Talk:Mexico/Archive 5

Major contributors to the regular
UN budget for 2006^[47]
Member Nation (the list is not complete)	Contribution (% of total UN budget)
United States	22.00%
Japan	19.47%
Germany	8.66%
United Kingdom	6.13%
France	6.03%
Italy	4.89%
Canada	2.81%
Spain	2.52%
China	2.05%
Mexico	1.88%
Australia	1.59%
Brazil	1.52%

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

→

Mexican Space Agency

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A little bit of research on the topic tells me this is still very speculative in nature. I don't think it has a place in an encyclopedia. Would edit it myself but the article is protected. Thanks 129.67.158.143 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very small amount of coverage; not much. I understand that to some people in Mexico, this project is very important. Hopefully, there will soon be more concrete news about the Agency.

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

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

Mexican Spanish?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't Mexican Spanish—a slightly different yet notable and important variant of Spain's Spanish—be noted somewhere in this article, like in the language section? I mean American English is considered to be a different language than British by almost everyone, and you find just about as many differences between American and British English as you do between Mexican and Spain's Spanish. Maybe Mexican Spanish is worth being mentioned in this article. Perhaps reading the Wikipedian article will give you some idea of a few major differences. -Crazypersonbb (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't venture to say that American English is a different language than British English, nor that Mexican Spanish is a different language than Spaniard or Peninsular Spanish, but rather that they are all different dialects. However, yes I guess a link to the article should be included in the languages section or the culture section. After all, Mexican Spanish is the variety or dialect spoken in Mexico and it has its own article. --the Dúnadan 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Limes in Mexican Cuisine

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

Perhaps I have an inflated sense of the role of limes in Mexico cuisine. Can I please get some feedback about this? Wanderer57 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

did you mean lemons? Limón as is know here in México, is a very important seasoning which is almost used in any kind of ours food... of course there are peoples that disagree, but is widely use on everything, salted or sweet...--kiddo 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Limes indeed, not lemons. What in Mexico is known as limón is elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world as lima, and in English as lime (the bright green fruit). Lima in Mexico is what elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world is limón and in English lemon (the larger yellow fruit). Indeed quite confusing, but it is the lime (limón in Mexican Spanish) the type of citric used as seasoning in almost any kind of food. --the Dúnadan 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree with Hugo. I'm from Mexico and I know that lemons or limes are known for everybody as "limones". Maybe Dúnadan is right about all he wrote, but in Mexico we say "limones", it doesn't matter if they're limes or lemons. Besides, here we don't use so much the limes, so it's commoner to find lemons. --the Gerd27 06:30, 20 December 2007 (COA)

Interesting, I remember an ex-hacienda in Puebla (near Atlixco) that used to grow limas (in the Mexican sense, that is "lemons"; the big, sweeter yellow fruit), and they called them limas, whereas the limones (that is, the "lime"), were the smaller sour bright green fruit. Is that a local nomenclature of central Mexico? As far as I could tell, it was the same thing in other central and northern states. --the Dúnadan 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses to my question. The answers are more complicated and interesting than I expected.

Are there differences between different parts of Mexico in the use of limes and lemons, or in the names used for them? Where in Mexico are limes grown? (Also lemons.) In Canada (which is where I am, shivering) the limes we usually get are grown in Mexico. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't fully understand your question. Mexican cuisine is very diverse, and while the use of limes (limones) is ubiquitous, it would be hard not to say that, for example, that in Nayarit they use limes in different dishes. Now, in terms of terminology (pardon the redundancy), yes, limones refer to limes in all states in Mexico. Where are they grown? Good question. While they can be grown pretty much anywhere, I think mass production is concentrated in central-southern states at low altitudes. You might like to check the agriculture section at http://www.economia.gob.mx or the Censo Agropecuario of http://www.inegi.gob.mx. --the Dúnadan 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

environment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Thank you Wanderer

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

United Mexican States

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good job on the article. My question is regarding the official name at the beginning of the first paragraph. Is this a common translation of the name? I always thought that the appropriate translation of the official name was "Mexican United States"?. Hugo cantu (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this a while ago, HERE, you may check it if you want so you can see what was said, I hope that helps you. Supaman89 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Supaman. I understand now and even though I still don't think that it is the correct translation I agree with the resolution. The term used then is the commonly used in other sources. If it is incorrect, it should be debated first in the appropriate forums and this page should only reflect the consensus of those debates. Sorry to bring this up when it had already been debated. Hugo cantu (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (Soccer) in Mexico

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think that the Football paragraph in the Sports section can be improved. It has incorrections (it's missing Estadio Olimpico), also the list of greatest soccer stars can be improved, or it could use a published list. In general it has no references and I think it is poorly written. Anybody has objections to an attempt to improve it? Hugo cantu (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, why don't you propose a new paragraph. Supaman89 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is my first attempt.

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

:::1. http://www.femexfut.org.mx/portalv2/(hjfqs545niz5yh55yipntw55)/default.aspx?s=135

2. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexhist.html

3. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexchamp.html

Let me know what you think. Hugo cantu (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexico´s President

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The current president of Mexico is NOT Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, it is Felipe Calderon Hinojosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.218.194 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed back. Green Giant (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Mexican crime and corruption

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no personal experience with crime in Mexico, just what I read and hear. Just now a user Dúnadan removed the sentence claiming it's "absolutely unencyclopedic". Well, if anything is "unencyclopedic", it is this kind of behaviour. I agree there should be something more in the body of the article. I'll try and work on that. Dawidbernard (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. We can work on the way it's located and written, but I do hope no one removes it claiming it's allegedly "unencyclopedic". If this does happen, I'd call it vandalism.. Dawidbernard (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do some people respond with offense towards a user when s/he calls into question an edit? "Behavior" is neither encyclopedic nor unencyclopedic, content is, and for the most part, as an editor in Wikipedia, you should be ready to receive constructive (and other types) of criticism of the content you publish here. That is the very nature of this project, a community project. Whenever a user comments on your edits, try arguing or defending your edits instead of resorting to ad hominem arguments (i.e. "that behavior"). My behavior does not prove my argument wrong, and my "behavior" (by calling into question an edit) was not inappropriate.

The sentence was by far unencyclopedic for three reasons: style, location and lack of references. A one-sentence paragraph in an introduction with qualifications such as "stubbornly high" are at best unencyclopedical, at worse WP:POVPUSH, not to mention that all controversial statements without a reference violate WP:Verifiability, one of the three pillars of this project. Moreover, this issue had been extensively discussed in the past (please review the archives), and the editors opted for emulating other articles of countries which do not have a section on crime, and therefore removed the section; because of that and in accordance to WP:Consensus, that the topic had to be discussed first and a new consensus had to be reached.

Your newest edit, by including a section, is far better than the previous one. It is sourced (although the reference tag should probably follow every statement that could be contested, not only at the end of the paragraph), and given that you are citing verbatim what the CIA Factbook says, style could be argued to be appropriate.

Given that most of the users that agreed on the removal of the section are either on vacation or have reduced their interventions at Wikipedia, I think that there is enough consensus now (considering Wanderer's opinion as "supporting" your proposal, correct me if I am wrong), to include this new section, I think it should stay in the article. But do not be surprised if in the future the long-standing editors who participated in the previous debates challenge your new proposal.

--the Dúnadan 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My firm stance on the "behaviour" stems from the fact that my previous edits were dismissed on the grounds that they were allegedly "absolutely unencyclopedic" despite the fact that, as it now appears, at least the contents they conveyed was encyclopedic. Moreover, the sentence contained a link to the article Crime in Mexico that I used as a source before writing it. My understanding is that the editors who removed my edits acted hastily and did not put even the slightest effort in trying to resolve the issue successfully. Tagging something "unencyclopedic" and removing it without raising the issue in the discussion page is the easiest thing to do. This isn't what I'd call "calling into question an edit" and "constructive criticism". In fact, "constructive criticism" is what you are doing NOW, not what you did earlier nor what Supaman89 did on Nov 5. I am willing to admit my words here were too harsh and I'm sorry if someone felt offended; can you admit that your handling of the situation could be better as well? Despite our differences, I am satisfied that we have reached a common ground. Dawidbernard (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you missed some of the points above:

your original sentence was not encyclopedic. The new section is. Do not mix the two in order to say that your first edit was "allegedly" uneyclopedic, but now it appears that it wasn't. Your two edits were vastly different. I think I explained the difference between the first sentence and the new section quite clearly in my comment above.
Per WP:Consensus (and since there was a consensus before in which several users agreed not to include such a section for the reasons therein explained [1]), the removal of the first unreferenced sentence was compliant with Wikipedia policies. Again, I say, don't be surprised if the users that participated in that debate oppose the inclusion of the new section.

--the Dúnadan 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Inconsistencies

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Nahuatl pronunciation of "Mexico"

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

"political alternation"

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Well,like I mentioned in the archive too, political alternation is a term used in political science. I don't fully understand why it is you wrestle with it. Now, answering your concerns:

Splitting the sentence into two sentences is not a bad idea.
Good point, I don't think it is important enough to include political alternation in the lead, even though the CIA Factbook somewhat mentions it in the Introduction of the country's profile. We can discuss the pertinence of doing so here at Wikiepdia.
I don't like your sentence proposal as it will open a Pandora box for subjective interpretations. When did Mexico become a multi-party democracy, in the 1940's when the first non-PRI mayor was elected? in the 1950s where a couple of FPP deputies were selected? in the 1970s when several non-PRI PR deputies were selected? in 1989 when the first non-PRI governor was elected? in 1990 when the IFE was created? in 1992 when non-PRI parties had obtained almost 50% of the Chamber of Deputies? in 1997 when no single party obtained a majority in the Chamber of Deputies? in 2000 when the first non-PRI president was elected since 1929? Moreover, when is democracy achieved, when the rules of the game are made more democratic or when a different party [i.e. political alternation] is elected through the rules of the game approved several years (or even decades) before? What is the threshold for multi-party democracy, 20% of the Chamber of Deputies being non-PRI? You see, there are no easy answers, and as the books being cited in the political section and at Politics of Mexico suggest, the case of Mexico was rather complicated in that there was no dictatorship (i.e. abolishment of the constitutional rule), but rather electoral authoritarianism. So, deposing a dictator may be the landmark of democracy in Argentina in 1983, but there is no such landmark in Mexico, and the process to "democratize" the electoral system was slow. To imply that the defeat of PRI implies democracy is not correct. The 1994 elections -evaluated by international observers- were considered free and clean, and yet the people voted for a PRI candidate. And even today, there are almost as many PRI state governors as there are PAN and PRD put together... and all elected democratically. See what I mean? So, in just a few words, multi-party democracy was not achieved -in my opinion- with the election of someone at the federal executive power, but rather when the change in rules allowed for a greater and fairer representation of the opposition in all government levels. This was achieved probably in the late 80s and early 90s. The process of alternation (i.e. change of party in power), culminated [2] when a non-PRI candidate was elected for the highest executive post in the country.

--the Dúnadan 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Religion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Discussion re Crime

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

Please see discussion HERE Wanderer57 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree that a consensus was not reached in the earlier discussion but it is still relevant. I am pasting it in here for reference rather than jumping back and forth. Wanderer57

Click here to jump to earlier discussion

[Editing to provide a link instead of duplicating discussions. Moreover, more comments were added to that section that were not copied-pasted here for some reason, and more could be added. With this link at least the full conversation of all users can be read. Feel free to revert if you think necessary]. --the Dúnadan 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

See Talk:Mexico/Archive_2#Crime_Section.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F, which as the previous consensus. That is why, per WP:Consensus, Dawidberard should have obtained a new consensus amongst the editors before editing, something he doesn't have. Yet, like I explained above, I didn't erase the section in that there seems to be a somewhat "tacit" new consensus, even though I won't be surprised if the editors who participated in that consensus object. --the Dúnadan 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

UNAM

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey guys!, the UNAM is now ranked in the position 59, You can read about this here: http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=344960 Comments? Mexxxicano 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the university really have over 269,000 students? Wanderer57 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are more students you can read the stats here: http://www.planeacion.unam.mx/agenda/2006/index.html?op=poblac Mexxxicano 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexican State Abbreviations

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

i could go on about this, but I think it would be a good idea. --141.210.9.36 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose; it violates Wikipedia's policies: Please read: WP:OR. --the Dúnadan 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what are you opposing to: of course we can't make up abbreviations in the WP, so if two-letter abbreviations are used, they should follow some public standard (like an ISO specification); but if the Mexican authorities agree to set non-duplicates of State abbreviations for Northern America, that would be acceptable. Perhaps the misguided idea is to propose such a scheme here in WP, but I doubt that's what the OP was trying to do.-- Louie (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

British Columbia and Baja California, the abbreviation of both entities is BC, as we can see in the car licenses of Baja California. JC 14:57, 11 February 2008 (PST)

I don't undestand what is being discussed here. There are no official or unofficial two-letter state abbreviations in Mexico. If and when Mexican authorities decide to discuss and implement such a scheme, then we can change the content of the article. Btw, ISO codes for Mexican states are three-letter abbreviations. --the Dúnadan 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Crime and OECD

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted the two most recent edits regading the crime section and Mexico's membership in the OECD as the "only developing nation":

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

--the Dúnadan 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please, Mhsb, I have already explained to you that this issue has been extensively discussed before. Therefore, please present your arguments here (besides the Google test) and await for the consensus of the editors. Many editors oppose that section in as much as they oppose it in any other country. While I, personally, do not oppose a section on crime, I particularly dislike your wording and the way it is presented, and much rather prefer the previous proposal (though rejected by the community) that gave the [crude] assessment of the CIA. Reasons why I dislike your proposal:

Use of personal appreciations or qualifications versus WP:FACTS.
Partial use of references to support claims or lack of serious reputable references in compliance with WP:CITE in some sentences (the advisory of the State Department is a valid reference, though):

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

Neither of the two references provided speak of "rape"; in fact the second reference is a forum, hardly a valid reference for Wikipedia. Compare the language of your text with the wording use by the first of the references provided, which is an advisory note for travelers: [3].

Your text: "Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates", your reference: [4].

Unreferenced claims with extensive use of weasel wording:

"have occurred in almost all the large cities in Mexico and appear to target not only the wealthy, but also the middle class."

"Criminal assaults occur on highways throughoutMexico; Armed street crime is a serious problem in all of the major cities."

Concluding that the sharp social class distinction is the root of crime in Mexico:

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

What the source (Encarta) says: "Poor economic conditions, however, have significantly increased the levels of urban crime in the country, especially in Mexico City."

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

I don't quite understand why do you insist to remove the crime section from the article. What country are you trying to depict here? Please, don't try to create an image of a Mexico without any problems, a Mexico where crime does not exist and a Mexico that looks like Scandinavia? You are the one who is being tedentious here. My research is based on fact with lots of references from very reliable sources. What facts do you have for not including the crime section? Please, think about that and try to travel more overseas, go ahead and know some other countries and then come back here and make your oint of view. Read more news papers too! Mexican newspapers, you need them! You are living in another world kid!--Mhsb (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please moderate your comments, you are bordering on a clear violation of WP:Etiquette, and I will not continue with a discussion that is personal and unacceptable, but I will focus on the section you are proposing. Again, you seem not to understand my concerns, so I will outline my comments in a very, very simple way:

This issue has been extensively discussed in the past. Given that Mexico was the only article of a country in Wikipedia where such a section was being pushed, the editors on two separate occasions agreed to remove that section. Per WP:Consensus, it is recommended that you first obtain the consensus of the editors involved in the previous [two] consensus[es] before unilaterally reinserting what was voted to be removed.
I, personally, and despite your very personal and unfortunate comment, do not oppose the inclusion of a section on crime. But I would much rather include a non-OR section that is less tendentious and more serious in content like the one proposed before, which cited the assessment on Crime and Security by the CIA.

I would rather that you answer my concerns, especially those explicitly outlined in my previous comment in which I cited your work, instead of resorting to personal comments. And please, do not call me kid.

--the Dúnadan 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed section on Crime - proposed by Mhsb

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

(this text is brought here for discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Shanty town of Ramos Arizpe. Social inequality is one of the main causes of crime and violence in Mexico.

Crime in Mexico is high, and it is often violent, especially in Mexico City^[1], Tijuana^[2], Ciudad Juarez^[3], Nuevo Laredo^[4], Monterrey^[5], Acapulco^[6], and the state of Sinaloa^[7]. Other metropolitan areas have lower, but still serious, levels of crime. Low apprehension and conviction rates of criminals contribute to the high crime rate.

There are a significant number of pickpocket, purse snatching, and hotel-room theft incidents. Public transportation is a particularly popular place for pickpockets.^[8]

Victims, who are almost always unaccompanied, have been raped, robbed of personal property, or abducted and then held while their credit cards were used at various businesses and Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs). Mexican citizens and tourists are sometimes accosted on the street and forced to withdraw money from their accounts using their ATM cards.^[9]^[10]

Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates.^[11] So-called express kidnappings, an attempt to get quick cash in exchange for the release of an individual, have occurred in almost all the large cities in Mexico and appear to target not only the wealthy, but also the middle class.

Criminal assaults occur on highways throughout Mexico; Armed street crime is a serious problem in all of the major cities. Some bars and nightclubs, especially in resort cities such as Cancun, Cabo San Lucas, Mazatlan, Acapulco, and Tijuana, can be havens for drug dealers and petty criminals. Some establishments may contaminate or drug drinks to gain control over the patron.^[12]^[13]

It is increasingly common for extortionists to call prospective victims on the telephone, often posing as law enforcement or other officials, and demand payments in return for the release of an arrested family member, or to forestall a kidnapping. Prison inmates using smuggled cellular phones often place these calls. Persons receiving such calls should be extremely skeptical since most such demands or threats are baseless.^[14]^[15]^[16]

Mexico is characterized by sharp class and social divisions. A small upper class controls much of the country’s property and wealth while the majority of Mexicans live in poverty. These social problems are one of the pillars of the increased levels of urban crime in the country.^[17]

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

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

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

What's the matter with this concept? You dislike it? I think that a poor mexican citzen, the one who lives in one of the several shanty towns, would disagree with you. But don't worry, it's very unlikely that this poor citzen would have broadband Internet connection, even more unlikely, this folk would know how to post a comment here or add a section about crime. I accept reviewing the section but removing it and editing it with tedentious and personal view, as if crime were not a major issue in Mexico, that's unacceptable for a project who aims to gather information.--Mhsb (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I repea: There is nothing wrong with the concept, but with the tendentious style you propose. I repeat, I would rather have the previous proposal than yours. Moreover, you are violating WP:Consensus: on two occasions it was decided not to have this section. Please stop reverting, please stop calling other people vandals, and please review WP:Etiquette.

It should be covered, but must not give it undue weight. Which means this section should not dominate the article. Many programs I see in the local San Diego/Tijuana news is about the violence in the border region and this is a discussion brought up on a constant basis. But if it is decided to not have this section here, there needs to be a link in see also. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I agreed with the last change made by Wanderer57 but I restored the image of the shanty town. There is no reason to take it off just because it's filthy.--Mhsb (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have to make a priori assumptions of motivations instead of dealing with the concerns already explained? No, we don't want to make this article a copy of the US; no we don't want to hide crime in Mexico; no we don't want to make it look like Scandinavia;we don't want to remove the picture because it is "filthy": those are assumptions that you cannot make in an argumentation. The section doesn't "bother me" per se: the content is tendentious and unencyclopedic, more akin to a tourist guide, a crime advisory page or a forum, not an encyclopedia. You have not been willing to discuss: I outlined several concerns with your so-called "referenced" proposal, and you resorted to personal disqualifications.

No, I am not WP:POVPUSHing, because I am restoring the consensus agreed by five different authors. There is no relativity; given your history of contributions here and in Brazil, it seems you rather have an agenda.

--the Dúnadan 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Are you going to answer our concerns or not? Who said there are no shanty towns in Mexico? Can you show me where I said it? Please look at WP:WEASEL, it seems you are not understanding what I am trying to say. --the Dúnadan 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mhsb - please stop making accusations and imputing motives.

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

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

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