most LDS members
  living in any country outside of the United States. While this appears numerically impressive, a sobering reality check...

Or, if you wish, how the Arizona Republic paragraph starts:

• The current Mexican Mormon Church was established in 1961 and claims just under 850,000 members, Pratt said. However, figures from the 2000 Mexican census, based on self-reported data, place active membership at 205,229...

Again, the plausible hypothesis of the discrepancies of the LDS source is comparing figures from 2000, the 800,000 with the 200,000 while you anachonistically compare the one million in 2006 and create a subset of that in 2000, thus implying that those who answered the census in 2000 are members in 2006. The "of which" is implying that the second is a subset of the first. That is OR.

Secondly, the source also says:

• Indeed, while nominally identifying oneself as a Latter-day Saint does not necessarily guarantee church activity, it would be difficult to claim that those who do not even identify themselves as Latter-day Saints are active or contributing members.

In other words, there is no reason to believe that INEGI's report is of active members (by assuming that identifying oneself means self-ascrption in the census), because LSD clearly says "does not necessarily guarantee church activity". So not even the subset between two different souces is applicable in this particular case. That is, the "of which" is problematic.

--the Dúnadan 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is what the source (the anonymous user) concluded: "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members".
• "XXX in the 2000 census" is what you (lower case), or somebody else, provided... at approximately 200,000 vs 800,000... that is... 25% of church records for the year prior.
• There is no link between the 2006 LDS source and the 2000 source only a comparison between two figures, one that is one year old, one that is seven years old. One from the church itself, one from the government. All these figures show a pattern so that the reader can have a clearer idea of how many Mormons there are, whether they need baptized members or active members.
• "of which": this "of which" is explained in the source.
• INEGI report is not active members. I agree, I never said such thing, both the Arizona Republic and the LDS church interpreted this figure as such and compared it with its own records of activity finding a match. Hypothesis proven.--FateClub 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no link between the 2006 LDS souce and the 2000 INEGI source, the "of which" is not proven. It is anachronical. Using "of which" implies something that the paper is not saying. And the purpose of the paper was never to prove a hypothesis, but to offer a hypothesis for the mismatch. Two different things. Yet, your statement does not fully coincide with what the paper is trying to "prove".

The point is simple, the two phrases INEGI and LDS are valid, the percentage of attendees is valid, but your anachronistic connection of both is not. If you wish to write:

According to the LSD there is an estimated membership of one million Mormons in Mexico, of which 25% were active members. That is fine with me. You can even add:

This percentage is similar to that in 2000, where there were 800,000 registered Mormons, the same year in which INEGI reported, in its census, that 200,000 Mexicans identified themseles as such. Perfect. All subsets are clearly defined, and the logical connection between the 2000 figure and 2000 estimation coincide. No anachronism. You can even add:

LDS justifies this discrepancies by arguing that active membership usually coincides with self-ascription in the census. That even makes sense, considering that even LDS says that self-identification does not always mean church activism (see bullets above). Moreover, by explaining all, Wikipedia does not endorse a plausible (never scientifical) hypothetical explanation of LDS to reconcile two differnt figures, but simply reports it. Therefore NPOV is maintained.

--the Dúnadan 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The of which... again... is in the source. Their own estimates are 25%. Again, the source, not mine.

Again... let me put you the proposed statement "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members"". There is no comparison of 2000 census data. --FateClub 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. The "of which" of the source refers to percentages (i.e. "a million of which 25%"), whereas your previous "of which" was comparing and relating 2006 LDS members with the 2000 INEGI report. Therefore, I don't object to your proposed statement. However, to me, INEGI is the most neutral of all sources, more neutral that Protestants, Mormons, or Catholics estimating their own figures. If ignoring INEGI's report is a compromised solution, I guess it will do for now. Like I pointed out above (I hope you read it), I had no problem with stating the hypothesis if it was stated as a hypothesis:(i.e. INEGI in 2000 reported 200,000 Mormons. LDS justifies this discrepancy by arguing that active membership usually coincides with self-ascription in the census, and not necessarily all those who at one point in time were registered in the Church's records).

--the Dúnadan 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The of which... again... is in the source. Their own estimates are 25%. Again, the source, not mine.

Again... let me put you the proposed statement "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members"". There is no comparison of 2000 census data. --FateClub 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. The "of which" of the source refers to percentages (i.e. "a million of which 25%"), whereas your previous "of which" was comparing and relating 2006 LDS members with the 2000 INEGI report. Therefore, I don't object to your proposed statement. However, to me, INEGI is the most neutral of all sources, more neutral that Protestants, Mormons, or Catholics estimating their own figures. If ignoring INEGI's report is a compromised solution, I guess it will do for now. Like I pointed out above (I hope you read it), I had no problem with stating the hypothesis if it was stated as a hypothesis:(i.e. INEGI in 2000 reported 200,000 Mormons. LDS justifies this discrepancy by arguing that active membership usually coincides with self-ascription in the census, and not necessarily all those who at one point in time were registered in the Church's records).

--the Dúnadan 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The LDS Church numbers are not estimates, they come from church records. Also, the church numbers are from 2006, while the Census is from 2000. I have never implied one is more accurate than the other one, only that one is more recent and thus... more updated. There is no need to include the "hypothesis" just the results, if someone would like more information on how it was obtained, then they can go to the source. This is a third-level section of an article, not a full-blown article that contains information on each faith and how the numbers of members were obtained. --FateClub 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone would consider the Arizona Republic a more reliable source than INEGI... In any case, lets benchmark:

• The United States article references only the results of a private survey that is menctioned by the Census Bureau (the American "half-equivalent" of INEGI).
• The England article references only the result of their census bureau and a private poll.
• The Japan article references the CIA World Factbook

So, why should this article reference the Arizona Republic when more reliable, and neutral, sources can be found?

The discussion is way outside the scope of the article. We should only seek to state very briefly the fact that Mexico is a diverse country, and, that census reports a certain variety in practices (I don't think it is incredibly relevant the difference between reporting mormon activity as 1% or 0.2% of the population). What is important, and relevant to the article, is to state that mormon activity exists. INEGI also reports a very marked tendency of decreasing Catholic participation and increasing participation of other faiths.

Hari Seldon 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe it either, who has dared to say that the Arizona Republic is a more reliable source than INEGI? Now, nobody has referenced figures from the Arizona Republic because they DO NOT EXIST. The situation here is that the AZ Republic calls the numbers from the census as the "active members", which coincides with the 25% proportion the church estimates. I agree that this whole argument is way outside the scope of the subsection. That is why I proposed the very compact statement "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members" (XXX in the 2000 census)." --FateClub 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

However, another user has stated that the statement may not be entirely true factually, and/or it may be OR. I have read the arguments, and I tend to agree with Dúnadan. Thus, since the discussion is outside the scope of the subsection anyway, why not just stick to INEGI numbers? Hari Seldon 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Because INEGI's #s are from 2000, church #s are from 2006
2. Because INEGI's #s only show active membership and not nominal membership
3. Because both active membership and nominal membership are mentioned for the Catholic faith
4. Because both active and nominal numbers tell a different story that may be of used to different people. --FateClub 22:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the purported "nominal" membership is that it is subject to interpretation:

• If INEGI only shows active membership and not "nominal" membership, they why do you argue against 89% of Catholics. Why is it that you believe that 89% of the self-ascribed (self-considered, not active, not Church-attendees, but simply, self-identified) Catholics refer to "nominal", but when it comes to Mormons then it refers only to "active"? Isn't that a personal interpretation?
• If you wish to include "active" membership only because it is included for Catholics, then why don't we include it for all denominations: Pentecostals, Charismatics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodist which have even larger numbers than Mormons, according to INEGI? Moreover, the 46% of Church attendees, if I recall, refers to all denominations, not exclusively to Cathoclics. [6]
• Finally, "active" versus "nominal" is quite a blurry distinction. Those words are not used by the LDS report. For example, if a Mormon converted (presumably from Catholicism) and gets baptized (registered) into the LDS Church, but according to LDS own statistics, he belongs to the 80% that "are lost" (their words) and "never come back", should he still be considered a Mormon for statistical purposes? How do we know if lost, means "they go back to Catholicism"? Why is it argued that using "baptism" (even though it is not used) to obtain the number of Catholics is invalid, but using Mormon baptism is? Is Mormon baptism irreversible, but Catholic or Protestant adult baptism is? How do we know they still consider themselves Mormons, even if they never go back again to the LDS Church? We don't. LDS doesn't either. You would have to go ask each one of them whether he still considers himself to be a Mormon. Well, the closest you can get to "asking each and everyone of the individuals residing in a country what religion they ascribe to" is... well... the census. So, I still think INEGI's reports are the most neutral way to present this information.

--the Dúnadan 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What if they are from 2000? They are still more reliable than the church's own numbers for 2006. As long as the article says, "In 2000, INEGI reported ...." When there is a next general Census, in 2010, the information can be updated.

I understand your concern, but is there a way to represent this with reliable, neutral sources, and without OR?

Hari Seldon 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to be rid of the INEGI #s, nor am i suggesting that the numbers from the church are more reliable. What I said is that they are more updated (2006 vs 2000). Also, both numbers represent different groups. INEGI's them is the # of active members, the church's #s is the # of baptized members. Yes, there should be a way to represent this with reliable, neutral sources. I proposed "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members" represents numbers from the church, verified by the Arizona Republic "(XXX in the 2000 census)" represents the Mexican government figure from 2000 census. No OR (conclusion from the source), neutral (church and government sources) and reliable. --FateClub 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FateClub did you read my comments above about purported "active" and "baptized" members of Catholic, Protestant and Mormon Churches? Please refer to them... I won't repeat myself. --the Dúnadan 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"If INEGI only shows active membership and not "nominal" membership, they why do you argue against 89% of Catholics.", I don't remember arguing about this. I said the "exaggeration" relates to 89% being nominal, even if they never go to church.

"If you wish to include "active" membership only because it is included for Catholics, then why don't we include it for all denominations: Pentecostals, Charismatics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodist which have even larger numbers than Mormons, according to INEGI?" Good idea

"Finally, "active" versus "nominal" is quite a blurry distinction." The idea is "registered"/baptized/"nominal", versus active members, same concept. --FateClub 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can't express myself properly, or you are not reading or analyzing my comments thoroughly. I guess I must repeat myself, after all:

• You argued that the exaggeration of the 89% relates to the fact that INEGI is reporting "nominal" Catholics. But then you argue that the 200,000 Mormons reported by INEGI must be "active", not "nominal". This is a contradiction in criteria, why would INEGI report "nominal" Catholics but "active" Mormons. They don't report neither active nor nominal. They report whatever you tell them you consider yourself to be, regardless of the fact that you might have been baptized as a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or perhaps all three of them! INEGI is, therefore, the most accurate way to present information.
• The LDS source never uses the word "nominal". You assume "nominal" means "registered". I argue against that interpretation. Why? Well because:

• You consider Mormon baptism to be an irreversible registration. The source says that 80% of those baptized "are lost", and never come back to Church. What does that mean? Well it could be that:

• (1) They go back to their previous faith, and therefore should not be considered "nominal" Mormons.
• (2) They still consider themselves to be Mormons, but they are not active.
• (3) They decide to try a new faith, say Hinduism.
• So you ask yourself which one is the case? We don't know. LDS (the source) doesn't know either. They accept that discrepancy. How do we know then exactly how many real Mormons are in Mexico? Well you ask each and every once-registered Mormon whether they consider themselves to be Mormons or not. How do you do that? You conduct a census. Therefore, INEGI is the most accurate way to present this information.

• If baptism=registration=nominal, then you will have several overlaps of information. Assuming that 89% of Mexicans are baptized into the Catholic Church at birth, following your criterion, then 89% are nominal Catholics. Assuming X% of them convert to Protestantism, and are water baptized into the Protestant Church (adult baptism), then they are, according to your criterion, automatically "counted" as nominal Protestants too. Then a Y% of the X% of Protestants converts to Mormonism, and are baptized into the Mormon Church (whether water or through the dead), and are registered into the Mormon Church. Then, this Y% of the X% of the 89% is also "counted" as a nominal Mormon. Now suppose that Z% of the Y% of the X%, suddenly realizes that he doesn't want to be a Mormon anymore, after two years in the Church and "is lost" (using LDS words), and goes back to Protestantism, but rarely attends Church. What is he then? We don't know. You might need to ask him. How do you it? Through a census. Therefore INEGI is the most accurate way to present this information.

I do hope I have been clearer this time. --the Dúnadan 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "I guess I must repeat myself". Don't we all? I have done several times without the need to rub it in.
  • "But then you argue that the 200,000 Mormons reported by INEGI must be "active", not "nominal". No, I do not, the LDS and Arizona Republic in the source does. I only used the source.
  • "You consider Mormon baptism to be an irreversible registration". No, I do not. When you are baptized you become part of the Church records. If you are removed from the Church records your baptism becomes void.
  • "Therefore, INEGI is the most accurate way to present this information." I don't recall ever arguing which source is more accurate. Only which sources is more updated. Now, INEGI does not show how many people are registered with the LDS church as members, so there is no comparison between INEGI and LDS records in that sense.
  • "f baptism=registration=nominal, then you will have several overlaps". The following statement does not use the term "nominal": "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members, "(XXX in the 2000 census)"--FateClub 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I must have read wrong when you said: "The source specifies more than 1 million members, I corrected that instead of the 1/4 million. The 89% is exaggerated because it is estimated that 89% of Mexicans are baptized Catholics at births. It does not imply they are active members (unlike the # of Mormons cited). It does not imply they still consider themselves Catholics or ever attend Church. --FateClub 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

You are now assuming that when you leave the Church your "registration" becomes void. Well, that's not what the source says. The source never talks about "void registrations". The source says that the discrepancy between their figures (of over 800,000 in 2000) and INEGI's figure is due to the fact that a great percentage of the baptized (registered) leave the church. Well, then I assume they are accepting that only 200,000 are actually registered members according to your criterion of "void registration" when you leave church, in which case, it makes no sense to add information that INEGI already convenys.

I don't understand why you vehemently defend the source, where, in your words, INEGI is the most accurate way of presenting the information. If something is the "most accurate", why cite other sources, subject to interpretation that are not as accurate. Why should we present statistics (open to intepretation) of Mormons, and not all denominations? Well, even though we could add it for Presbyterians, and Methodist, and expand the section ad infinitum, it will lead to overlaps and inconsistencies. If the most neutral, precise, accurate way to present information is INEGI which reports what do you consider yourself to be, and not "what does the Church you once attended considers you to be", then why don't we stop this debate and simply report INEGI?

--the Dúnadan 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • "Ahh, I must have read wrong when you said". I do not know, that comment was in the talk page on a different subject (# of Catholics, not Mormons).
    • "You are now assuming that when you leave the Church your "registration" becomes void." No, I do not, I wrote "If you are removed from the Church records your baptism becomes void".
    • "I don't understand why you vehemently defend the source, where, in your words, INEGI is the most accurate way of presenting the information". Because: INEGI's #s are from 2000, church #s are from 2006, INEGI's #s only show active membership (according to the Church and the Arizona Republic) and and not nominal membership (according to the census), because both active membership and nominal membership are mentioned for the Catholic faith, because both active and nominal numbers tell a different story that may be of used to different people.
    • "Why should we present statistics (open to intepretation) of Mormons, and not all denominations?" Well, we shouldn't, I never said such thing, in fact, I expressed the contrary just minutes ago. --FateClub 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are contradicting yourself!! You are saying that: If you are removed from the Church records your baptism becomes void" But then you argued that baptism equals registration, ergo, registration becomes void. I am frustrated at discussing inconsistencies in you own arguments. The section about Catholics also referred to that of Mormons, otherwise why did you mention the number of Mormons yourself?! I am tired of repeating myself over and over.

I will make this clear, for the last time: INEGI does not show active membership for Mormons (or any other religion): INEGI reports what YOU the citizen tell the surveyor YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF to be whether you were baptized into three different churches. It is inconsistent to say INEGI reports active Mormons, but nominal Catholics. You said Catholics are nominal. Inconsistent. AR doesn't do any research at all, but simply reports. LDS bring a hypothesis in which they accept that 80% of those baptized/registered/nominal are LOST.

I propose that we only leave INEGI's statistics.

--the Dúnadan 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Please don't call me "dude", please address me as "FateClub".
  • <<You are saying that: If you are removed from the Church records your baptism becomes void" But then you argued that baptism equals registration, ergo, registration becomes void>>, well, yes "If you are removed from the Church records... then you... registration becomes void". Registration means, existing in church records. "A formal recording of names, events, transactions etc." if a definition of register (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/register)
  • "why did you mention the number of Mormons yourself?!" In response to "anonymous", who mentioned both figures.
  • "It is inconsistent to say INEGI reports active Mormons". I don't think so. It matches activity percentage based on church statistics (~ 25%) and matches Arizona Republic's interpretation of the census as "active membership". --FateClub 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't know you find the word "dude" offensive. I apologize, it is a quite fashionable friendly way to address someone here in the US among young people. I will refer to you as FateClub from know on. FateClub, you keep on being inconsistent in your own arguments. If registration is reversible (it becomes void), then you agree with me that, in light of what The source says, that 80% of those baptized leave the Church [i.e. registration void] you cannot argue that there are one million registered Mormons can you? The Source accepts that.

Please read the whole sentence, not only half of it: It is inconsistent to say INEGI reports active Mormons and at the same time nominal Catholics. AR is a newspaper, not a primary source, it does not engage in research. INEGI is a primary source, and INEGI reports what you consider yourself to be, not the interpretation of a newspaper, neither the hypothesis of what the Church you once attended considers you to be. LDS hypothesizes and accepts that of those 1,000,000 only a few remain in Church. Even if we use your definition of baptism, or your definition of void registration, you cannot argue that there are 1,000,000 Mormons based on The source itself.

I have nothing more to say, either because you do not fully read my arguments, or because the debate is becoming circular. So I will invite other users to come and express their opinions, so that the debate can become unstuck. My opinion, just to make it clear for the last time is only include INEGI's reports. I oppose the inclusion of the Church's subjective reports, and I oppose a user's interpretation of what the Church report say. INEGI is the most neutral, accurate, impartial and precise source for this. Should you wish to elaborate on specifics about active vs. non active vs. registered. vs. baptized, maybe a new article Religion in Mexico would be the best choice.

--the Dúnadan 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• "it may be considered awkward or even rude for a person to implement the word dude in order to directly address someone with whom the speaker is unacquainted"
• "The source says, that 80% of those baptized leave the Church [i.e. registration void]". I don't remember, EVER saying such thing. I wrote: "If you are removed from the Church records... then you... registration becomes void"
• "It is inconsistent to say INEGI reports active Mormons and at the same time nominal Catholics". I agree
• "I oppose the inclusion of the Church's subjective reports". However, the Arizona Republic thinks otherwise, and in wikipedia the opinion of reliable sources, such as newspapers, is more valid than the opinion of wikipedia editors.
• "you cannot argue that there are 1,000,000 Mormons based on The source itself", I am not, what I wrote is that "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006"--FateClub 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, speaking of rubbing it in, I guess I have to apologize for the "dude" a second time. Just to be cautious, I will apologize for a third time. I apologize. I find myself repeating my arguments over, and over. This, by the way, is a fact. I must repeat myself. Since you consider this point to be as important as to justify using a secondary source over a primary source, I guess it is worth the argument, assuming your vehement defense comes out of good faith. Also, please read the sources you so vehemently defend thoroughly, since you are interpreting what they say, and then claiming that they say what you think they say:

• You said: "The source says, that 80% of those baptized leave the Church [i.e. registration void]". I don't remember, EVER saying such thing. Of course, didn't you read what I said? The source says. The source says 80% of those baptized leave the Church, therefore, they are not part of the Church. They cannot be counted as Mormons. If the Catholics leave the Church should they still be considered Catholics even if the Catholic Church claims them to be "baptized" or "registered" members? No. Of course not. Therefore, the secondary source, which sites a tertiary source (Arizona Republic), cannot be assumed to be impartial, if they decide to consider that those who left the Church are still part of the Church. The most neutral way to describe religion is to ask the individual himself what religion he identifies with. That is what census do. Ergo, INEGI is the most accurate and impartial way to say how many Mexicans are truly Mormon or Catholic.
• You said "I oppose the inclusion of the Church's subjective reports". However, the Arizona Republic thinks otherwise, and in wikipedia the opinion of reliable sources, such as newspapers, is more valid than the opinion of wikipedia editors." Did you read the Arizona Republic report? The link doesn't work. But based on what the LDS Church says, Arizona Republic only notes the discrepancy, but offers no explanation whatsoever. LDS offers an explanation, in which they accept that 80% are lost. Maybe you can claim that my opinion is not reliable. But the fact that a secondary source says something, that doesn't make it NPOV. I can show you plenty of Arab sources that negate the Holocaust. But you see, the LSD Church never says that the lost are still Mormon, they say that they are... lost. They do not try to justify the discrepancy the way you want to, by making a division between active and nominal. In fact these two words are not mentioned at all in the paper, those are your words. You are interpreting a partial source. The Catholic Church claims 95% nominal "lost" Catholics based on "child baptism", who converted to Protestantism. It is your opinion that Mormons that leave the Church should still be counted as Mormons. Again, it is plain to see, and justified by WP:Verifiability that a primary source that cites FACTS, not a secondary source that gives OPINIONS, is better. Therefore, INEGI who asks the individual what he considers himself to be and not what a Church considers him or her to be, is the most neutral and accurate way to present this information.
• You said, "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006" What the source says is: LDS Membership: 1043718. (#2 out of 245 countries.). I didn't find the word baptized in this sentence. Then the source says: "up to 80% of converts are lost within two months of baptism" Never does it say that those lost are "nominal" but "inactive" members. That is your interpretation. I prefer facts, like you, therefore INEGI is the best source because it reports facts, not opinions subject to interpretation, whether they come from secondary or tertiary sources.

If you insist on repeating the same arguments over and over, then, with your consent, I will request for mediation. Alternatively we can open up a poll. --the Dúnadan 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"which sites a tertiary source (Arizona Republic)", that is easily solved, since the secondary source gives a link to the Arizona Republic website.

Now, a church citing its own numbers, how is this a secondary source?

They do not try to justify the discrepancy the way you want to, by making a division between active and nominal. I've never included the term "nominal" in the article, nor am I including it in my proposed revision "The LDS Church had more than a million registered (baptized) members in 2006, of which approximately 25% are active members"

"I didn't find the word baptized. Then the source says: 'up to 80% of converts are lost within two months of baptism'" There you go, it doesn't say "baptized".. right, it says "baptism", which "is a formality and requirement for membership", therefore all registered members have been baptized by the church, otherwise they are "guests".

INEGI is the best source because it reports facts, not opinions subject to interpretation, whether they come from secondary or tertiary sources'. Again, I have never expressed my opinion on which source is the best, or accurate. I only said the source from the own Church is more updated, and reflects what they consider active members and an external source, the Arizona Republic, also considers as active members. Again, the interpretation of a reliable source, such as the Arizona Republic on the official records of the Church and the Mexican cesus is a better opinion than that of two wikipedia editors. I am just representing their findings. --FateClub 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, did you read the Arizona Republic article yourself? Maybe you should, because the link provided by LDS doesn't work. Please read the sources you vehemently defend.

I am not proposing that we add my opinion. I am proposing that we use the only source that offers NO opinions, not my opinion, not the opinion of the Church itself, which by all accounts is partial. I propose that we use INEGI. I do not propose that we add my opinion. My opinion is my argument against using another opinion, but my proposal is using a neutral source that only cites facts.

Given your attidue, I will request for mediation.

--the Dúnadan 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I had requested for mediation, yet FateClub, rejected the process of mediation itself, and has continue to edit the article. I still disagree with his new edits of including both sources. The way it is written still interprets and qualifies the number of Mormons, and uses a secondary source in lieu or as an interpretation of a primary source (INEGI). [Why not simply say: INEGI says X, the Church says Y, instead of the current: the Church says X, and W says that INEGI's report should be interpreted as such.].

Moreover, why should we include the Mormon's report? If that is the case, should we include the report of every denomination? Catholic (which might claim 95%), Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Adventist, Jehova's Witnesses, Pentecostals?? Or should we simply report what each and every individual considers him/her to be: INEGI. If FateClub wishes to elaborate on the discrepancies of what citizens think they are (INEGI) and what the LDS Church says the citizens are, then he might want to consider Religion in Mexico. Otherwise, selecting only one Church to elaborate, but not the rest is POV; selecting to elaborate on all is unnecessary. Displaying INEGI's figures is NPOV. --the Dúnadan 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you continue to stir controversy, rather than focusing on the content on this article I will choose to stay away from this controversy. Now, I will answer the questions/comments that stay on the topic, rather than the controversy:

1. -"FateClub, rejected the process of mediation itself" FateClub rejected mediation because there were only two choices, we were to limit the discussion of one source over the other. I cannot possibly accept such terms, no reason to not include both sources.
2. - why should we include the Mormon's report? Because the "Mormon report" contains information on how many people they currently have in their records as members.
3. - "should we include the report of every denomination? Catholic (which might claim 95%), Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Adventist, Jehova's Witnesses, Pentecostals??" If we have reputable, reliable sources. Yes, of course!
4. - "Why not simply say: INEGI says X, the Church says Y" That is my question to yourself. Why insist of being rid of "Y" if "W", a reputable, reliable source, agrees with it?
5. - "If FateClub wishes to elaborate on the discrepancies of what citizens think they are (INEGI) and what the LDS Church says the citizens are, then he might want to consider Religion in Mexico" Or both, a compact version Mexico, a full discussion on Religion in Mexico.
6. - "selecting only one Church to elaborate" We have elaborated on two churches, Catholic:"nominal" vs active. Mormons: "nominal", "registered" and "active" (which the AZ Republic equates to "nominal" and the Church agrees).
7. - "Displaying INEGI's figures is NPOV." Not when we have more than one source, no.

Hi. I don't see why this little controversy should take up so much space on this article. I've tried to rationalize (and reduce the importance of) this section accordingly. --Jbmurray 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jbmurray, welcome to the debate. I hope you had read all of the above, if not, when answering your questions, I might bring some stuff that I think has already answered your concerns:

• The process of mediation has been expanded so that it is not an either-or selection. The possibility of "both" is also being considered.
• the Mormon report contains information as to how many people have been recorded as members, not how many people are currently in their records. In fact, the report itself, if you read it, mentions that 80% of those baptized are lost. It is very debatable to argue to say that those who leave LDS Church are still part of the Church (i.e. Nominal). If that were the case, then those who were converted from Catholicism into Mormonism should still be considered Catholic.
• If we include the reports of every denomination then we expand the section unnecessarily. A summary will suffice whereas the article Religion of Mexico can be further expanded. The best summary is, well, INEGI.
• Like I've pointed out before, neither the LDS report nor AZ Republic use the word "nominal". It is an interpretation that those who were once baptized and "are lost" are nominal Mormons. I have argued, and I argue again, that "lost" could mean that they leave the church forever. The only way to really know which is the case is to ask a once registered Mormon if he still considers himself a Mormon. And the only reliable institution that does so is INEGI. INEGI is therefore more reliable that the LDS report. In fact, INEGI is a primary source.
• Claiming that the LDS report is NPOV is arguable, especially if it contradicts a primary source. Claiming that AZ report is reliable is also arguable, considering that AZ is not a primary source but a secondary/tertiary source interpreting the results of a primary source (INEGI).
• Finally, I wouldn't oppose including both (INEGI says X, Church says Y), but please note that that wasn't the original proposal being argued. I was arguing against the presentation of: "LDS says X, AZ interprets INEGI's W results so that they coincide with X." An interpretation (which by its very nature is biased) shouldn't be used to report. Facts should be used to report. Facts are never biased. Facts is asking you what you consider yourself to be and report it. Interpretation is saying that the discrepancy is due to the fact that "some once-registered mormons who say they now consider themselves to be Catholic or Jew, or whatever, must also be "Nominal" mormons" in order to justify LDS statistics. In Wikipedia Facts are preferred to opinions, no matter how reliable they seem to be. Like I said, the best place to elaborate in reputable (arguable) opinions is Religion of Mexico. Otherwise we could add reputable interpretations of other Churches as well, or even contradicting opinions of other Mormon sources.

--the Dúnadan 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have indeed looked through the debate. And I don't really intend to take a side one way or another. My concern is only that that article itself not be unduly disrupted. So I got rid of subheads, and pointed to the fact that there was a dispute. While you guys are in mediation, you may figure out some way to resolve that dispute. In the meantime, let's not let this rather important article be waylaid by what, in the end, is a relatively minor matter. That was certainly the thinking behind my edits. And I agree that there could be more space available for going into more detail at Religion of Mexico. In the final analysis, the point is that Mexico is predominantly a Roman Catholic country, though with significant minorities of other religious groupings. Personally, I'd like a little more on the growing evangelical influence in the South (presumably along the lines of similar tendencies in Guatemala) and also on the Jewish presence, given its long history. But this is one small section in an article that goes far beyond the issue of religious minorities (non Catholics) in the country. --Jbmurray 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

codes (abbreviations) for states

Where are these codes coming from? They are neither INEGI (national official) nor ISO 3166-2 (international official).

The official abbreviations per INEGI are: Ags. BC BCS Camp. Chis. Chih. Coah. Col. DF Dgo. Gto. Gro. Hgo. Jal. Mex. Mich. Mor. Nay. NL Oax. Pue. Qro. Q. Roo SLP Sin. Son. Tab. Tamps. Tlax. Ver. Yuc. Zac.

It may be useful also to order the states alphabetically. Rodulfo 04:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC) rodulfo

Please provide your INEGI source (a link, if you have it), and be bold, and edit yourself. Hari Seldon 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Alex created 2-letter abbreviations so that they could fit on the map (i.e. Tamps. was too long). If it is just a matter of space, then I propose that we use the ISO 2-letter codes.--the Dúnadan 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did the abbreviations come from? I have never seen that abbreviations used in México. (I am Mexican) They look more like the US States 2-Letter abbreviations applied to the mexican states. But that is not used in Mexico. I think they should be removed. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abreviaturas_en_M%C3%A9xico 15.227.137.71 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Better Image.

The article needs a picture of white mexicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.13.159 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 May 2007

The state abbreviations are incorrect, could someone change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco1986 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 May 2007

You should put the image of santiago creel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.136.185 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 May 2007

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have decided to fail the article at this time. The article needs a lot more inline citations, as there are currently almost none in the Toponymy, History, Topography, Climate, Political configuration, Administrative divisions, and Culture sections. There are also spacing issues with inline citations and punctuation; the inline ciations should go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. I also don't think that the article is stable enough at this time with the current request for mediation. Once the above issues are addressed along with the rest of the criteria, and the article stable again, please consider renominating the article again. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Good Article Review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the citations for Toponymy, History, Politics and administrative divisions. Maybe somebody can work on the rest. --the Dúnadan 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Many articles are extremely POV. Specificaly it's economy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Putzin (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 May 2007

We need to update this page

In the List of countries by GDP (PPP) page it is shown that mexico is in the 12th place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.136.185 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 May 2007

Náhuatl Huiquipedia

The Mexico article is a featured article in the Nahuatl Wikipedia language, the language of the ancient aztecs, in fact is their first featured article, but the star is missing in the connection whith the Nahuatl Wikipedia page of Mexico so please someone put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.242.18 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 June 2007

Jerahad Jerahad Jerahad Jerahad LETS DISCUSS ABOUT MEXICO.

IVE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ALWAYS ERASE MEXICAN PICTURES. WE KNOW YOU HATE LATIN AMERICA AND YOU WANT TO SEE IT FUCKED UP, I DONT CARE WHY. LETS NEGOCIATE ONCE IN FOR ALL WHAT STAYS IN THE PAGE AND WHAT DOESNT. AT LEAST KEEP 15 PICTURES IN THE GALLERY. I KNOW YOU DONT WANT TO MAKE THIS A TOURIST PAGE, I DONT KNOW WHY. BUT THIS PAGE ALREADY HAS INFORMATION, SO THEIRS NO BIG DEAL IF THEY ARE PICTURES. THIS PAGE REPRESENTS AND ENTIRE COUNTRY WHO IS TIRED OF STEOREOTYPING. WE MEXICO WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW A NEW MODERN MEXICO, A BEAUTIFUL MEXICO WERE THEY CAN SEE THAT MEXICO IS A GOOD COUNTRY. I DONT WHY YOU GET ANGRY ABOUT PICTURES OF MNEXICO, YOUVE ERASED EVERYTHING IVE DONE WITHOUT NEGOCIATE. KEEP THE BEACHES, BUT ARRANGE IT LIKE YOU PLEASE. IF YOU SEE ARTICLES LIKE FRANCE, ENGLAND, YOU CAN SEE ALOT OF PICTURES SO KEEP PICTURES. ECONOMY IS IMPORTANT TO SEE THE SANTA FE DISTRICT IN MEXICO CITY BECAUSE ITS THE RICHIEST FINANCIAL DISTRICT OF MNEXICO CITY AND REPRESETS ALOT IN THE ECONOMY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokolate (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 June 2007

What Wikipedia is not a gallery of pictures. That is what the Wikimedia Commons are for. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles you present are not of incyclopedia facts. You choose to increase it what seems to present articles alike tourist guides. A Gallery according to the WikiManual must have a maximum of 4 pictures, Your gallery has ore then any other paragraph. If you would like your Gallery, I recommend you keep the 4 best pictures you like. Now according to your comment in the edit page, i figure Mexico is it's own respective country alike all other countries, and no propaganda from the U.S. or any other country take that away. The second is your picture of the Federal financial district. It already has one which represents the same idea of the other. For your most profound accusation of hate towards certain latin region, I sincerly don't, which is the reason i intend of keepingg most wiki-online ecyclopedias of it's countries under such reasonable expectations, and not a supressive photos that project a lack of self modesty.

Pictures Of Mexico

I agree with this guy. I saw the picture gallery and it was pretty good. Wikipedia is everyone's. I wonder if the people working on this article are mexican, otherwise I don't know what's wrong with showing the world what Mexico is like. Mexico is more than those pictures shown, Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons but a few pictures of Mexico won't hurt anyone will it? Let's not worry about it... the picture gallery will be back. Let's see who gives up first and if you guys have a real good reason then go ahead and explain why the gallery was deleted. Dragon Lost In Mexico 04:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Que los editores del artículo sean mexicanos o rusos no tiene absolutamente nada que ver. (Y sí, soy mexicano.) La galería no es ni necesaria, ni está de acuerdo con las políticas de Wikipedia. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a Tourist Guide

Again it's an Encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. A complete different engine for tourism, is in it's external links. If the wiki manual would allow a page with more pictures then facts it wouldn't be much of a encyclopedia would it? And for last, a Gallery is expected to have a 4 maximum photo limit.

Here we go again

I know what you mean but then you should of kept the best four pictures of the gallery eh? I'm over it, it really made me a little angry because Mexico has a lot to offer while other articles on countries show what they are made of and people like to see nice pictures but I think you are kind of right. I added a picture of Morelia I hope you guys don't mind. Peace. Viva Mexico :D Dragon Lost In Mexico 04:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

LOOK I OFFER TO PUT 8 PICTURES. PLEASE THIS AN ARTICLE OF A COUNTY. PLIS KEEP THE PICTURES. THATS ALL. IT WONT HURT NO ONE. I KNOW YOU SAY ITS NOT A TOURIST PAGE BUT ITS A PAGE THAT EXPLAINS A COUNTRY AND A PICTURE EXPLAINS THE ARTICLE.Chokolate 07:48, 9 June 2007

Glad you understood my point, but i took them off, because i could not choose, since it was you addition why don't you choose the best 4 and keep those.

Crime in Mexico

The article doesn't mention anything about crime in Mexico, which is one of the largest problems Mexico has. Especially organised crime in form of drug cartels, but also the heavy corruption of governmental instanses. The current president of Mexico has recognised this problem and set in the military to fight the cartels. The whole article seems to be a bit on the fearful side on not wanting to step on any toes. By the way... How come the article is closed for editing? Never saw THAT before in any wiki-article.

35-40% Mexicans white???

I´m Mexican and I can say that most of mexicans are not white, only a minority are. I look white, but I´m mestizo, because I have indian heritage. Only about 10-15% of Mexicans are mostly white (like me, because I´m mixed race, but I look white) is an exaggeration to say that 35-40% of mexicans are mostly white. That is the percentage of countries like Chile or Brazil. And if you go to those countries you can see a lot of white people, but in Mexico, usually only the people from the upper class are white. ( The Mexican media are irreal, most of Mexicans are not like the ones showed in telenovelas, and advertising). But not all are dark, like Americans think.

- It all depends where you live. Go to a private school or to an affluent area and youll see that most people are white, or at least castizo (3/4 european ancestry). Most people dont realize that Mexico still uses the Caste system. Maybe we should write ´bout it

Mexico does not use the Caste system in any way. Please compare the caste system in India. --the Dúnadan 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i am mexican too and i am from monterrey i attend a public school and most kids here are white i am white, and most people i see in the streets in monterrey are white my parents and both sides of my family are white and we are not rich just like most white people here i know are not rich we are just middle class and working class and i am sick of people thinking that just because you are white mexican you are rich, if you think that then you watch too many NOVELAS, and the article still puts the Mestizos as a majority of Mexico's population up to 45% Mestizos that is like 10% more mestizos than whites, because white are only 35% to 40% of the population, you and your'e parents could be white and have just a little little bit of amerindian which makes you Mestizo but you and your family might not even know it because your amerindian ancestry is so small that all of you look white, and if someone asks you what race are you you are going to say white and not mestizo, so the trully white population is estimated around 30% and not 9-15% like CIA WORLD FACTBOOK or ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANICA say because they only take into concideration the direct white popultaion and not the predominant white population, even the white americans probably like half of them have some Amerindian ancestry and not even know it but why dosnt CIA or BRITANICA include that in the U.S.A. race groups ? because it would be very pointless to go back to each person's family tree for like 70% of that nation's population who say they are white and search all of their generations from their mum and dad's family, its just crazy, so it is most educated to say that 70% of U.S.A.'s pop. is PREDOMINANTLY WHITE and 43% DIRECTLY WHITE. Just like in the case of my country MEXICO, the government of Mexico is not going to waste money in something so stupid like race ethnicity and go back to everyone's ancestry thats just impossible, so it is most educated to say that between 9% - 15% of Mexico's population is DIRECTLY WHITE, and 35% - 40% of Mexico's population is PREDOMINANTLY WHITE, which i think the article is correct by putting 35%-40% of the pop. is white because it is an EDUCATED ESTIMATE!!! and still with that percentage the Mestizos are still majority of up to 45% that is like 10% more than whites in mexico, Mestizos and whites have always been around the same number in mexico, making them the 2 most predominant ethnic groups, and if your'e the type of mexican who hates white people for the socio-economical stereotype they have been given in our country then you have nothing to worry about cuz either way Mestizos are still more numerous than whites even accounting 35% to 40% Predomiantly white Mexicans, Mestizos are stil up 45% of the population the article clearly says it at the beginning of the ethnography section that is 10% more than whites, and if you dont believe me just visit northern mexico my home, and you have like 65% of people in northern mexico who are either DIRECTLY WHITE and PREDOMINANTLY WHITE, and they are rich, poor, middle class, working class, so i plead to people who think that mexican white are rich to not watch all of those NOVELAS CHILANGAS on television and start to go out more often, because since those novelas play a big part on our culture, thats why a-lot of Mexicans think just like 10% of mexicans are white and that all of them are rich, because of the stupid mexican media which is most of the time is incorrect. (TELEVISA IN PARTICULLAR)

That's funny, because if I watch "Telenovelas", Televisa or TV Azteca, the great majority of actors and actresses, and I mean the GREAT majority are white, not Mesitzo, and of course, not Amerindian. So, my "appreciation" after watching TV (except probably Canal 40, 22 and OnceTV), is that the great majority of Mexicans are white. In fact, Mexican television has been criticized abroad for not representing the "true" Mexico, the Mestizo Mexico that a foreigner sees when he goes to the streets, not only Monterrey, which is only 4% of the total Mexican population, but the Mexico of Acapulco, Cancun, Guadalajara, Tijuana, Cd. Juárez, Torreón, Puebla and León. Maybe you should go out more often, and I mean, out of the White sector of Monterrey. Don't go that far, just go to Linares. But it really doesn't matter. Neither your appreciation nor mine should be stated here. Only verifiable sources. After all, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth (or "our" perception of truth) but verifiability. If you have a solid source to back up your claims, then, by all means, add it. --the Dúnadan 23:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I´m agree with you Dunadán, for example I was born in Torreon, from a middle class family. I look white, I have green eyes and light brown hair, but most of my relatives are "typical" mestizos. This is the reason that I consider myself as mestizo. In Northern Mexico the proportion of mestizos and the people "phenotypically" white is almost the same, and the indians are a extremely small minority. But in the states from the center and south if you go out, you can see that most of the people are mestizos, mostly indians and there are a high proportion of indian people. Most of Mexicans live in the center and south, and if we lump together all the mexican population, phenotypically white Mexicans would be a small minority. INEGI says that only 10% of mexicans are indians, but they are the people who speak indian languague and preserve their traditions, but is a fact that a large number of indians have been absorbed in the mestizo population. And about the comment from the person from Monterrey, I know very well that city and most of its population doesn´t look white. I´m no longer in Torreon, I live in Hermosillo right now. And here most of the people look white, Hermosillo is the most closer to the Mexico showed in telenovelas. But we have to accept that most of mexicans are mestizos, with more indian features than Europeans, by this way we would over the huge Racism that exist here. Ironically while Mexicans in Mexico think that most of them are white and having indian heritage is a shame; foreigners think that all mexicans are dark and indian.Lithop 05:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well of course most Mexicans are Mestizos, it clearly says it in the article, 45% Mestizos and only 35% Whites that's clearly more Mestizos than Whites that is about 10 TO 12 MILLON MORE MESTIZO MEXICANS THAN WHITE MEXICANS, so Why all that fuzzing and fighting over something the article clearly states, Oh and by the way i'm from Sabinas Hidalgo, Nuevo León and currently living here and I have relatives in Linares, Monterrey, Montemorelos, Nuevo Laredo and Saltillo, and let me tell you one thing, at least half of the people you see in the streets in all those places look White ok even in the most poor streets of those cities at least half the people you see in those places look white, yeah dont get all worked up thats just the way it is , and if you don like to see White people go to Chiapas then, END OF DISCUSSION!!! Oh one more thing, why??? do Argentines think they have all the White people in Latin America if like 95% of their population is white and their country only has like 39 to 40 million people than that means that they only have like around 33 to 35 million White people, so if Mexico has like 35% of it's population being White and that all of Mexico has like 108 million people than that means Mexico has like around 36 million Whites, that's more than Argentina, and then their is Brasil of course with far much more White people than any other place in Latin America, because if only about 50% to about 55% of people in Brasil are white (phenotypically like in most of Latin America including Mexico) then that means that about 94 to 101 millon people there are white because Brasil has a population of about 189 million people, more than any country in Latin America. One last thing, if most of you accept the fact that from the 45% of Mexicans who are Mestizo, their could be according to some sources, anywhere from a little bit more credible 22.5% PREDOMINANLTY Amerindian, to a much much more exagerated 30% of them that are PREDOMINANLTY Amerindian, to be less complicated in other words, around half of the of the Mestizos in our country are PREDOMINANLTY Amerindian (to be more realistic). So what I don't get then is that why can't most of you accept that their could be up to 35% to almost 40% of Mexicans PREDOMINANTLY European (white)??? is their like some sourt of racism thing going on here like a pro pure Amerindian/Mestizo organization that is pro for an Amerindian/Mestizo nation free of people of European heritage??? Because it sure seems like it because for example users "Lithop", and "Dúnadan" seem to get very upset when they have to hear that about more than 30% of Mexico's population is predominantly white and they start to say crapp like oh well its beacuse our society is racist and dosn't accept Mestizos which is true in some part, but damn do they sound hipocrytical when they obviously seem to deny the presence of white people in this country and say all of us are Mestizo when only like 45% of Mexicans are, and it is a majority which I accept the article clearly says that Mestizos are a 45% majority of the population in Mexico, but users "Lithop" and "Dúnadan" sure make it sound like 99.9999999% of us are Mestizo when they leave their messages in this discussion page, why can't the both of you just face the facts, why?????????? O, and just to not make you upset, again I will remind you that MESTIZOS ARE THE 45% MAJORITY OF MEXICO'S PEOPLE and WHITES ARE A MINORITY OF JUST LIKE 35% TO 40% OF MEXICO'S PEOPLE, IM SURE THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WANTED TO HEAR DIDN'T CHA', CASE CLOSED!!! what's that?, your'e not realy convinced yet? go back and read the part of the article on the ethnic groups section where it clearly says so ok, kudos!!!...

Surely this issue ought to be resolved by reliable sources on the demographic make-up of Mexico, not by competing anecdotes. Also, anon, please don't yell. john k 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, this issue ought to be resolved by "reliable sources". Now, the Mexican Census Bureau does not classify population according to ethnicity except for Amerindians (which officially make up 12% of total population), and Mestizo is defined in Mexico as an individual with both Amerindian and European ancestry regardless of their physical features (they might look White or Amerindian). The ethnic figures shown in this article come from the CIA Factbook (30% of predominantly Amerindians and 9% Whites, 60% Mestizo), Mexican Census Bureau (12% Amerindians) and Britannica (15% White and 15% Amerindian, 70% Mestizo). By WP:Verifiability, threshold for inclusion is verifiability. In my personal experience these figures seem correct, in the anon's experience they seem incorrect. But threshold for inclusion is not "truth" (that is, what he or I perceive to be "true"), but what can be verified in reputable sources. That is why we (me and many other users) have repeatedly reverted the anon's and User:Onichivi's edits here and in Demography of Mexico, but the task is insurmountable: s/he has changed the ethnicity figures of many of the constituent states' articles! I have already warned Onichivi to stop reverting without justification. The anon uses a dynamic IP, so I didn't warn him. Arguably, they could be the same user. --the Dúnadan 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that at this point, some sort of disciplinary action ought to be taken against the anon. john k 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No one have changed the article, and this proportion of 35-40% whites and 45% mestizos doesn´t have source. And check the article of demography of México and is different, it says that between 9-15% of mexicans are white and has a reliable source. I would do it, but I don´t know how to, I´m new here.

The CIA and the US government historically have admitted that Mexicans are white when they do the census. I I am curious, the CIA fact book states that the USA is 81.7% white 12.9% black, 4.2% Asian, and 2% others? This adds up to about 100%, what happened to all the Mexicans, and Hispanics? Are they saying that ones a Mexican crosses over the border he or she becomes white? that makes no sense. At what percentage does a mestizo become white, 50%, 75%, or 90%? According to the U.S census if a Mexican marks Mexican on the U.S Census, he or she will be classified as white. This leads to my final question, shouldn’t then most Mexicans be classified white, according to the CIA? Finally, I have been to several parts in Mexico and I have noticed that many, or the majority of Mexicans in central Mexico look whiter than Italians, French and middle eastern, which are classified as white everywhere. A large percentage of the Argentinean population has Amerindian mixture; doesn't that make them Mestizo's? Any ways, we will never know for sure until a large genetic sample is taken. I agree with having a predominate 35-45%; if you look at the Argentina demographics it states that 57% of the population has Amerindian ancestry, but 85-97% of the population states that they are white? I am from Jalisco; I would have to say that most people I have seen look whtier than most Italians, and Middle Eastern

Please read WP:Verifiability. --the Dúnadan 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Jalisco person, I am from Nuevo Laredo and I have to say that 15% of us Mexicans white does not make any sence, I am from Nuevo Laredo and most people you see here and in most of the north are white, so probably in my opinion it is most correct to put that about 30% or perhaps 40% percent of Mexicans are white, and besides where the hell does the CIA World Factbook get that crapp of just 15% us are white, have any of them even been here to see the people in the streets or take a census??? i suggest it should be changed to 30% to 40% white, it makes more sence, and it still leaves a majority of Mestizos of about 48%, Indigenous 12%, it adds up to about 100% of the population here in Mexico, and it makes a-lot more sence than the CIA info, and any one that has been to any city here in Mexico to a mall, or grocery store, or streets, can say that at least half of the people they see are white, if it was only 15% like the CIA says, than you would once in a blue moon see that many white people here in Mexico, i suggest it should be changed like I said, I know it does not have verifiability, but neither does the CIA World Fact book on ethnography of Mexico.

White is not a race. People assume that if you´re white then you´re caucasian (wrong). There are many white people in Mexico that have visible amerindian traits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.136.251 (talk) 19:31, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Torreon picture

Can someone put a picture of Torreon in the chart of metropolitan areas of Mexico? is the number 9 after Juarez.

Also, Puebla is located on the state of Puebla, not in Tlaxcala. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by God's Whip (talk • contribs) 14:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Independence Day

Hello!--- Just to point out that the first official declaration of independence occurred on September 13, 1813, by the Congress of Chilpancingo, under José María Morelos; the very same Congress passed a bill declaring September 16 as a national holiday for the beginning of the Independence War. I suggest we should make that distinction in the summary of the article. Louie 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan's labyrinth

I suggest removing the mention of the movie Pan's Labyrinth in the Film section. Pan's Labyrinth is a Spanish (not Mexican) production, even though it was directed by a Mexican (Guillermo del Toro). The film also deals with the Spanish Civil War. How is this any significant example of Mexican movies? I think that the other films mentioned suffice as examples of contemporary Mexican films.

Boxing =

I suggest that we include a section -mention- on boxing since it is the sport that has given us more world championships than any other. The prominence of soccer in the article does not reflect our results in the playing field.

Mexican Islands

Doesnt Mexico own some islands im sure it does I have heard of them ,but im not sure of there names or were they are?

Several dozen islands (or more). Do you mean archipelagos? If that is the case then Mexico owns the Revillagigedo and the Islas María archipelagos. --the Dúnadan 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Typo (maybe?) in climate section

The following sentence :

Temperatures here remain high throughout the year, with only a 5 °C difference between winter and summer median temperatures.

should be :

Temperatures there remain high throughout the year, with only a 5 °C difference between winter and summer median temperatures.

or

Temperatures remain high throughout the year, with only a 5 °C difference between winter and summer median temperatures.

Using "here" is not very encyclopedia-like... If someone could fix it...

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10