Talk:Mexico/Archive 6

Mexican Air Force Image

That picture is a bad photomontage. Mexico doesn't have any planes like that. It barely has some obsolete f-5's as it is. It should be edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.38.31.30 (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Location of Mexico

We are having a big discussion in our household. My 9 year old son and I both agree that THE UNITED STATES and MEXICO are both part of NORTH AMERICA. Now, my 13 year old son and his SOCIAL STUDIES teachers have said MEXICO is not part of THE UNITED STATES and NORTH AMERICA, but that it is really a part of SOUTH AMERICA.

Now we have viewed this over the INTERNET and my 9 year old son and I are both right.

If anyone has any discussion about this, please feel free to edit.

Alicia Renee Landrum

Mexico and the United States of America are both part of the continent of North America, along with about 20 other countries. There is a list of all the countries in North America in the article. (Click on the name to go to the article.)

There is sometimes confusion because in addition to the continents of North and South America, there are Geographic Regions.

The geographic regions include Central America and Middle America. These are very important regions but they are not continents.

Mexico is part of Middle America. It is not part of South America or Central America. However it is commonly accepted that Mexico is part of Central America. UEFA has chosen to classify it as such in the World Cup qualifiers.

This is an old discussion so I don't even know why I bother answering, but just to respond to the comment above that was made recientely, Mexico is in North America (region) along with Canada and the United States, below Mexico there is Central America, there is also this rarely used term called "Middle America" which includes Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Central America and the Caribbean. Supaman89 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is in "southern North America". Perhaps that was what the teacher said. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

North America shown in Mauve (Greenland), Blue (Mexico, the USA & Canada), Green (Central America), and Red (Caribbean). South America is in Orange

Mexico is part of North America, I hope that image on the right can help you, you can check other languages for more information, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

French: fr:Amérique du Nord
Italian: it:America settentrionale
Spanish: es:América del Norte
Portuguese: pt:América do Norte
German: de:Nordamerika
Romanian: ro:America de Nord
and so on.

(Click image to enlarge.) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What may be a little more controversial is which contries comprise "Latin America". However, México is not often part of that controversy, as it is almost always considered to be a part of Latin America. Yes, It is definitely considered part of North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico it's totaly part of Norhamerica U.S.A. Canada and Mexico are Northamerica. The true is Centralamerica was created by the Centralamerica countrys Guatemala,El Salvador,Honduras,Nicaragua,Costa Rica, Panama, all these countries created the union of countrys of Central America in 1821 after get the independece from Spain, and the reazon was exclude Mexico bicose they want a clear separesion from Mexico.

Geological and Climatological the world it's North and South and the middle it's the Ecuador that means, the right separesion it's North america all the way to the Ecuador and Southamerica south of the Ecuador, and if you looking for the right Central America has to be the noth and south of the Ecuador thats means the north of Suth America it's the right Central America (chek a map, the Ecuador it's Central amenrica (Colombia, Venezuela,Ecuador,Guyanas,North of Peru,and norh of Brasil) that it's the right middle American Continent (chek a map my fiends) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilberto lopez (talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual name of the article, however, can certainly be left in the English common version, "Mexico", because it is an English encyclopedia and the most commonly used version of the name. However, the name should be clearly disambiguated so that any proper spelling leads to--and is validated by--the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in North America, and that's final. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

wow

(disambiguation). Estados Unidos Mexicanos United Mexican States

Flag Coat of arms

Anthem: "Himno Nacional Mexicano" "Mexican National Anthem"

Capital (and largest city) Mexico City 19°03′N, 99°22′W Official languages None at federal level. Spanish (de facto) National language Spanish, and 62 Indigenous Amerindian languages.[1] Demonym Mexican Government Federal presidential republic

-  President Felipe Calderón

(PAN) Independence from Spain

-  Declared September 16, 1810  
-  Recognized September 27, 1821  

Area

-  Total 1,972,550 km² (15th)

761,606 sq mi

-  Water (%) 2.5 

Population

-  2008 estimate 108,700,891 (11th) 
-  2005 census 103,263,388  
-  Density 55/km² (142nd)

142/sq mi GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate

-  Total $1.486 trillion (11th) 
-  Per capita $14.230 (60th) 

GDP (nominal) 2006 estimate

-  Total $1022 Trillion (short scale) (14th) 
-  Per capita $9,066 (52th) 

Gini (2006) 47.3 (high) HDI (2007) ▲ 0.829 (high) (52nd) Currency Mexican peso (MXN) Time zone U.S Central to Western (UTC-8 to -6) Internet TLD .mx Calling code +52 The United Mexican States[2] (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos (help·info)), or commonly Mexico (IPA: /ˈmɛksɪkoʊ/) (Spanish: México (help·info) Spanish pronunciation: [ˈmexiko]), is a federal constitutional republic in North America. It is bordered on the north by the United States; on the south and west by the North Pacific Ocean; on the southeast by Guatemala, Belize, and the Caribbean Sea; and on the east by the Gulf of Mexico.[3][4] The United Mexican States is a federation comprising thirty-one states and a federal district, the capital Mexico City, whose metropolitan area is one of the world's most populous.

Covering almost 2 million square kilometers,[5] Mexico is the fifth-largest country in the Americas by total area and the 14th largest in the world. With an estimated population of 109 million,[6] it is the 11th most populous country and the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.

As a regional power[7][8] and the only Latin American member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1994, Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country[9].

Mexico is the 11th largest economy in the world by GDP by purchasing power parity. The economy is strongly linked to those of its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners, despite being considered an emerging world power[10] the country's social and security problems keep it away from being effective.

Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency from the Institutional Revolutionary Party ("Partido Revolucionario Institucional" : PRI) which had held it since 1929, culminating the political alternation at the federal level, which had begun at the local level during the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.104.79.105 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas table

I said it was vandalism because this is not the first time it happens, I usually put an explanation to every edition I make but this time (as usual) it was reverted with no summary at all (like if I didn't explained why) anyways, the two tables are basically the same, the "metropolitan areas" one was already there and it was fine, then Joao Felipe came and for no reason changed it for another one being pretty much the same (why? I don’t know), after I reverted it and explained why (again), he reverted it again with no comment... Supaman89 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments does not mean WP:Vandalism. If it is a matter of taste, I actually prefer his format. But this is the place to discuss, not to accuse each other of vandalism. --the Dúnadan 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but this is not the first time it happens with him, how would you feel if you put an explanation for you edits and I reverted it just like that with no comment, anyway you know the old table looked better, let's not make a big issue out of this, I'll just put it back so we can continue improving the article, cheers? Supaman89 (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the old table looks better? Didn't you read what I wrote? In design, I prefer his proposal. Secondly, please review what vandalism is. Not writing an edit summary is not vandalism. Engaging in an edit war by "putting it back" it not the way to go, mate. --the Dúnadan 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which table was whose, but they pretty much are the same. If we're voting on preference, I think the one that lists them in 2 columns with the pictures in the middle looks a little better because it doesn't seem to take up as much of the page. Also, I noticed someone changed it from "metropolitan areas" to "core cities." Would it be better to change it back to metropoiltan areas; I think "core cities" sounds a little strange to me (just an opinion). Kman543210 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the thing: the population figures cited are those of metropolitan areas, but the list (an links) are of cities, the main cities - also called core cities in demographics. So, in reality, Monterrey only has 1.1 milion inhabitants, but Greater Monterrey has 3.8 million. The problem is that the author/s of the table were mixing two different concepts, that of cities and that of metropolitan areas. So, if we want to keep the table as is, and if we do not want to misinform, then the title of the table should be "metropolitan areas" and the title of the column should be "core cities". But any other option, as long as it is accurate, could work. --the Dúnadan 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Kman543210 there was already a Metropolitan Areas table, and then for no reason user Joao Felipe changed it for another being pretty much the same (that itself is pointless) second of all, if he wanted to changed the table's look, he should've gone to the table's template not remove it and chage it here (as he did), third of all even though I explained to him why his edition was reverted he (as usual) reverted it again with no explanation, anyways Kman543210, here is the original and only template, there was no reason to be changed for another one practically identical. Supaman89 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) See the original template at:{{Largest cities of Mexico‎}}

Supaman, don't start an unecessary conflict. I will repeat myself for the third time:

• Nothing prevents a user from replacing a template with another template. Templates can be changed, replaced or deleted, if the community so wishes to. He made a proposal, you dislike it, and you revert it back.
• The reason to change it was aesthetics, just as many templates are constantly being changed. You yourself have changed that same template in the past. If you dislike the proposed new formatted version, you should object to it by discussing, not by reverting back.

--the Dúnadan 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see the two different tables, and Supaman is correct that they are practically the same; however, the replacement seems to take up a little less room and appears to be a little more symmetrical to have 2 columns on each side with the pictures in the middle. Again, either is fine, but that is just my preference/opinion (if feedback was wanted). I can't comment on the reverting or templates, just the appearance of the two tables that are very similar. Kman543210 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if he wants to propose the change he should go to the template's talkpage and propose it there, not come here and immediatly change it for no reason, further more if I tell him the reason why I reverted his edition he should at least give an explanation not just ignore me and do it again, so again if he wants to modify the template to look like the one he proposed is fine but he needs to propose it there, until then the article should stay the way it was, that is with the old version. Supaman89 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever read WP:BOLD?--the Dúnadan 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, if he's really interested in changing the table's appearance (which he's not) then he can go to the template's talk page and propose it any time, meanwhile the article has to stay the way it was until people there approve his change. Supaman89 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan, now I understand what you're saying about the numbers, thanks for clarifying. You're right that if it says metropolitan area, then the stats and ranking in the table should reflect that. The word "core city" just threw me off, but maybe it was just me. Thanks again Kman543210 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We could use "city proper" if that makes more sense.--the Dúnadan 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the table "Metropolitan Areas by Population" should include the states on the cities mentioned above. Mexico City (Mexico, Federal District, Hidalgo), Torreon-Gómez Palacio (Coahuila Durango), Puebla (Puebla Tlaxcala), Tampico (Tamaulipas-Veracruz). And Comarca Lagunera includes a zone larger than Torreón and Gómez Palacio, so it should not be used as a synomym.75.62.227.109 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Social Development section

I was thinking on adding a Social Development section, to include some facts and statistics about the life standards in Mexico, if anyone wants to help me to redact the section you're welcome to help me, like when we added the Health Care section, well that's pretty much it, all proposal and suggestions are welcome. Supaman89 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there are two COMPLETELY mistaken statements on the Health Care section: The first states that healthcare is available to all mexicans (this is utterly untrue!). The second one is the caption of the photo of a luxurious private hospital saying it is "an average" hospital in Mexico... Is it me, or the whole article pictures an extremely optimistic image of Mexico? Cerealito (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Luxurious hospital? in fact people have tried to put better pictures but I reverted them because the hospital were "too fancy", if we wanted to put "luxurious hospitals" we would've put that of any mayor city, for instance this one. Supaman89 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the text is meant to say that legally healthcare is available to all Mexicans at no cost through public hospitals (i.e. it is paid by the government, and all citizens are entitled to receive health care). The statement actually comes from Britannica that says:

"Federally subsidized medical and hospital care is available to all Mexican citizens. Several government institutions, including the Mexican Social Security Institute and the Security and Social Services Institute for Government Workers, operate hospitals. Public medicine, like public education, is considered inferior to private care, however, and those who can afford it avail themselves of private physicians and hospitals."[1].

By federal subsidized it is meant that, as in other countries who offer universal health care, there are some caveats as to what "free" healthcare is, in this case, medical attention and procedures are free, medicine and drugs used in procedures and those taken preemptively are not]).

Now, on the practical side, the system is overwhelmed (or overburdened). Moreover, general and specialized hospitals are usually available only at the capital cities (or the largest cities within the state), whereas the small rural communities are only serviced by general medicine clínicas with little or none specialized equipment. But the statement, remains true: subsidized hospital is "available" to all (all citizens are entitled to it).

--the Dúnadan 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dunadan. Britannica is a good information source. But perhaps THEY should check their sources too. Check this report from the Mexican government: 50.3 million mexicans have no health insurance at all. So yes, all Mexicans are entitled to health care, but a big bunch of them have no health insurance at all. This is very relevant in this section, I'm editing this section... Cerealito (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you missed my point. Britannica's statement does not say anything about access to health insurance, but access to hospital care, subsidized by the government. All Mexicans have the right to step into a subsidized public hospital and receive attention. That is what the article is trying to say. Whether that attention is actually available at the remotest rural town in Oaxaca, or whether everybody has health insurance (private or through Social Security), that is another issue. --the Dúnadan 23:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I get it now. The right to receive medical attention is not the same as having an insurance. However, the statement is mistaken :IMSS and ISSSTE do not provide services to all Mexicans because they are social security institutions (i.e. you have to be affiliated and pay SS taxes to have the right to get services there for "free"). There are other institutions such as DIF or INSALUD that provide health services for population without insurance Cerealito (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unaffiliated citizens are entitled to receive medical attention in all public hospitals; even if attention is not free, it is heavily subsidized. However, the section right now makes no mention of the word "free" (it simply states that health care is available to all citizens in public facilities). If at all, you can add DIF and INSALUD to the list of institutions in which Mexicans can get medical attention. --the Dúnadan 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now that's luxurious! Anyways, I'm not concerned about the picture, I'm concerned about the caption stating that it is an average hospital in México. According to the ministry of health only 13.2% of health care facilities are private. You can check the information here. I'm changing the caption now...Cerealito (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about private hospitals (in fact I think private hospitals are usually smaller than the public ones), as I explained in my fist message, I've reverted better picture because they were "too fancy" if we had choosen to put a "luxurious hospital" we would've put one like this one in Puebla, Puebla. Supaman89 (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias changed the picture to a more representative hospital in Monterrey. I like the picture less than the one before, but then again it better serves the purpose of illustrating regular health care facilities in the country Cerealito (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it, and as I said before it has to be a normal hospital so I'm gonna have to change it, besides there are too many picture of Monterrey already, I'm just gonna change the caption to something like: "A mid-size hospital in Villahermosa, Tabasco" Supaman89 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But still, I think that we should find a picture of a *public* hospital. Why? Because 86.8% of all health facilities in Mexico are public... and we don't want to provide free adverts to Hospital Angeles :) I don't have any good quality picture available for now. Can somebody get one? Cerealito (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no standard Public hospital. Some public hospitals in Mexico City are impressive. I also remember the Hospital del Niño Poblano (exclusive for children) in Puebla, whose facilities are comparable to public hospitals, say, in Spain. --the Dúnadan 23:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as Dúnadan said, there is no standard in public hospitals. Some public hospitals provide better attention than some private ones, and are more prestigious. For example, the IMSS National Medical Center 21st Century. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you guys are saying that because there is no standard among public hospitals, we should picture one that is does not reflect the general state of health care facilities at all? Think about your probability and statistics lessons. If you had to picture the most representative hospital in any country this is what you would have to do: Pick a random one. Again, with 86.8% probability this hospital would not be picked.Cerealito (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, I just commited a new revision with a wider point of view, and clearly adding sources (some of them were already cited) this version corrects some mistakes from before, so please be kind and BUILD ON IT, elaborate, discuss and do not simply reject it because it is not as optimistic as it was before.Cerealito (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're fine with the picture, now regarding the paragraph, I don't see the reason to highlight all the "bad" points about it in a pretencious way, with a link taken from Britannica, and most of it isn't even true, for example:

Nope, we are not fine with the picture yet. The picture is not representative of health care facilities in Mexico. I can not change it now because I have not a better picture. But...

In practice most of the population has only limited access to health services, which in general have not the same quality as those in the United States or Europe - By far most Mexicans do have access to health services since their job usually takes care of it or money is taken from their salaries to assure health insurance, and I also think the comparason with the US and Europe is unnecesary since Mexico is still a developing country.

Ok about that: I just needed to put a counter weight to the first statement that equaled general health care in mexico with those of "developed societies". This was to achieve a NPOV, which the article hasn't right now.

But the statement is false, most of the Mexican population do have accest to health services (that doesn't mean universal healthcare) and in any capital city hospitals generally do have "first world" standards and the articles and opinions I posted below sopport it, "it is very good and in some cases excelent", just because one link (Britannica) says otherwise doesn't mean it's true. Supaman89 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial barriers still prevent many Mexicans to get proper medical care: as of 2002, 50.3 million Mexicans had no medical insurance at all (almost 50% of the population) - I checked the Britannica link and I didn't see where it says that 50% of the population have no health insurance, and even if it said so, it's just one link redacted by someone which doesn't necesarily make it true. I highly doubt that statement for the reasons explained above.

That section had a very clear reference to this document This is the third time that I post this reference but you people just do not seem to be willing to read it. It is the last executive report form the ministry of health. These are official numbers (generally, the most optimistic ones!) So yes, there are 50.3 million people with no health insurance that will have sell their homes if they ever need cancer treatment. You can still say that these data are not "necesarily true" (sic), but I can not think of a more reliable source than the Secretaria de Salud.

Ok, see I'm open to facts, I guess we could leave that for now, but let's not over emphacize it like "LOOK, ALMOST 50%!", a simple "50.3 million Mexicans had no medical insurance" would do it.

BTW, yesterday President Calderon announced a universal healthcare by 2011, so hopefully that will change in 3 years. Supaman89 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To give you my honnest opinion, hospitals in mayor cities of every state are pretty good and a lot of them are as good the American and European ones; the ones located in small communities in rural areas are pretty bad because it's hard to build proper hospitals in those areas but again they are a minority so by far most Mexicans do have access to proper health care.

With all due respect your honnest opinion (sic) has not much weight when compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Again Britannica is just 1 link redacted by someone, and by far most sources contradict it, so either all these people are lying or Britannica wasn't informed enough. Supaman89 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I did a quick google search for "Mexico, health care" and here are some quotes from some of the links:

"Many people often arrive at the conclusion that because healthcare in Mexico is so cheap compared to the US, the quality of medical attention and knowledge about health care issues in Mexico must be lacking. This is completely false. Not only are Mexican hospitals equipped to a first world standard with modern equipment and hygienic practices, but many Mexican doctors and dentists in fact received their training in the US."
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/article/Mexico/Health-Care-Issues-Mexico/695

"Mexican Health Care Is Excellent and Affordable. Every medium to large city in Mexico has at least one first-rate hospital. And a big plus is that the cost of health care in Mexico is generally half or less what you might expect to pay in the U.S."
www.internationalliving.com/countries/mexico/health_care

"When you think of Mexico, do images of turista and Montezuma’s revenge make your intestines groan? Perhaps you have had many patients who got sick in Mexico, and you fear going there because you might get hepatitis or a parasite. Mexico, however, is actually quite advanced and not the backward, primitive place you might remember from the movies."
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2005/Jan/vol51-jan-letters-4.asp

"When you are about to consider on moving, one concern that you should properly deal is health care. Fortunately, you can actually find out that generally, health care in Mexico is very impressive, and in most places, very excellent"
http://www.expatforum.com/articles/health/health-care-in-mexico.html

IDEM what's with these opinions? They have no weight against the sources I'm giving you: Britannica, Ministry of Health and the report form countrystudies.us. Two of these references were already there. The new one is even better. I'm just putting the sad side of the story man. That side exists to and It should be on an encyclopedia.

Well, if all those articles and opinions "don't count" (and I just put 4, because I only googled 2 pages) then why would we take for granted one link (Britannica) that was written by someone who was obviously biased about it, or wasn't informed enough about the subject?, or maybe all these people are lying and Mexico's health care and hopitals are really terrible?. Supaman89 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK this discussion is getting too long. I frankly see your point. What about leaving just factual data and deleting ALL comparisons with developed countries?. Lets just give readers some pointers and facts and let them decide if it is better, equal or worst than somewhere else... what do you think?

---

Why Cerealito is unilaterally changing the whole meaning of the section? I found it very POV because he gives Britannica a big weight, for example, directly saying that the health services in Mexico are inferior that in the US and Europe, written in a way that left no doubt about it, as if this were not an opinion by the editorial team of Britannica. Then, in another sentence that was already there, in which is said that some services are equal in quality that those found in developed nations, he added that this is considered by "some authors", as if doubt should be casted in this affirmation. I found this very POV. When the opinion is negative, the writing style he uses is direct, and when the opinion about the health system is good, he added words to make it sound like the sentence should not be completely tursted. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, thanks a lot. I explicitly asked you to modify, construct, build on what I wrote. My revision certainly added very relevant information.

Every piece of information that I wrote was sustained with reliable sources. Did you even care to read them?.

Instead of being proactive and building on what was added you plain undid a revision. I started to edit this section precisely because I found that it HAD NOT a NPOV in the first place (PLEASE SEE the very begining of the section!). While I admit that I can not have a NPOV and that my view is not as optimistic as yours, I also know that NO ONE has a NPOV. Neutral Point of view is achieved by adding, modifiying, adding sources, being proactive and discussing. That's exactly what I did, so you can not say that I unilaterally changed anything: I used most of the info that was already there. By plain undoing my edit you are being totally reactive and leaving what I consider to be totally biased (again, I stated that from the very beginning). So, what am I supposed to do now? Being as REACTIVE as YOU and revert? why can't you REEDIT instead of undoing?

This is so frustrating... please, please, answer me... what am I supposed to do? Maybe edit the article while discussing and adding reliable sources? Oh wait, I already did that.

Now, this is what I suggest to do: Let's go by to my revision and YOU edit and add info. As long as you add reliable references I certainly wont undo your contributions. Thanks Cerealito (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil behavoir is not tolerated, trust me we have had people with that kind of behaviour and we know how to deal with them thanks to Wikipedia and its policies. It also won't let others see your point (if you have one). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get mad, I'm just saying that completely destroying the contributions of others because you find them "unbalanced" can not be good for balance itself, specially because I'm citing very reliable sources. I kindly invite you to reedit the article so that it also suits your personal point of view. Maybe we could advance on this issue and find a good compromise?Cerealito (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph Rewording

Okay Cerealito, I've redacted the paragraph to include that 50% of the population have no medical insurance as of 2002 and also that 13% of hospitals are private, without diminishing the fact that overall the health care is pretty good, what do you guys think?. Supaman89 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the early 1990's, Mexico had entered a transitional stage in the health of its population, some indicators such as mortality patterns were similar to those found in developed societies. Although all Mexicans are entitled to receive medical care by the state, 50.3 million Mexicans had no medical insurance as of 2002, because of that President Calderon announced that universal health care will be available to all Mexicans by 2011.

Most of Mexico's medical infrastructure is quite advanced and in some places excellent. However rural areas and indigenous communities have poor medical coverage, forcing them to travel to the closest urban area for proper medical care.

State-funded institutions such as Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) and the Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers (ISSSTE) play a major role in health and social security. Private health services are also very important and account for 13% of all medical units in the country.

Medical training is done mostly at public universities with some specializations done abroad. Some public universities in Mexico, such as the University of Guadalajara, have signed agreements with the U.S. to receive and train American students in Medicine. Health care costs in private institutions and prescription drugs in Mexico are on average lower than that of its North American economic partners.

I definitely find this one better that the original one. Nevertheless I really reckon that stating that most of medical infraestructure is quite advanced requires even more reliable sources. On the other hand I accept infrastructure in Mexico CAN be excellent in some places (I lived in Mexico myself for many years). Taking this into account, may I suggest the following changes:

Since the early 1990's, Mexico had entered a transitional stage in the health of its population and some indicators such as mortality patterns were are similar to those found in developed societies. Although all Mexicans are entitled to receive medical care by the state, 50.3 million Mexicans had no medical insurance as of 2002, because of that President Calderon announced that universal health care will be available to all Mexicans by 2011.. Efforts to reach an increasing number of people are being made, and the current administration intends to achieve universal health care by 2011.

Most of Mexico's medical infrastructure is quite advanced and in some places can be excellent in major cities . But , but rural areas and indigenous communities still have poor medical coverage, forcing them to travel to the closest urban area for proper to get specialized medical care.

State-funded institutions such as Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) and the Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers (ISSSTE) play a major role in health and social security. Private health services are also very important and account for 13% of all medical units in the country. ... ... (the rest is fine by me)

What would you say about these changes? Cerealito (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the early 1990's, Mexico entered a transitional stage in the health of its population and some indicators such as mortality patterns are similar to those found in developed societies. Although all Mexicans are entitled to receive medical care by the state, 50.3 million Mexicans had no medical insurance as of 2002. Efforts to increase the number of people are being made, and the current administration intends to achieve universal health care by 2011.

Mexico's medical infrastructure is very good for the most part and can be excellent in major cities, but rural areas and indigenous communities still have poor medical coverage, forcing them to travel to the closest urban area to get specialized medical care.

State-funded institutions such as Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) and the Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers (ISSSTE) play a major role in health and social security. Private health services are also very important and account for 13% of all medical units in the country.

Medical training is done mostly at public universities with some specializations done abroad. Some public universities in Mexico, such as the University of Guadalajara, have signed agreements with the U.S. to receive and train American students in Medicine. Health care costs in private institutions and prescription drugs in Mexico are on average lower than that of its North American economic partners.

Well, I mixed a bit of texts so hopefully that'll cover all points presented and give the reader the general idea of the health care and medical infrastructure of the country. Supaman89 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see how we objectively qualify "the most part" of the infrasstructure as "very good". The first term describes a number... how do we know that the majority of health infrastructure is very good?. The latter serves as a totally subjective modifier: what does it mean to be "very good"? to whom?... I guess that in the spirit of conciliation I support the paragraph as you wrote it above. Could you please commit the changes? If you have time after commiting the changes, it would be a good idea to search for even more sources to sustain the statements I mentioned... Cerealito (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the last paragraph rewording by Supaman is the best, seems fairly balanced to me. I don't see why the "good things to say" should be cut off and only the "bad things" should stay. Really, I enjoy the last paragraph, balanced enough. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok we are now two supporters for the paragraph as written by Supaman... Cerealito (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This has being a really long discusion, are we fine with the last text? As Alexcovarrubias mentioned, I think it has a good balance, so are we ok with it or should we make this discussion longer just for 2 or 3 words? Supaman89 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I said before I support your last version. I will commit the revision ASAP but if you could do it before that would be good too (don't have much time right now) Cerealito (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Floating graphic

This graphic looks oddly out of place. Other graphics on the page seem good - white space around them, that sort of thing. But this critter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mexico_states_map_small.png

has the text bumping up against the left hand side. Can anyone fix it? Someone who has dealt with the placement of graphics and has the power to penetrate the semi-protection of this article.

Good luck now.

Porthugh (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate, we got 2 versions of the same map but I think they both have the same problem, maybe we should decide for one and then try to fix the margin. Supaman89 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Mexico labeled map}}{{Mexico Labelled Map small}}

Hi, Both images have problems. The colour of the text in the current image - the one with rounded corners - makes it hard to read. The other image is admittedly more fun with its background colours but many of the region names are truncated.

This harder than I thought. Maybe both images are out of place here.

Porthugh (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first image, just like Porthugh said, the blue colors of the second one make it hard to read the names. On the other hand, I don't see the names of the states truncated on either map; whenever the name was too large to fit, the official abbreviation was used. --the Dúnadan 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulf of Mexico Pacific Ocean Central America United States of America Mexico City AG Baja California Baja California Sur Campeche Chiapas Chihuahua Coahuila Colima Durango Guanajuato Guerrero HD Jalisco EM Michoacán MO Nayarit Nuevo León Oaxaca Puebla Querétaro Quintana Roo San Luis Potosí Sinaloa Sonora Tabasco Tamaulipas TL Veracruz Yucatán Zacatecas

We can fix the margins, but first we just need to decide which one we're going to use, I got the original SVG file for the first picture so I could probably fix it, and in the second picture is a PNG file so it could also be fixed even in MS Paint. Supaman89 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Hello again,

Truncated was the wrong word to use. Abbreviated is what I meant. Official abbreviations or not though, what use are they if we don't know in advance what they mean? Anyway forget about that.

This particular image has peculiar (to me) mark up which may or may not be connected to css mark up. I really don't know. Perhaps someone who does know could do something about the mark up so that the body/content text is not obscured.

I like the brightly coloured map even with the truncated/abbreviated names. Porthugh (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll try to make a mark around the first map to see how it looks. Supaman89 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I just solved the problem by adding a mark around it, I put it above so you can see the space difference, what do you think? Supaman89 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you correct the pronunciation of /ˈmexico/ in Spanish?

The current IPA symbols for Spanish are Spanish pronunciation: [me̞ˈxiko̞], /e̞/ and /e̞/ are mid-vowels. It would be better to specify the pronunciation in Spanish of the official name of the nation as other articles; Estados Unidos Mexicanos would be in the IPA for Spanish, Spanish pronunciation: [e̞sˈt̪að̞o̞s uˈnið̞o̞s me̞xiˈkano̞s]. (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to add the question why the pronunciation is currently spelled with an x. Now, I'm not a language expert, but as far as I know, x denotes a throat sound, as in Scottish "loch" or German "Fach". The sound file makes it sound more like a fricative, something like the voiceless palatal fricative ç, if not exactly. Can somebody shed some light on this? Maybe it's a difference between Spanish as spoken in Spain an in Mexico? --134.130.57.186 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is the oldest European colony in mainland America (the continent), back then (in the 1500's) it was named "La Nueva España" and at that time the Spanish spelling was a bit different from today, for example the 'X' letter was pronounced like a 'SH' therefore Mexico City (The capital of La Nueva España) was pronounced 'Meshico' with the time the 'X' letter changed it's pronunciation to a 'H' sound ('J' sound in Spanish), therefore Mexico was pronounced Mehico (which is still the pronunciation until today) and then latter the 'X' letter finally adopted a 'KS' sound but Mexico (now with its formal name: United Mexican States) wasn't going to change again its pronunciation for the third time, so it is pronounced 'Mehico' but keeps the old spelling 'Mexico' and since Mexico is the most important Spanish-speaking country everyone respects that spelling, except for some Spaniards who refuse to spell it that way and spell it 'Mejico' which is quite offensive for most Mexicans because they're deliberately spelling it against the country's official form. I hope that helped you, saludos. Supaman89 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I just realized that my question was misleading. I wasn't talking asking the actual pronunciation of "Mexico", which I heard as ['meçiko] or something similar before. My question was about the apparent misspelling in IPA with a voiceless velar fricative. Therefore, I propose to change the IPA spelling from [ˈmexiko] to ['meçiko]. However, I'd prefer to have some input on somebody more knowledgeable in IPA before going ahead. --134.130.57.186 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, It's my first time participating in a discussion here at Wikipedia, so I don't know if I'm doing it right but... I know a lot about IPA, having studied it and familiarized with it for almost 5 years and have a few things to add: /x/ is the standard phoneme in mexican spanish that representes here the "x" in "Mexico". It is, however, palatalized, resulting in [ˈme̞xʲiko̞], so it makes it sound like a ç sound, but not quite. In other varieties of spanish, i.e. spanish from Spain, this sound is uvular /χ/ and makes it sound harsh and very gutural. The current display of /'mehiko/ is incorrect, as /h/ only exists in the coastal areas of Mexico and is not considered standard. So I'd recomend the following /'mexiko/ or [ˈme̞xʲiko̞] because I consider them the best choices, the first one is a rough description and the second one is more explicit. I think any of those would be OK. Have a good day y'all.

Wow, you seem to know a lot about IPA, I kinda get what you're saying about the differences between /x/, /h/ and /χ/ and in fact I think this is how it was before /'mexiko/ but then (because of this discussion) it was changed to the current one /mehiko/ but if you say that it is more appropriate with an /x/ you might be right. Supaman89 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said /h/, as in english hamster is not the actual pronunciation in standard mexican spanish, it only ocurrs in small dialects. There is confusion beacuse "x" has many possible pronunciations in spanish. It may be pronunced /ks/, /s/, /tʃ/, /ʃ/, /x/ and so on. The latter sound is the less frecuent, but in this case, it the one used to pronunce the "x" in "Mexico". /x/ (the velar fricative) is a bit palatalized before /e/ and, specially, before /i/, resulting so in /xʲ/ (a velar-palatal fricative). The palatal fricative /ç/, then, is also incorrect. Finally, there also exists an uvular fricative /χ/ which is used only in Spain, its pronunciation is harsh, as when trying to spit ;). So my advice would be to change it to, as I formerly said: /'mexiko/ or [ˈme̞xʲiko̞]. Saludos y de nuevo un buen día para todos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.174.139.213 (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I just changed it. Supaman89 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to resurrect this discussion about about the fricative. Does this mean that words such as jamón; general; suje, reloj, are predominantly pronounced with a velar-palatal fricative in Mexico, as opposed to a velar fricative in Spain? If so, then I propose to change the IPA link from IPA: ['mexiko] to Spanish pronunciation: [ˈmexiko] (which is the way it was originally, two months or so ago), and furthermore make note on that page about the regional variation in pronunciation. But the latter is a point of discussion over there. If the pronunciation is not the same across the board, i.e. there is not a global replacement of the velar fricative by a velar-palatal fricative, I'd like to find either a better way of representation of the pronunciation here, or change the description on the IPA page, which at the moment makes it seem like the velar fricative is the only acceptable pronunciation for [x]. I know this is borderline nitpicking and only partially a topic of this page, but it seems to me I can best get into contact with the discussants here, and there might be an underlying problem with the IPA representation in this case, because the two pronunciation sounds very different. Then again, maybe I just haven't fully grapsed the IPA concept yet. --Flosch (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Airforce Picture

The Mexican Air Force does not employ the russian made su-30/27 in its military. The picture is of a Indian Marked SU-30/27 Fighter plane. i will erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homan05 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why don't you just change the caption if what you're saying is correct. Supaman89 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Homan05 -- the picture doesn't belong: if Mexico doesn't use a certain plane in its air force, why is it pictured? Picture an F-5E/F instead. Duh.

As far as I'm concerned, all that needs to be done is change the picture's caption, why would we delete the picture when it can be easily fixed? Supaman89 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No: change the picture AND caption, or remove it. Why exhibit a picture of a Flanker if Mexico doesn't have it? 69.158.150.249 (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert regarding the military of Mexico, so I don't know if the airplane shown in the picture is part of the Mexican Air Fore or not, therefore if Homan05 is completely sure that the MAF doesn't use the type of airplane shown in the picture, I would like him to put some references to back it up. Supaman89 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the article linked to in the article (Mexican Air Force) about Mexican air power, and you will see that Mexico doesn't own or operate the plane pictured (Su-27/30). It has 10 F-5E/F fighters. 2+2=4. You are definitely not one of God's brighter creatures, are you? 69.158.150.249 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all watch the language, second of all just by using the word "God" I don't think you're the smartest one either, anyways, if the Mexican Airforce doesn't use Su-27/30 airplaces then why does the airplace in the picture have the MAF logo on it? . Supaman89 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The image of the plane, and the roundel and fin flash (the identifying mark), is not that of the MAF but of a Flanker from the Indian Air Force. Are you blind: the roundel is round, not triangular. I will not 'watch my language', since you seem as dumb as a stump anyway. Why would you challenge, revert, and then argue about a moot point if you didn't know anything about the topic, and didn't seem to investigate or pay attention, wasting our collective time in the process? And, despite whatever God or gods or not you may or may not believe, there appears little hope for you. Next time, STFU. 69.158.150.249 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the colours are green, white and RED not ORANGE and at the back of the plane it has the Mexican flag, not the Indian one. Anyways I've no intention to keep discussing with an anonymous IP, thanks to the "smart" comments you made above it's gonna be pretty easy for me to tell an administrator to block your IP, adios. Supaman89 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you even consult the link I provided? You obviously know nothing about military aviation, not to mention simple geometry or comprehension, so please shut your Hispanic holes. With your witless commentary, you are merely furthering our already stellar impression of you. And, by the time you report anything, my IP would have changed. Keep up the good work, twit. 69.158.150.249 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me see... IP from Toronto, Canada, very uncivil behaviour, use of profanity, personal attacks...use of edit summaries [2] (including the use of profanity and threats on them)... Where have we all seen this before? RIGHT! He's back. I'm not surprised since we tried to change the geography paragraph that gives MA undue weight. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Supaman89 for posting the correct picture and thank you to the guys who agreed with me.Homan05 —Preceding comment was added at 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Weather of Mexico

The weather of Mexico it's:

Baja California: mediterranean at the north of the pacific coast rains in winter dry summer with maritim influence.frome the border with U.S.A. to the paralel 30N. Last snow fall in cities: Mexicali dec. 1932 Tecate feb. 2008 Baja California sur it's a desert with maritim influence.

Mexican Plateau (altiplanicie mexicana)

1-Altiplanicie Norte (norther high plains) High desert (much like New Mexico alburquerque,Santa fe weather) very hot in summer cold in winter with ocacional snow Last snow fall in cities: C.d. Juarez jan.2007 Chihuahua jan 2007 Parral dic 2004 torreon dic 2004 Durango dic 2004 Zacatecas dic. 2004 Aguas calientes dic 1997 San Luis Potosi dic 1997.

2-altiplanicie Sur (souther high plains) Temperate weather bicose the altitud rains in summer dry winter snow it's rare Last snow fall in cities: Guadalajara dec. 13 1997. Leon dec. 13 1997. Toluca jan. 12 1967. Mexico City jan. 12 1967 Tulancingo jan. 3 2008.

Notheast of Mexico. Very hot in summer winter it's warm ocacional cold front bring the temperatures very low, in Mexico (nortes) the snow it's rare. last snow fall in cities: Monclova dec. 1997 Monterrey dec. 2004 Matamoros dec.2004 reynosa dec. 2004 Nuevo Laredo dec. 2004 Ciudad Victoria dec. 1997. Tampico feb. 1895.

Gulf coast south of Tampico it's tropical hot and humid ocacional cold fronts bing the temperatures down with wind from the north and rains.

Yucatan peninsula it's very similar too.(huraacains hit)

Pacific cost dry and warm winters hot and humid summers tropical and the most uniform weather of Mexico.

Norh west mexico by the gulf of California it's a desert warm winters, very hot summers.

The mountians in Mexico Sierra de San Pedro Martir BajaCalifornia. and the sierra madre occidental west mexico, as well the sierra volcanica south of Mexico city are Temperate conifer forest and havy snows in winter.

Highest temperature in Mexico was: Mexicali Baja California 52 (Celcius) Lowest temperature in Mexico was: Temosachic Chihuahua -27 (Celcius) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilberto lopez (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I've been here in Wikipedia since 2005, and every time somebody add an official motto in the corresponding template, we end up discovering that Mexico doesn't have an official motto. Can somebody tell me why the "La patria es primero" motto was re-introduced? Is there any source? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexico does not have an official motto. If at all, the only phrase that appears —or used to appear—consistently on many official documents, surprisingly even in Títulos Profesionales or Degree Diplomas issued by the Ministry of Education, was Sufragio Efectivo, No Reelección, "Effective Suffrage, No Reelection", legacy of the Mexican Revolution.

La Patria es primero, "The fatherland is first", is a phrase attributed to Vicente Guerrero.

--the Dúnadan 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Although my country doesnt has an official motto, we have in the Congress as in the Supreme Court of Justice, antologies of phrases from national heroes and other recognized people. In the SCJ there´s only one phrase, probably made of gold which says "La Patria es primero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.160.72 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

NAFTA userbox

Hello! For those who support NAFTA, let me know what you think about this. Use it freely. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This user supports NAFTA.

mistaken data

In some picture appeared in this article, it could seen a Metrobus, whose subtitle says: "Metrobus in Santa Fe", Metrobus does not run throughout Santa Fe, the picture before metioned actually describes a scene of a Metrobus running in Paseo de la Reforma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.189.3.113 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

México american ubication location

Well hi, After reading some books, found that the most "popular" geographically ubication location of México It's for "Center America" not north america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.141.15 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall assume that by "ubication" that you mean "location". There is no straight-forward consensus from all the sources that I've seen whether Mexico should be included in the Central or North American region. Remember, though, that North America can be ambiguous, as some people use it to refer to the entire North American continent which would include all of Central America as well as Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. Some use the term North America as a region that includes Canada and the U.S. and sometimes Mexico. See the North America article for further explanation on the naming conventions. I think stating North America is fine since it can indicate the continent as a whole, especially when not everyone considers Mexico to be part of the Central American region. Kman543210 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kman is right. I'll just add that based on a list of reputable publications presented on a previous but similar debate, the great majority state that Mexico is located in North America (referring to the continent). --the Dúnadan 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well then you should be careful about what books you're reading and what subject they are about. Mexico is part of North America meaning "continent" and also North America meaning "region", period. It can easily be sourced. The confusion is because in English usage, North America is sometimes used to mean US and Canada only. But that doesn't mean that excludes Mexico in the geographical context. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The map in "The federation: States of Mexico and the Federal District" section

In the map in this section, it shows Mexico City in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. I think that is incorrect. Azn Clayjar (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an infobox (it'd be pretty weird if it was a squared island XD) it represents that Mexico City is coloured back on the map. Supaman89 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexican cuisine (burritos)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove "Burritos" from the Mexican cuisine section. These are not part of Mexican cuisine. Rather, they are an American /Tex-Mex creation inspired by Mexican cooking.

If you were to go to a restaurant in Mexico and ask for a burrito, the waiter/cook will probably not know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigirl55 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong there. Burritos came from Mexico, but were popularized by Tex-Mex. Read that article for more information. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

claro que no es cocina mexicana el burrito, y mucho menos norteña, burritos are not mexican food, i can tell you that because i am from the city of laredo in northern mexico, burritos are taco bell american food that is supposedly mexican, i think "mexican food" from the u.s is nasty, and there is no such thing as general mexican food, every region of mexico has different culinary traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.54.115 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "every region has different gastronomy" comment: Go to any city in Sonora and they'll serve you burritos if you ask for them. They're not the anglicized crap that Taco Bell sells, of course, but they are rather common in the Northwest. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Burrito seems to agree with Titoxd, while burritos may not be as prevalent in Mexico as they are in Taco Bell, they certainly seem to be a food that originated somewhere in Mexico and is closely associated, in American culture at least, with the country. It seems to fit in that section article pretty well to me. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the semi-protected edit request, while this discussion is a valid one there certainly isn't consensus to make that change to the article at the moment. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can testify the same for Chihuahua and Cd. Juarez where they are very common. I remember as well, in Torreon in Coahuila, even that this is anecdotical, going with my family to a restaurant where they only made giant burritos, at least 25 years ago. So they have not been recently introduced into Mexico. Hugo cantu (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that Burritos are inspired and/or evolved from Mexican cuisine, and it is another to say that the "BURRITO" is a true Mexican dish. For example; regardless of the roots and origins of Creole cooking, you wouldn't call it French cuisine, would you? So the fact that the "burrito" as we know it here in the states is widely recognized as so in Chihuaha really only has to do with geography. In the central and southern parts of Mexico, one of the closest things to a burrito would be a "gringa". This dish is pretty much a burrito, slightly smaller than the ones we know here in the states. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the name used in Mexico for this dish is NOT "burrito", which really is a Tex Mex term. Wikigirl55 (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Sonora and Chihuahua were still part of Mexico, so the fact that a traditional dish from Mexican's Northwest cuisine is not popular in Southern and Central Mexico doesn't exclude it from being Mexican, or are we redefining "Mexican cuisine" as that only from Central Mexico?. If you take the bus from Cd. Juarez to Torreon (10 hrs), you can eat burritos at every stop, and don't even have to leave your seat, because the vendors will offer them to you through the windows. Regarding Creole cooking, well, that's not eaten in France, so why would you call it French cuisine? Burritos are eaten in Mexico, and have been for a long time, and they do seem to have origenated there. Why wouldn't they be Mexican cuisine? Hugo cantu (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The burritos are a popular dish in Baja California, in fact they are a traditional dish in the northwestern Mexican states, specially the machaca burrito. JC 23:08 11 September 2008 (PST)

Burritos are NOT part of Mexican cuisine. My statement is based on being born and raised in Mexico. I've traveled through out most of Mexico and it's very rare that someone would have such food item as a meal. I can honestly say that the only reason they are found in Mexico is because North Americans ask for this appetizer(not a dish by the way) when they vacation here specially in the northern states. Demand and supply. North Americans have the misconception that during a meal in a Mexican home tacos, burritos,quesadillas, and other quick foods would be served commonly. What is more prevalent during a Mexican meal are stews or soups and/or rice and beans. You can't forget the Mexican "spoon" know as the tortilla. I never heard of a burrito until I came to the United States. Also, tacos and quesadillas are not "dishes", as I have said before, they are quick foods.They are something you would eat when you are out with friends or need a rush meal. It's very rare they are used as the main meal. They are more appetizers or quick foods that would be comparable to hot dogs and burgers in the US. Mole, posole, tamales, corundas, carnitas, birria, menudo and others dishes that were mentioned in the article are dishes that are reserved for special occasions or they are made every now and then as they take a great amount of time to prepare. I believe to get the right facts abount Mexican cuisine you would have to speak to everyday citizens and not taken from articles, books, and media that are tainted with misconceptions. BTW, as a Mexican citizen, I don't think Taco Bell is even 1% authentic Mexican. In Mexico, we like our meat tacos with diced onions, cilantro, hot salsas and a hint of Lime, NOT tomatoes, lettuce, yellow cheese, ground beef(very common in the US) or sour cream. Just letting people how thing really are from first person point of view. It's 3 in the morning and I'am up this late because I feel very passionate about our cuisine. Thank You and God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.11.235 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a misconception, or a misleading perception. Sometimes the first time that you hear of something, you associate that with the source that you heard it from. If the first time that you heard or knew of burritos was in the USA, it is understandable that you think that it's an American invention. But that doesn't mean that it is. Burritos are well known an eaten in Northern Mexico, and they have been part of the regional cuisine there for a while. I noticed here that a lot of people from Southern and Central Mexico are not used to see Burritos as a Mexican dish. I've even met people from Mexico that didn't know what a "Tortilla de Harina" was...I was shocked! But that's just what personal experience is. It doesn't mean that things such as Burritos, Chimichangas, Coyotas, Turcos, aren't prepared and eaten regularly in Mexican households and in restaurants in Mexico. Personally, I've never eating "quesadillas de coliflor" or "jumiles", am I going to say they are not prepared in Mexico just because I've never tried them. Of course not. Remember, this is so that we learn, we don't know everything, we are trying to put together our accumulated knowledge. Hugo cantu (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak english very well, but here, near México City, we do know what a 'burrito' is, but it is principally because of the cartoons and TV programs of the north part of México(wich really deform our society), here it's not very common to eat them, and however, there is a lot of tradicional foods in all over the country, and it changes a lot from place to place... it's dificult to say where did they come from i think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.228.243.164 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Territory

I don't know if this topic has been brought to your attention before (I think I saw a discussion once about it, but I don't really remember) but what is the reference that was taken to set the total area as 1,972,550 km²? The INEGI page clearly states 1,964,375 km²[3] and so the Presidential site [4], shouldn't we change the current value to these ones? I mean, the information from those websites is considered the official. EOZyo (мѕğ) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

no Olmec info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

here is a reference for Olmec info. click here ---->[5][6][7]enloy!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.89.56 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC) edited by:--98.172.89.56 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many pictures

Sup everyone, it is just me or do you guys think the article has too many pictures? some sections are too small to include more than 1 or 2 pictures, do you think we should remove some of them? Supaman89 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of pictures is a little on the high side, but I don't think there's 'too many' at the moment - it seems pretty well distributed and the pictures, on the whole, are relevant and illustrate things well. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a week ago the article had a certain number of pictures and then all of a sudden 10 more were added, some of them are fine but I think they might be a bit too many, I mean I didn't wanna be rude and just revert the changes that's why a openned this discussion, maybe we should remove a few of them, specially in the small sections. Supaman89 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Military info

Where did the numbers on Mexico's military come from? Specifically the budget and the number of soldiers. Tracing to the referred sources (the CIA World Factbook and the Global Firepower website) I can't find any of them. JorgeAranda 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeAranda (talk • contribs)

NPOV

Some of this article, particular a resent addition on health care, violates WP:NPOV. Please help clean up the article or discuss.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit to the health care section, in fact we had a discussion about that section not so long ago, you can check the proposals here. Supaman89 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has many photos from Monterrey. The country is too large and diversity and wikimedia commons has a lot of images. We should use images from diferent places and cities within Mexico. On the other hand, in the section about Health, In the first place is a photo from a private hospital. In Mexico there are many public hospital very imporant with many prestigious as the "Mexico XXI Century Hospital". It is too obvious that some body from the City of Monterrey has been editing this article but with a very partial point of view. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you read the discussion that we had about that section a month ago, you'll see why we chose that picture, you can check it Here.

Regarding the Monterrey pictures, I just counted them and they are like this:

• Mexico City (9)
• Jalisco (6)
• Nuevo Leon (4)
• Yucatan (2)
• Veracruz (2)
• Puebla (1)
• Baja California Sur (1)
• Tabasco (1)
• Chihuahua (1)
• Sonora (1)
• Guanajuato (1)
• Quintana Roo (1)
• Guerrero (1)

I think it includes a fair number of different states and the number of images goes according the population of each one, obviously Mexico City being the capital has the biggest number, followed by Jalisco and then Nuevo Leon, so I don`t see how it is inclined towards Monterrey. Supaman89 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Music and Broadcast media

Como es posible que en un articulo enciclopedico mencionen a RBD??? y demas "musicos" populachos... No me cabe en la cabeza. Tambien me pregunto como pueden poner una imagen del show de Adal Ramones con RBD?? Dios mio, esto es "enciclopedico", no del populacho, todavia estoy de acuerdo en mencionar a Pedro Infante y Jorge Negrete (me refiero a la imagen), ya que forman parte de la cultura mexicana, pero RBD y compa~ia???? DIOS. Ojala mas personas lean esto (se que la mayoria de los que hacen el articulo entienden espa~ol), y esten de acuerdo en que se editen esas dos partes, Music and Broadcast media. Si tanto les cuenta hacer algo meramente enciclopedico, chequen el articulo en espa~ol. (Lo siento, no estoy registrada) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.237.20.240 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Music section, is precisely to show the music industry of the country, I don't see what's the problem with showing RBD, they are known in various countries worldwide, so it portraits the present Mexican industry pretty well, it'd be just like showing Madonna in the American Music section.

BTW, the Spanish article is terrible, it's full of complains and stuff there are not discussed as much as they are here for improvement, so they are the ones that should learn more from this article. Supaman89 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They should. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Left wing bias

Is there a leftist managing this article? The section on 20th and 21st century history opens with stiff language against a clearly right wing regime, followed by positive language about the left wing regime.74.215.255.82 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Race by Hispanic Origin Table

This data was from a census where people were asked to identify themselves by race, and many Hispanics stated "some other race". Is there any better data available? I ask this because in Latin America, people would not use these classifications, they would be European, Indian, black, or some mixture of the three. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In Mexico the three mayor groups are Mestizos (mix of European and Amerindian), Amerindians and Europeans, any other ethnic group is lower than 1%, that's why "other" can mean either Black or Asian or something else, but since it's around 1% it's not enough to have an individual checkbox. Anyways that's all relative because Mexico hasn't had a racial census in a lot of years. Supaman89 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexican naval ship picture

Image:P1305154.jpg <<< this is not a mexican navy ship...its a Russian navy ship.Homan05

Okay, you seem pretty sure about it, and since I didn't upload the picture myself, I'll take your word for it and change the picture. Supaman89 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

hor

\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.161.90 (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Who unblocked the article?

Incredibly, I just realized that the article has been unblocked... and as anyone would've guessed it started to get vandalized from anonymous IP's again, we know it was working pretty fine when it was semi-blocked because that way only registered users could edit the article, therefore very few actually risked their accounts just to vandalize the article, so why on earth did they unblocked it? I didn't even see a note for the “unblockment”. Anyway we know we have to bring the semi-protection again to stop the vandalism, so if anyone wants to help me with it, please do. Supaman89 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Metrobus

The picture of the Metrobus in the main page, under "Transportation" has a wrong description, it is on "Avenida Insurgentes", not in "Santa Fe". Holsch (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Holsch Holsch (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Art

[[:File:WhiteShirt Jewelry Veroart.jpg|thumb|right|100px|Verónica Ruiz de Velasco]] Is painter Verónica Ruiz de Velasco well known so she can be mention in the Mexicos article under fine arts, so that an example of todays mexican art can be shown. In addition can someone get an image of Diegos Man at the Crossroads to be put on the article by the same name.75.62.148.205 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Placement & acceptance of major Mexico link in External links section - Mexico Connect www.mexconnect.com

I am recommending that the major site Mexico Connect, which has been on-line since 1996 and includes an encyclopedic resource base of over 4,000 articles and 3,000 photographs be included in the external links for "Mexico". The site is highly trusted, is considered the top destination guide for Mexico by none other than Ranking.com. The site is constantly updated with new articles and data in the areas of: travel, places, living, culture & arts, history, cuisine and business. There is no other Mexico site that is as comprehensive and useful to traveler, retiree, business person or student. Thank-you for your consideration! David Davidhmcl (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:PedroInfante.jpg

The image File:PedroInfante.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

§ 2.2 Colonial era and independence

The above section is totally slanted towards the Mexican War of Independence to the almost complete disregard of the 300 years of the Colonial & Viceroyalty era (Viceroyalty of New Spain). I don't have any problem with the quality or historical accuracy of information given on the Independence War, but it seems to me that the section is way too detailed to the detriment of the complete article.

I spent an amount of time doing simple copy edits, links, clarifying wording, etc. and I think that the Independence War emphisis needs to be edited down or moved to the seperate related article and at least brief and concise information on the Colonial and Viceregal be included.

Perhaps there was previous information relating to those subjects which was edited out for whatever reason. I didn't have time to do a complete edit history search. As I'm no expert in Mexican history I'll have to leave that to those who are more qualified and are more inclined to devoting the time that this important subject requires.--TGC55 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A while ago I wanted to add a good section about the New Spain, since that's basically the basis of Mexico, it was the time were most cities were built, our language and traditions were inherited, etc. but unfortunately I haven't had time, maybe you could help us by writing a small section about the New Spain, if you have time of course, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly like to try, but writing, editing, and linking 300 years of history of growth would be a daunting major project. I agree with your intent and proposal 100% but don't know if I'm up to it. Especially since I'm from far, far byond the northern border of your very impressive country. And now don't even live on the same continent. Plus only have an introductory university history general knowledge level of the pre-independence history of Mexico. And sketchy knowledge of post-independence with that having an emphisis on US-Mexican historical relations. As well as not having Spanish language skills which would enable me to reference Spanish texts for cross checking for accuracy, etc.. More or less, a whole liteny of deficiencies. And there is the subject of continued vandalism, which it seems, is affecting the integrity of this article. Was there ever anything, however sketchy, on the pre-Independence history of Mexico? --TGC55 (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately even in Mexican schools they don't focus much on that period of time, which is quite a pity considering the importance of that period to Mexico's identity, much of the information taught on the colonial era is focused on the independence and the afterwards, to give you an idea I don't even know exactly how the New Spain was divided, how many provinces there were, etc. so if we could introduce some information to the article it'd be of great help.

In the following section I made a really quick paragraph to start with, so we can keep improving it later on. Supaman89 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The New Spain/La Nueva España

The New Spain was a really important period in Mexico's history, during that time a lot of the nation's identity and traditions were created as well as being the period where most cities were build, among them Mexico City, Guadalajara, Veracruz, Queretaro, etc.

The viceroyalty stretched across big part of North America, from the southwestern British Columbia and southern US states down to Nicaragua as well as most of the Caribbean and the modern Philippines. It was originally divided into the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Nueva Vizcaya, Nuevo Reino de León, Nuevo Santander, Reino de Yucatán and Reino de México, these were divided into Corregimientos or Señoríos. In 1786 king Carlos III signed the Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Exército y Provincia de Nueva España which created twelve Intendencias that replaced most Reinos, Comandancias, Corregimientos y Alcaldías.

That was just a quick paragraph I wrote, so please feell free to expand it. Supaman89 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

HEY MAN, I'm working in New Spain article and map, you're wrong, the mexicans schools talks a lot about New Spain, but like you said, resume 300 years of history is quite complicated, and i have problems with the english, so, be patient and soon you'll can see a good article about. jmko (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? I remember that in Primaria and Secundaria they didn't focus much on the New Spain, but maybe it was just in my state, saludos

BTW, if you're working in the NS article, maybe you would like to help us expand the section for this article, if you have time of course. Supaman89 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

It would be good to acknowledge that slavery did exist and that the Plan of Iguala, proposed by Augustin de Iturbe in 1820 would initiate the abolishment of slavery; Constitution 1824 was created that liberty occurred; but it was not until 1829 that the last slaves were freed. Slavery did survive in the part of Mexico that is now Texas. And, that the Mexican efforts to free slaves caused problems with the Southern Americans who had become Mexican citizens that led to the revolution leading toward Texas separation..... Cjorge (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Cjorge

Yes, you're right, the slavery was abolished but, the people living in Texas (people from United States) brought slaves to the country illegally, also they neither wanted pay taxes and since always they wanted annexing the territory to the united states was the causes of the Texas revolution. jmko22 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How many slaves were brought? And by whom? If this is a factual claim, then surely there are some facts to base the claim on. And it is unlikely that this has much to do with the Texas Revolution at all, being that two other republics and about ten other states ALL declared independence from Mexico for the same reasons ... Santa Anna' dictatorship and illegal abolilation of the 1824 Mexican Constitution. None of them complained about slavery, correct? Jcchat66 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Slaves were brought from Africa to the New Spain, and many indians were enslaved de facto under the Encomienda system, but as Cjorge points out, slavery was (officially, at least) abolished soon after Independence. As far as I know, slavery had nothing to do with the Texas conflict, which can be explained by Mexico's weak centralist government and the expansionist policies of the United States at the time. JorgeAranda (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There were many issues involved in the reasons for separation. Slavery was one reason as was religion. The slave holder in Tejas was capped to a limit of the number of slaves; essentially, the 1824 Mexican Constitution had abolished it. Santa Ana began threatening the end of slavery in Texas. There were many political groups who had there own reasons for separation. Then the issue of expansionism from the United States also was fueled by the issue of slavery. The issue about the number of slaves can be found and I'll do that.... Cjorge (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Cjorge To my surprise I found the Wikipedia has a Slaver in Texas article. Here are a couple of sections: 'Most slaves in Texas in the 1800s had arrived with slaveholders from the United States.[21] A small number of slaves were imported illegally from the West Indies or Africa. The British consul estimated that in the 1830s approximately 500 slaves had been illegally imported into Texas.[22] By 1836, there were approximately 5,000 slaves in Texas.[23] ....In 1845 the United States annexed Texas. More elaborate restrictions were placed on free Negroes, such as punishments similar to those of slaves rather than free men.[28] By 1850, the slave population in Texas had increased to 58,161; in 1860 there were 182,566 slaves, 30 percent of the total population.' So,this addresses the issues brought up re: Texas...in 14 years the slave population increased more than 10 times... Cjorge (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC) The issue of Rebellion from the other Mexican states seems more an issue of centralist government vs. federal; an issue of a pre-existing Constitution and one of supporting radical change by a dictator....Texas was different due to the issue of slavery. Texans with north american ties were to evolve toward a differnt direction than Texans with Mexican ties despite similar arguments of separation/independence....people with different motives can very easily agree to similar action. The idea of slavery is not just an issue with Texas but the history of Mexico. That was the reason for my initial discussion.Cjorge (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're correct, according to Wikipedia's article on Texas. It's fine by me if you want to add a note on slavery to the article. JorgeAranda (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Texas Declaration of Independence of Mexico does not support this claim. Slavery is not mentioned, but the violations of the Constitution of 1824, and the actions of Santa Anna, specifically is. It appears that Texas shared the same concerns as other rebels against Santa Anna, and a list of offenses ... nothing about slavery. http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/tdoi.htm Jcchat66 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)