Talk:Mexico/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Meaning of Mexico

The article says the meaning is unknown, which is not true. It means "moon's belly button/el ombligo de la luna" and it comes from Nahuatl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.240.214.101 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a commonly given etymology indeed, however it is not generally believed by Nahuatl specialists, and there are many other proposed etymologies, some of which are more likely than the "navel of the moon". The problem with this etymology is that moon is metz-tli and a compound with "xik-tli" navel should be "metzxikko" and not mexihko. Given the lack of consensus on an etymology, the most responsible is to give the etymology as unknown.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Politicians

Many country pages (e.g. Uruguay, Egypt, Poland, Bulgaria, Mexico, North Korea) have images of the same foreign politicians e.g. Obama, Bush, Medvedev, Hillary Clinton, Putin, John Kerry etc present. I'm proposing such images should be moved to relevant US- or Russia- relations pages. For example it is more suitable to have two images of John Kerry on a page about US-Egypt relations than on the Egypt page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As best I know, there is no prohibition on images being used by multiple pages. For events like multilateral treaties (such as NAFTA), there are obvious reasons that multiple country pages would have pointers to these images. Unless you come up with a better rationale, these images probably do belong in this page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well put. Agreed. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Population.

Mexico's pop. isn't of 113 million people, but of 120 million people according to the most recent census. The census made and published on 2010 marks the pop. of 112 million approx. but according to a census made over the last months, and stated by an official spokesperson, it has increased. The next link, which is supported by Google demonstrates my opinion:

http://www.google.com.mx/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&hl=es&dl=es&idim=country:MEX:

--189.143.247.230 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE in Mexico#Metropolitan_areas

We give a bullet-list of all the gory details, about the revised-in-2004 definition of a metropolitan area, but we don't list the cities?!? That seems backwards to me.  :-)   Suggest we move the list of rules to the dedicated article Metropolitan areas of Mexico (they are already replicated there from a quick glance), and simply summarize here that the definition changed in 2004, plus a wikilink. Then, we should list the major metropolises, something like this:

There are 56 defined metro areas of Mexico, using the revised 2004 definition. The largest populace was 20.1M in Greater Mexico City (centered around the capital region's Federal District plus parts of the State of Mexico and Hidalgo), making it one of the ten largest metropolises in the world. Other large metros are 4.4M in Greater Guadalajara (Jalisco), 4.1M in Greater Monterrey (Nuevo León), and 2.7M in Greater Puebla (Puebla and Tlaxcala but excluding the city of Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala itself).

As of the 2010 census data, about half a dozen other metros in Mexico had exceeded one million residents: Greater Toluca (State of Mexico), Greater Tijuana (Baja California), Greater León (Guanajuato), Greater Juárez (Chihuahua), Greater Torreón (Coahuila and Durango), Greater Querétaro (Querétaro), and Greater San Luis Potosí (San Luis Potosí).

The figures (and much of the prose) are pulled straight from the Metropolitan areas of Mexico and List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population articles. Anybody have objections to this rewrite of the subsection? Also, if anybody knows a ref which gives the percent of the population of Mexico that is urban (as opposed to rural), that would help. CIA might have that factoid, perhaps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Spanish in Mexico

The language section has this: The country has the largest Spanish-speaking population in the world with almost a third of all Spanish native speakers.
That latter part must not be true. Spanish language has 410 million speakers as first language. A third of that is 136.6 million, while population of Mexixo is just 118.4 million. Mexican Spanish has 105 million, which is 25.6 percent of total Spanish and includes some speakers in the US also. Even if it is cited, that does necessarily mean it is true. 85.217.15.79 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello 85, you are mostly correct. However, partly to keep ourselves from going nutty trying to research everything in the world personally, wikipedia runs on verifiable info, research that has already been published elsewhere (see WP:V and WP:TRUTH). So what can we do? To make the sentence proper, we would need some kind of cite which gives a more-truthful picture.

  As written, though, I note that the sentence merely claims "almost a third" of all native Spanish speakers. That WP:WEASEL word 'almost' could be stretched pretty far, right? Furthermore, see WP:REALTIME, the sentence doesn't say *when* Mexico allegedly had "almost a third" of the worldwide first-lang population... perhaps the data was from 2000, or something? Whereas the 410M figure that you mention (where did that come from by the way?) might be a more recent 2013 estimate, or something like that. I suggest we rewrite the sentence, to say something like "As of 2xxx, Mexico had the largest Spanish-speaking population (native or as an additional language) of any country in the world.[1] According to $author, as of 2xxx the number of Spanish-as-a-first-language speakers in Mexico was estimated to be 34.56%(insert correct precise figure from source) of the total native-Spanish-speaking population worldwide.[2]" To do that, though, we need some refs to back us up.

  We have an article on Ethnologue which links to their info, and I believe the CIA World Factbook also gives information like this. Can you find refs for [1] and [2], maybe? We want to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, so we need some researcher saying pretty explicitly these sorts of things. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"wikipedia runs on verifiable info, research that has already been published elsewhere"

True, but the info must also make sense. If population sources say 25.6 percent of Spanish speakers speak Mexican Spanish, I'd say that definitely is not "almost a third". And, by the way the percent is not original research: I took the figures from respective wikipedia articles (and assumed they were sourced, as they should be) and only counted from there.
85.217.15.79 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume. Follow the references yourself. Verify the source of "almost a third" compared to the the references specifying 25.6% and see where they differ. Was it by year, was it by classification, or is "almost a third" accurate because it's more than a fourth? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Information in Wikipedia is self-published information and, as such, cannot be used as source of WP:RS citations. Even when a statement in a Wikipedia article is sourced to a third-party, independent, reliable source, you must use such 3rd party source and not the Wikipedia article in order to pass WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Official language

This is not a simple issue and it has been discussed at length in the past and the consensus was to write that Spanish is a de facto official language, because that very clearly is the case. However legally, Spanish has the exact same validity and status as the indigenous languages. It is a misrepresentation of the 2003 Law of Linguistic Rights to say that it only gives regional validity to the national languages. The law says that they have equal validity where ever they are spoken. As speakers of indigenous languages are free to move throughout the republic and their linguistic rights follow them where they travel it is not correct to suggest that the official recognition is merely regional.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of non-spanish languages in Mexico, while not legally precluded, is de facto impossible outside the regions where they are spoken. E.g., if a person attempts to do business with the government of Quintana Roo while speaking Tarahumara, he'll get absolutely nowhere. De jure, there is no legal obstacle, de facto, the native languages are regional (other than Nahuatl, which has large pockets spread over a large area). Given the lack of legal statement on the subject, it makes sense to describe these languages as regional. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I meant to revert both of User:Oglesruins edits, not just one. Cadiomals (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several languages other than Nahuatl that have a wide extension, and the fact is that the law requires the state of Quintana Roo to provide services for its Tarahumara speaking citizens in Tarahumara - though you are of course right that most of the time it doesnt. In fact it doesnt even provide adequate services in indigenous languages in the regions where those languages are spoken by most of the population. I.e. the de facto level of service has no bearing on the legal status. That is why it does not make sense to describe the languages as regional, because their status as national languages are valid throughout the republic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the infobox is grammatically bad, and Spanish is used on a whole other level than any of the regional languages in Mexico, so it isn't improper to single it out. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have (again) reverted the infobox edits (and instructed editor both in edit comments and his own talk page to discuss it here). If it happens again, I'll file a report on the administrator noticeboard. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico displaces Japan in car exports to the U.S. in the first months of 2014

Someone should add the info in the Economy section: http://japandailypress.com/japan-loses-to-mexico-as-2nd-largest-auto-exporter-to-us-1147128/ soon to become the first exporter displacing Canada as first according to the same source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.104.246 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Massive changes

I notice massive changes have been made in the last day, which include (once again) deleting the [de facto] from Spanish as the national language and adding back in the erroneous "Estados Unidos de Mexico". Care to offer an explanation for why contentious and previously deleted material is being added back in? Or is this something we need to get administrators involved in again? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits are simply not better to the article. The "English" used is unintelligible. i.e "The country finally achieved that his political independence was recognized for.." - "They were lacking national identity and were not understanding they nor were interested...". I think we have a CiR native language problem. -- Moxy (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Has someone sanity checked Olgesruins' latest change to Mexico? Moving things around like that makes it impossible to directly compare the edits, and given the history of this editor on this article and his refusal to either describe what he's doing or respond to talk page messages, I'm worried about the change. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I say just revert the editor in question as they are simply not here- They have no interest in working collaboratively and I would guess does not speak English. -- Moxy (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

We're having a slow-motion edit war over the "ethnic groups" box in the infobox. I've been reverting the edit on the basis that the census data being supplied isn't ethnic groupings. It is a single-dimensional self-reported question of "do you consider yourself indigenous". That's a cultural marker, not an ethnic marker, and far less detailed than the data he's replacing. It's complicated by the fact that the editor wants to use an ethnicity "Mexican" for 84% of the Mexican nationals. That implicitly says 15% of Mexican nationals are not Mexican (he has since amended the second category to "Amerindian Mexicans", but that still leaves the absurd ethnicity of the primary group). The third category which he lists as "other" is not correct, that fraction of a percent was "no answer".

The data he wants to replace comes from Britannica, which he regards as a non-reliable source because I am not offering proof that it was researched as carefully as the Mexican census. That's a rathole, irrelevant to the main problem that the data he is replacing isn't comparable. In my view, it's like saying that since the government conducted a census and found that 20% of people claim to be left-handed, we must remove all categorizations of weight.

The article is not improved by this change. There was extensive discussion on both my talk page and his. I gave up when he stated that the information from Britannica was untrue and had no research behind it. Maybe someone else can make sense of this, I can't. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Links to the archived Administrator noticeboard section and Village Pump section where he inquired about official vs other sources, specifically aiming to replace infobox information for Mexico. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• The mexican state does not classify its citizens by the american racial categories. In Mexico mestizo and indigenous are a cultural categories, not racial ones. That is why your attempt to insert a breakdown of the population according to traditional American racial categories is illguided and misrepresents both the mexican reality and the actual structure of the population. Furthermore there are no reliable number for the composition of american racial categories in the mexican population because noone has made such a census since before the mexican revolution. The numbers from the CIA fact book and Britannica are pure guesswork and doesnt belong in an infobox.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the Mexican government classifies its citizens by ethnicity or not, the information exists. Mexico has a large majority of mestizo population, a smaller more-or-less unmixed european population, an even smaller more-or-less unmixed amerindian population, and only tiny amounts of identifiably african and asian origin population. You may contend that it's morally wrong to have this information at all, but it's real, and encyclopedias have tended to include it. Either way, the information that Aergas has been adding doesn't fit that box. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it matters. Because it means that the "information" is purely speculative and as such worthless and potentially misleading.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that you haven't realised that all the information you consider racial in Mexico, including the scarce official census done in the country, and the data from which Brittanica makes it's estimations, have always been based on culture, not biological traits, the most recent and somewhat competent racial investigation done in mexico, by the University of the state of Mexico ranks the racial groups as follows: white 15%, mestizo 70%, amerindian 14%, mulato 0.5%, asian 0.5% [1], yet in the page 196 the author makes a remark that is usually omitted: in countries with a heavy mestizo culture, such as Mexico, a huge amount of racially white people identifies as having cultural traits from Europeans and Native Americans (technically speaking mestizo culture, although the term itself is not used, and rather than mestizo culture it's refered to as Mexican culture), due the strong influence of the aforementioned Mexican/mestizo culture (in the particualar case of Mexico, this culture is actively promoted by the government, and to this day it continues), this is the main reason why on Mexican Tv for example, people that is not Mexican might believe that the actors etc are white, and that Tv is racist because it shows many whites, but in reality if asked about their race, the majority of the people that you might consider is white wouldn't know what to answer about what is their race, (In Mexico the word mestizo itself is not in use and has offensive connotations) they would just say that they are Mexican. For all this accurate, realistic racial data for Mexico doesn't exist and has never existed, that's the point of the Mexican culture, that's why the Mexican government does not ask for race. Aergas (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted again. It doesn't matter that the data you are using is official data from Mexican census. It ins't ethnic data. It doesn't replace the data you are removing. You may argue that Mexico shouldn't have ethnic groups at all, but that's a different discussion. Either way, what's being placed in the "Ethnic groups" box doesn't belong there. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Look you dont even know what the word "ethnic" means. Ethnic groups are cultural groups, the data you are reverting to is about race.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

From Ethnic group: "An ethnicity, or ethnic group, is a social group of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience.[1][2]" Ethnic group and race isn't the same thing, as you seem to believe, what you are pushing isn't ethnic data, is racial data, data that is unnoficial and unreliable. The official ethnic denominations in Mexico are primarily cultural as Maunus already told you. 2 vs 1 already, with no mention that official data is always favoured on wikipedia as other editors have said in the village pump discussion i openned in regards this issue [2] I don't see why we have to keep this discussion going, and please refrain from edit warring. Aergas (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion to help resolve this disagreement. The problems I have with the edit:

• It removes the information about relative proportions of Mestizo vs European vs Amerindian vs other origins. There is no question that Mestizo is an ethnicity, and it no longer is mentioned here.
• It replaces this data with a single-dimensional "do you consider yourself indigenous", question.
• It invents an ethnicity "Mexican" containing 84% of the population. Mexican is a nationality, not an ethnicity (the other 16% are also Mexicans).
• It claims an 0.85% "other". That's not what the reference says - it says "unspecified", which means no answer, not a third group.

Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You really dont know what you are talking about. It is entirely possible for something to be both an ethnicity and a nationality. Mestizo is not an ethnicity, neither in the racial sense that you use the word to mean nor in the sense of a selfidentifying cultural group. Noone selfidentifies as "mestizo". The alleged "data" repeats guesswork from the CIA factbook with no actually supporting data.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

In a nutshell, both sides are correct. And since we can't fit both versions into an infobox without making a mess, the ethnic breakdown should be removed from the infobox. The Britannica data is fine for use in the article and should be included. However it uses the term mestizo, which the article itself notes "carries a variety of socio-cultural, economic, racial and biological meanings. For this reason it has been deemed too imprecise to be used for ethnic classification and has been abandoned in Mexican censuses". In light of that, placing the Britannica information in the infobox is clearly in breach of WP:UNDUE since it implies that this particular ethnic classification scheme is the primary one, when in fact it isn't even accepted by the Mexican government. Mestizo may be an ethnicity under some uses, but it is so ill-defined that it is also a racial grouping in other contexts, an economic grouping under others and so forth. That a scheme doesn't use the term doesn't mean that the scheme doesn't accurately represent Mexico's ethic makeup. And yes, Mexican can be an ethnicity in addition to a nationality, in the same way that "European" can be both a racial and geographic descriptor. When talking about the ethnic makeup of the nation of Mexico, Mexican as an ethnic descriptor is clear enough. And by the same standard, using the alternative system in the infobox also violates WP:UNDUE. There's nothing wrong with including both data sets in the demographics section of the article, stressing that they are based upon different and incompatible standards of ethnicity. But to include either in the infobox implies too strongly that that is the primarily accepted ethnic breakdown of Mexico, and that is not true of either. Just use both in the main article and explain why they differ and don't have an ethnicity section in the infobox. Complex subjects don't often allow for representation with simple tables. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opinion. Having not ethnic groups in the infobox is better than the change, I'll follow up with that. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Language

While we're fiddling with the infobox, another item worth touching on is the language box which has been the source of edit wars recently. Right now, it reads: Spanish de facto. 67 native languages are national languages, but an officially recognized language does not exist. Since we have references which show the population's language use, how about we change this to: Spanish (98.8%), dozens of native languages are also legally recognized as national languages.

I suggest changing from "67" to "dozens" because I can't find a reference to the actual number. The 2003 lawwhich establishes linguistic rights of native languages doesn't specify a number or list of languages, and the spanish-language article about the law says 62 languages, rather than 67. A simple count of the named languages in the Lenguas de México article comes up with 94, but it's not clear to me how many are separate languages vs dialects. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Further searches finds Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indigenas which specifies 68 language groupings. A PDF of the full catalog is available. Should we change from "dozens of native languages" to "68 native language groups"? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)}

Yes I think that is a good idea, though the number changes every so often.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hildalgo NEVER declared independence!!!!!

...and it wasn't on Cinco de Mayo either. The "grito" claimed to be a "restoration of Fernando VII" from the allegedly corrupt Viceregal Junta who had declared José Bonaparte deposed and was ruling in the name of said Fernando. Hilalgo was long dead when Morelos declared independence.Ericl (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide us some references to your change? As best I know, there is no actual text for what Hidalgo said that night - all we know is that he had been involved with a revolt movement before, and the formal independence war is celebrated as starting with the Grito. Saying that he declared independence is an over-reach, but claiming a "loyalist revolt" (implying no problem with the structure of government but only with the specific individuals in power) would be stretching even further in the opposite direction. As for Cinco de Mayo, I don't see anything related to it in that chunk of text. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Noone knows what the grito de dolores said exactly, but it is very commonly assumed to have included a call to arms against the Spaniards, and it is frequently described as the "grito de independencia" and it is pretty much universally considered the beginning of the Mexican independence movement. It is correct that the congress of chilpancingo with the first official document claiming Mexican independence happened two years after after the death of Hidalgo (The sentimientos de la nacion were earlier though, but not official in the same sense)- but Morelos had been fighting for independence as a colonel in the revolutoinary army since 1810.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

UMS as variant of UMS??

The article currently says:

All three federal constitutions (1824, 1857 and 1917, the current constitution) used the name Estados Unidos Mexicanos[36]—or the variants Estados Unidos Mexicanos[37] and Estados-Unidos Mexicanos,[38] all of which have been translated as "United Mexican States".

Apparently it thinks it is giving three different variations on the name here, but the first two are the same, and reference 37 can't be checked, because it's a dead link. Would someone please find out what this is supposed to be talking about and fix it accordingly? --69.158.92.137 (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing, fixed. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. But it should now say "both" instead of "all", and I think the preceding comma would read better as a second dash. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

The order of the artist in the Visual Arts sections should be Rivera, Siqueiros and Orozco as they are well renowned as the three great artist of that time. After them come the rest in the list (i.e. Tamayo, Cantu, O'Gorman). I will also suggest to remove Frida Kahlo from the list as she wasn't recognised at the time as a great artist. Although Mexicans appreciate her (suffered) life and work, she has never been universally considered to be of the same standing as the three great. Her popularity is of recent modern times and coincides with the feminist movement. If removing her name is not an option, then she would be better referred as another notable artist alongside Saturnino Herran, Dr. Atl, Antonio M. Ruiz, etc.

In Section Culture, subsection Visual Arts: "Post-revolutionary art in Mexico had its expression in the works of renowned artists such as Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, José Clemente Orozco, Rufino Tamayo, Federico Cantú Garza, and Juan O'Gorman. Other notable artists are Saturnino Herran, Frida Kahlo, Dr. Atl, Antonio M. Ruiz."

108.171.128.189 (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Although Frida Kahlo may not have been renowned at the time, she is certainly renowned now. I've edited the list to make it alphabetical, but for any more significant changes, please establish consensus. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What weight should be assigned to the source Lizcano 2005

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The purpose of this RfC is to establish what weight if any should be assigned to the source "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI" by Francisco Lizcano Fernandez, and how it should be represented.

Discussion

• This souce should have no weight in this general article about Mexico, or in the section about Mexican Demography. The article is not frequently cited in the literature on Mexican work about Mexico. It is cited in a few specialized studies on racial demography, because it is the only source that provides numbers for the relative percentages of "europeans", "indians" and "mixed" populations - for this reason it may be relevant to cite the article in the specialized article about Mexican demography. Its claims about the ethnic composition of Latin American are contradicted by most mainstream sources on Mexican anthropology which do not consider "Latin", "Iberian", "creole", "garifuna" or "indigena" (groups that are based on the colonial casta system of racial classification) to be valid ethnic groups (with the exception of Garifuna which is however used in a different sense by Lizcano to refer not to the Garifuna indigenous group but to populations with mixed African-Indigenous biological ancestry). If it were to be included it would require several lines of explanation of the position of this study in relation to mainstream views in order not to misinform the reader. Furthermore the attempt to use the source for claims about the number of "white people" in Mexico are based on misrepresenting the source which does not claim to give this figure, only to give a figure for people with Iberian or Indoeuropean ancestry, which in fact states specifically does not equate "white" in the Latin American context.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• The source here [3] should have weight for the following reasons: Is the work of an university investigation, it has been peer reviewed, has been published by a third party source and is featured in the "Latin American, Caribean, Spanish and Portuguese Scientific Publications Network and Scientific Information System" [4]; The study has also been cited by other scientific investigations (this was one of the many opposition points of Maunus in the previous discussion on his talk page, the one which he keeps deleting) [5]. The article, in an accordingly manner expands the insight in the demographic reality of Mexico, as already written over this wikipedia article, in Mexico, if an indigenous person abandons it's culture and accepts the mestizo culture, it is considered mestizo, similarily, a white person can be considered indigenous if decides to identify with an Amerindian culture, what the source states (in the page 196) is that if a white person (understood as someone with entirely european ancestry) identifies with the mestizo culture, it can be considered mestizo, even if it doesn't have any native ancestor, and that this is the case on a good number of times, this claim is the one that upsets maunus, which i found a bit non sensical because it is analogous to the "Amerindian can be mestizo and White/mestizo can be amerindian as long as they identify with the respective cultures" which is already written down on wiki, but maunus seems to not have a problem with it. Aditionally maunus keeps saying that the study is contradicted by many academic sources but fails to bring any source that confirms it and have changed the reasons he opposes it multiple times, he aditionaly claimed that in Mexico you are white if you are rich [6], thing that i don't consider very serious and kind of gives me the impression that maunus is not unbiased, but in fact, very biased on this issue. he claims that to include it would require a long explanation, yet i already managed to integrate it with the sentences that mention social identity dynamics that are already written on wikipedia [7]. Maunus have also recurred to uncivil tactics such as personal attacks and just deleting the sections regarding the discussion from his talk page, refusing to discuss [8]. Aergas (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please see WP:RS on how to weight sources. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Perhaps in addition reading WP:PERSONAL - characterizing an argument based on what you think of a person is not recommended on Wikipedia. As for the edit itself, I'd recommend against, it comes across as a hobby-horse rather than text belonging in an encyclopedia. It also goes against what I personally have learned in Mexico, but that can be ignored because it would constitute WP:OR. As a last suggestion, I would recommend reading WP:BRD - When an edit is reverted, please discuss (probably without invoking the formalities of RfC) and achieve consensus before re-reverting an edit. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We did discuss, Aergas just decided to discuss on my talkpage instead of here as he is supposed to. The discussion can be found in my talkpage history I had to archive t to get him to understand that I was not interested in discussing more with him as he simply ignored the arguments. In a situation such as that where two editors cannot find a consensus an RfC is the best way t get outside input.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ignored any of your arguments, you claimed that the text wasn't published in a notable journal, I debunked it; then you claimed that it was fringe because no one cites it as reference, I debuunked that aswell; then you claimed that the classifications were biological instead of cultural, i debunked that too; then you said that is incorrect that the classifications were cultural and not biological, i debunked that citing the claims included on wikipedia regarding how people without amerindian heritage at all can become amerindians for accepting the culture; then you started claiming that many schoolars disagree with Lizcano to which i asked you to bring sources, and you couldn't find any. Then when you got frustrated for running out of arguments you started deleting the discussions in your page, have you found any source that is on favour of what you say yet or can we move on? Aergas (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The claims of the article being fringe and it being not proffesional enough to be added on wikipedia have been debunked already since the article is featured on important scientific sites and is cited as a reference in other scientific studies. I believe that when an user acts on an uncivil manner, making personal attacks and comenting in an "out of seriousness" style it should be noted. Aergas (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(Responding to a comment from Aergas interleaved above, putting this at the end so it's visible)
At this point, you have initiated an RfC. As the administrators told you on Dispute Resolution, that runs for 30 days, you may not seek additional recourse until that runs out. At this time, you don't have consensus, you may not make your change. I will comment that it appears that you are trying to win arguments by wearing out your opponents with repeated statements of the same arguments over and over. That doesn't work all that well here. You've made your statement, you've initiated your RfC, now let it run its course until mid-july. I should also mention, by the way, you may not canvass for votes in an attempt to influence the RfC - see WP:CANVASS. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record it was me who initiated the rFC to get outside input and work towards a consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My strategy is not wear of other editors, it is having sources, neither of you have sources on the quality of the ones i do, as both of you have said, you oppose to the source because "you don't think Mexico is like that from what you've seen". Both of you have used personal claims on these discussions, like saying "I grow up in Mexico" or "In Mexico you are white if you have money". Aergas (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have personally added all the sources in the demography section which are the ones that contradict Lizcano.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Which ones are you talking about? the only thing i see there that is related to this discussion is the source that states that an amerindian can be considered mestizo if rejects the amerindian culture and accepts the mestizo one culture and a white person can become amerindian if accepts amerindian culture, and that supports the claim of white people being considered mestizos if accept the mestizo culture. Could you bring here the specific sources you are talking about? Aergas (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Include Lizcano Those against inclusion have done a poor job of selling their argument and perhaps should read the guidelines they're throwing around. It sounds to me like Lizcano's argument isn't well-liked by some and editors are trying to find a pretext to remove it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, third party unninvolved editor have supported the addition of the claim and the Rfc expired, i guess im adding the claim now. Aergas (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Relevant sources

• Nutini, Hugo; Barry Isaac (2009). Social Stratification in central Mexico 1500–2000. University of Texas Press. p. 55. "There are basically four operational categories that may be termed ethnic or even racial in Mexico today: (1) güero or blanco (white), denoting European and Near East extraction; (2) criollo (creole), meaning light mestizo in this context but actually of varying complexion; (3) mestizo, an imprecise category that includes many phenotypic variations; and (4) indio, also an imprecise category. These are nominal categories, and neither güero/blanco nor criollo is a widely used term (see Nutini 1997: 230). Nevertheless, there is a popular consensus in Mexico today that these four categories represent major sectors of the nation and that they can be arranged into a rough hierarchy: whites and creoles at the top, a vast population of mestizos in the middle, and Indians (perceived as both a racial and an ethnic component) at the bottom. This popular hierarchy does not constitute a stratificational system or even a set of social classes, however, because its categories are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. While very light skin is indeed characteristic of the country's elite, there is no "white" (güero) class. Rather, the superordinate stratum is divided into four real classes—aristocracy, plutocracy, political class, and the crème of the upper-middle class—or, for some purposes, into ruling, political, and prestige classes (see Chap. 4). Nor is there a mestizo class, as phenotypical mestizos are found in all classes, though only rarely among the aristocracy and very frequently in the middle and lower classes. Finally, the bottom rungs are not constituted mainly of Indians, except in some localized areas, such as the Sierra Norte de Puebla"
• Nutini, Hugo; Barry Isaac (2009). Social Stratification in central Mexico 1500–2000. University of Texas Press. p. 10. "Members of the upper-middle class consider themselves and are generallyregarded by others as "white," although the class includes some individuals of light mestizo appearance ("mixed," showing some Indian and/or African ancestry) and about 5 percent with dark mestizo features. The solid-middle class presents the obverse phenotypic profile: predominantly mestizo, usually light skinned but including many individuals with noticeable Indian/African or European phenotypes. The lower-middle class, like the adjacent working class in the lower stratum, is overwhelmingly mestizo, and many of its members have very prominent Indian and/ or African features. There are also a few criollos (very light-skinned mestizos) and a sprinkling of individuals with a fully European physical appearance in these two classes. Thus, while there is a very striking increase in the proportion of European features as one goes up the social class scale in Central Mexico, there is sufficient variation within each class to prevent "race" (phenotypic perceptions) from playing a determinant role in interclass relations."
• Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.) (2008). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. Sage. p. 900. ISBN 978-1-4129-2694-2. "In New Spain, there was no strict idea of race (something that continued in Mexico). The Indians that had lost their connections with their communities and had adopted different cultural elements could "pass" and be considered mestizos. The same applied to Blacks and castas. Rather, the factor that distinguished the various social groups was their calidad; this concept of "quality" was related to an idea of blood as conferring status, but there were also other elements, such as occupation and marriage, that could have the effect of blanqueamiento (whitening) on people and influence their upward social mobility."
• Chambers, Sarah C. (2003). "Little Middle Ground The Instability of a Mestizo Identity in the Andes, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries". In Nancy P. Appelbaum. Race and Nation in Modern Latin America. University of North Carolina Press. "This blending of culture and genealogy is also reflected in the use of the terms Spanish and white. For most of the colonial period, Americans of European descent were simply referred to as Spaniards; beginning in the late eighteenth century, the term blanco (white) came into increasing but not exclusive use. Even those of presumably mixed ancestry may have felt justified in claiming to be Spanish (and later white) if they participated in the dominant culture by, for example, speaking Spanish and wearing European clothing.(p. 33)"
• Bartolomé (1996:2)"En primer lugar cabe destacar que en México la pertenencia racial no es un indicador relevante ni suficiente para denotar una adscripción étnica específica. El proceso de mestizaje no ha sido sólo biológico sino básicamente social y cultural, por ello personas racialmente indígenas pueden asumirse y definirse culturalmente como mestizas. De esta manera ser o no ser indígena representa un acto de afirmación o de negación lingüística y cultural, que excluye la pertenencia a un fenotipo racial particular. Por lo tanto es relativamente factible realizar el llamado tránsito étnico, es decir que un indígena puede llegar a incorporarse al sector mestizo a través de la renuncia a su cultura tradicional y si sus condiciones materiales se lo permiten. Este acto supone tanto la aceptación de un estilo de vida alterno como la negación del propio, incluyendo la no enseñanza de la lengua a sus hijos. Pero muy difícilmente ocurre lo contrario; esto es que individuos fenotípicamente "blancos", pretendan reivindicar una adscripción indígena. Sin embargo, y con gran frecuencia, esas mismas personas considerarán a los indígenas como sus antepasados, fundadores de una "nación mexicana" que ahora les pertenece en calidad de herederos."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Only one of the sources is competent to this issue and it does not disagree with the source i presented, which is how ethnic classifications in Mexico works, the one that says that an amerindian could become mestizo for adopting the mestizo culture and a white person could become amerindian for identifying with amerindian culture, which it describes as being rare but is not discarded, is much more common for white people to become mestizos as the source i presented say. The other sources you brought don't describe how the mexican official ethnic census have worked and don't disaree with it because they talk about different things, they give a racial classifications from the outside (because unlike the first source say, there is not 4 operational official "races" in Mexico and I don't know why two of them use the term "criollo" to refer to people with amerindian ancestry, by definition a criollo is son of two europeans) and talk about social stratification, and I doubt that the one that refers that 5% of the upper class is dark mestizo looking have done a serious research to get the number. There are useful material there nonetheless, like the source makes emphazis on mestizo not being a race and a very loose category with much variation within, the one that says that mestizos are usually light skinned, and the concept of light social mobility. Aergas (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the sources are relevant because they discuss race and ethnicity, are written by established scholars in the field and do not reference Lizcano, or use his categories. They do not adress your question directly, because as I have been tryign to explain to you the question is malformed based on erroneous assumptions. They do adress those assumptions and show them to be false if you actually read what they say. Now this RfC ha snothing to do with your question about whether white people can become mestizos, but it is about Lizcanos article. And here the sources are also relevant. Indeed they go to great lengths to argue that his categories are not valid. So no, you are misreading and misrepresenting the sources based on your interest in the malformed question about whether "white people" can become MEstizos. If you were capable of reading the above sources you would see that they do not consider there to be a category fo White people who can become something else. They all describe the existence of a socially defined group of "blanco" or "guero"which is not based on ancestry but on social context, and they descirbe the existence of people with European ancestry and phenotype who may be classified as white or mestizo based on criteria such as income, and social standing. Again this is going to be my last response to you because it is really tiresome having to answer the same question over and over with you not listening or trying to understand what is wrong with the assumptions that underlie it. I will let the RfC run it course and hopefully other people will chime in soon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You must understand the problematic here, these sources don't talk about how the Mexican census works and have worked at the moment of definying ethnicy, they talk about social stratification and dynamics, and their scope to establish the ethnicies is racial, not cultural, barely any adresses culture, these are two different things. The asimilation of white people into the mestizo culture is documented in other works like this other Universitary investigation [9]:

"El mayor número de mestizos se explica porque en estos cincuenta años desapareció también un millón de habitantes "blancos" o europeos de nuestro país. Esto no se debe, desde luego ni a que hayan sido exterminados ni que hayan emigrado en masa, sino a un cambio en la forma de clasificar a los grupos étnicos en México. En efecto, como veremos adelante, el triunfo de la ideología del mestizaje a principios del siglo XX hizo que los grupos anteriormente considerados blancos se asimilaran a este grupo." (on english) "The higher number of mestizos is explained because on this fifty years also disapeared a million of "white" or european inhabitants of our country. this isn't, of course due to a mass extermination or a massive emigration, but to a change in the way ethnic groups are classified in Mexico. in effect, as we will see afterwards, the success of the mestizo ideology at the beginning of the XX century made that the groups considered white where assimilated into this group (mestizos)". Aergas (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motto

Hi friends! Add the Mexico's motto: La Patria es Primero (spanish), The Country's First Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiqTam (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? As best as we were able to tell a couple of years ago, there is no official motto. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Caucasian" gene in Mexican population

These edits are hopelessly oversimplified and terribly misleading. You can not hope to understand a genetics paper from reading just the abstract of a genetics paper. You need some background in genetics and you need to read the whole paper.

Some of the major issues:

1) This is not "the" Caucasian specific allele. It is one such allele of many thousands.

2) This is a single, primary source paper making a claim that this gene is Caucasian specific. It has never been confirmed by any review. As such it can't be included as per WP:MEDRS.

3) The paper never refers to all Mexicans. It refers to a subset of Mexicans selected a priori as Caucasian. This is the population where the allele was located. If the test had been performed on Negro Mexicans or Amerindian Americans or presumably mixed racial Mexicans, those Mexicans would not have had any of this "Caucasian specific" allele. By definition. So you can't claim that "Mexicans" have this Caucasian specific allele. At best you can claim that Caucasian Mexicans have this Caucasian specific allele.

4) The allele prevalance even amongst Caucasian Mexicans was only ~5%. IOW 95% of Mexican Caucasians do not carry this allele. To the extent that we can make any claims about Mexicans as a group on the basis of this paper, we have to say that Mexicans do not carry this Caucasian specific allele. That statement is still wrong and misleading and oversimnplified, but at least it is correct >95% of the time. In contrast the statement that "Mexicans have been found to have the Caucasian-specific allele" is wrong over 95% of the time because even 95% of Mexican Caucasians do not carry the allele. Once you add in all the non-Caucasian Mexicans, it seems like >99% of Mexicans would not carry the allele. So to the extent that we can generalise about Mexicans on the basis of this paper, Mexicans do not carry this allele.

5) How is any of this notable concerning the racial makeup of Mexico? The paper makes no comments to indicate that it is notable in this regard. It can;t be included until we can ascertain that it is somehow notable

There are multiple other problems with the inclusion, but I won't even bother with those until we can clear up these issues.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll add an additional question; in what way would this improve the description of Mexico? This seems to be a matter of riding a racism hobby-horse rather than adding information about Mexico. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just been discussing this at User talk:Aergas - see this thread: [10]. From what I've gathered there, I can't see why the paper is being cited either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the paper is actually referring to a "subset of Mexicans selected a priori as Caucasian", there has to be even less grounds for inclusion - the article already states that population genetics indicates a majority 'European'/'Caucasian' ancestry - and it would be strange indeed if some Mexicans selected as 'Caucasian' didn't have a genetic marker also found amongst other 'Caucasians'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Haven't seen this thing yet, as i said to AndyTheGrump i included it to add variety on information to the article, To the comment of Mark Marathon about the allele, if you read the PDF (hosted on PHD three for free) the Mexican sample scored the lowest incidence of the allele, however the sample was way more heterogeneous than that of turks and germans, and included rural Mexicans, Amerindian Mexicans, and urban Mexicans, this is theorized as the reason for having the lowest score, is not that only 5% of the caucasian Mexicans had presented the allele as Mark marathon said, but the sample itself was entirely the opposite of a homogeneous caucasian-only sample. I hope this answers the question of AndyTheGrump, i find the claim of "it has not been confirmed by any review to be more interesting, but i'm yet to read the entire guideline yet. Aergas (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if the Mexican sample was representative of the population as a whole, rather than selected, it doesn't alter the fact that the paper tells us nothing significant about Mexicans that we didn't already know. The population as a whole has mixed ancestry, of which the largest component is 'European'/'Caucasian'. A single primary-source paper concerning a single allele apparently telling us the same thing is of little interest. The research wasn't done to find out the ancestry of Mexicans, and the conclusions don't relate specifically to Mexicans - accordingly, it is off-topic for an article on Mexico. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right, the article is big enough as it is. Aergas (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Colonial period or Spanish colonial period

I notice that Madere has made a massive change to the article essentially qualifying every instance of "colonial" as "Spanish colonial". I don't feel this is either necessary, or beneficial - there isn't another colonial period to contest with, and it makes the text more cumbersome. Before I revert this, does anyone else have a comment? Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

abandonded is misspelled66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

United Mexican States

The correct translation of Mexico's official name is "Mexican United States". "United Mexican States" would be "Estados Mexicanos Unidos". Is the current translation being used because people have always (mistakenly) used it and it's now convention? What's the dealie-o? --Lapilluminati (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where my Wikipedians at? --Lapilluminati (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and repeatedly in the past, see for example Talk:Mexico/Archive 1#United Mexican States?,Talk:Mexico/Archive 3#United Mexican States -or- United States of Mexico?, Talk:Mexico/Archive 5#United Mexican States, Talk:Mexico/Archive 7#United Mexican States—correct translation?, Talk:Mexico/Archive 9#"Estados Unidos Mexicanos" does NOT translate to "United Mexican States". I think it is just one of those things that is going to keep being queried, no matter what translation is settled upn. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Thanks. --Lapilluminati (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Declaration of independence

Just to be clear, there are two major dates associated with Mexican independence. 16 September 1810, El Grito, which is generally considered the declaration. Since nobody knows what was actually said, you could claim that wasn't an official declaration. The other date (cited in the Spanish language Wikipedia) is 27 September 1821, when there was a government of the full nation which declared independence for itself. The 1813 date you are citing was the Congresso de Anahuac, which was one of many attempts to claim authority over the next decade. That particular date seems to be recognized as important by nobody. One of the references you point to is effectively a blog, the other seems to be an article written for the purpose of describing what that congress did, not in citing that date as the important event.

I would suggest that in the interest of preventing an edit war, settle on a consensus on the Spanish wikipedia first (since the references you are citing are in spanish, people on that Wikipedia are much more likely to be able to distinguish and accept WP:RS for your sources), and only when that has settled out do you change the English language WIkipedia. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way Azertopius, we have been here before. On 30 October 2014 and 20 November 2014. Each time this was reverted and requests were made to take it to talk, which doesn't appear to have happened. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

I just want to modify the following paragraph which is part of "Education section" (practically the last paragraph of the article).

X = The National Autonomous University of Mexico ranks 190th place in the Top 200 World University Ranking published by The Times Higher Education Supplement in 2009.[307] Private business schools also stand out in international rankings. IPADE and EGADE, the business schools of Universidad Panamericana and of Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education respectively, were ranked in the top 10 in a survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal among recruiters outside the United States.[308]

Y = The National Polytechnic Institute (IPN) and The National Autonomous University of Mexico are the largest universities in Mexico. IPN plays an important roll in engineering and technology in Mexico. The National Autonomous University of Mexico ranks 190th place in the Top 200 World University Ranking published by The Times Higher Education Supplement in 2009.[307] Private business schools also stand out in international rankings. IPADE and EGADE, the business schools of Universidad Panamericana and of Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education respectively, were ranked in the top 10 in a survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal among recruiters outside the United States.[308] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Polit%C3%A9cnico_Nacional

Change X by Y

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Motto?

Does Mexico have a national motto? Illegitimate Barrister 02:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

In the Timezone section of the info box, pls change "(UTC−8 to −6)" to "(UTC−8 to −5)" as Zona Sureste is UTC -05:00 all year round. Thx. 106.68.191.17 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Quintana Roo is on UTC-5 permanently since Feb 1, 2015. Update. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO the section on women's rights seems to have a slant.

While I am against discrimination of all sorts, I also am a "strict" proponent of NPOV. Can someone please unbias it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.185.230 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015

ChristianBC01 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Military vehicles in Mexico.jpg

Military vehicles in Mexico

I'm not seeing a request here, so I'll mark it as answered. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

UNOCHA Map

I've added the UNOCHA map of Mexico to the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Section "Biodiversity"

Mexico is also considered the second country in the world in ecosystems and fourth in overall species, after brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiago200002 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

if you have a reliable source for that, it should certainly be added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

• Mexico → United Mexican States
• Mexico (disambiguation) → Mexico

– No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Mexico" can refer to Mexico City, State of Mexico, and New Mexico. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely not BMK (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Mexico

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mexico's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

• From European Union: "European Union". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 3 July 2013. international organisation comprising 28 European countries and governing common economic, social, and security policies ...
• From White people: "Chile". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2012-09-15. "...Basque families who migrated to Chile in the 18th century vitalized the economy and joined the old Castilian aristocracy to become the political elite that still dominates the country".

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Demographics in Mexico: Lies and more Lies

That 45 % in Mexico is like those news about water in the moon. Out of the movies and TV series there aren't whites at all in Mexico, in real terms there is less than one million whites in Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.95.209 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110403144418/http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104 to http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-07-2007/0004658596&E
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100514075604/http://impreso.milenio.com:80/node/8696274 to http://impreso.milenio.com/node/8696274

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish abbreviation of Large Millimeter Telescope

The Spanish abbreviation of the Large Millimeter Telescope (Gran Telescopio Milimétrico) should be GTM, not GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.201.232.67 (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080816044329/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38056 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38056
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116235928/http://www.prd.org.mx/portal/documentos/estatuto_xi.pdf to http://www.prd.org.mx/portal/documentos/estatuto_xi.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130702201536/http://www.expreso.com.mx/PortalNovo/sitio/nota.php?cod_idioma=3&cod_conteudo=9320&cod=274&tipoINICIO=&codconteudoINICIO=9320 to http://www.expreso.com.mx/PortalNovo/sitio/nota.php?cod_idioma=3&cod_conteudo=9320&cod=274&tipoINICIO=&codconteudoINICIO=9320
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100331050553/http://www.chicagobooth.edu:80/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20'07-goldmansachs.pdf to http://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20%2707-goldmansachs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130502144017/http://icabo.com/what-to-do/cabo-fishing.aspx to http://icabo.com/what-to-do/cabo-fishing.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118011900/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-127506564/slim-invest-santa-cruz.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-127506564/slim-invest-santa-cruz.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110430031228/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/hof/carbajal/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/hof/carbajal/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/staff/nolte/publications/how_to_compare_nolte.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060825022133/http://www.ft.com:80/cms/s/f53c9268-005a-11db-8078-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=bfb8911e-ff83-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html to http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f53c9268-005a-11db-8078-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=bfb8911e-ff83-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091010145804/http://www.stratfor.com/global_market_brief_mexico_sees_decline_remittances to http://www.stratfor.com/global_market_brief_mexico_sees_decline_remittances
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/123878

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121130192145/http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/staff/nolte/publications/how_to_compare_nolte.pdf to http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/staff/nolte/publications/how_to_compare_nolte.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Third paragraph in the lead is mexican propaganda?

That paragraph says lots and lots of good things about Mexico and its potential, but it seems a little too forced. Mexico is actually a deeply impoverished country (plus extreme wealth inequality) with a HUGE problem with drug and cartel violence, not to mention an enormous amount of corruption and government-led massacres of its citizens. Perhaps that paragraph should be edited to include also bad things about the country to make it more even? EeeveeeFrost (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Can I edit. Iho758901 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to be an autoconfirmed user. If you want to change something, tell us what it is and we'll do it for you. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

States

Could anybody add the information what states there are in Mexico?

Rasmusklump (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

PS I found it here

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexiko#Verwaltungsgliederung

A weird part in the "Mexicans of European descent" section

Could anyone correct the following?

United States
16,794,111 ^a

References

Would there be 35-40 million Mexican-Americans now? The article said 11.6 million (2014), while the reference from the U.S. Census Bureau states 16.7 million (2011). 67.49.89.214 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to adjust commas in sentence

As is right now: "Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization and it is the most visited country in the Americas, after the United States."

Should be either:

Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization, and it is the most visited country in the Americas after the United States.

OR

Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization, and it is the second-most visited country in the Americas, after the United States.

AND ALSO CONSIDER CHANGING:

Mexico has been traditionally TO Mexico has traditionally been — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.169.250 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A weird part in the "Mexicans of European descent" section

Could anyone correct the following?

United States
16,794,111 ^a

References

Would there be 35-40 million Mexican-Americans now? The article said 11.6 million (2014), while the reference from the U.S. Census Bureau states 16.7 million (2011). 67.49.89.214 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to adjust commas in sentence

As is right now: "Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization and it is the most visited country in the Americas, after the United States."

Should be either:

Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization, and it is the most visited country in the Americas after the United States.

OR

Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization, and it is the second-most visited country in the Americas, after the United States.

AND ALSO CONSIDER CHANGING:

Mexico has been traditionally TO Mexico has traditionally been — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.169.250 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016

74.98.209.223 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexico was not known as Imperio Mexicano from 1325-1521.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Evergreen, I think it is pretty obvious what the previous requester was saying. That person was saying that Mexico was not called Imperio Mexicano from 1325-1521. If you thought about it, you would realize that the beginning of that period was before the arrival of Columbus in the New World in 1492 and before Mexico was colonized after the fall of Tenochtitlan in 1521. In other words, there is vandalism in the article by someone calling the previous Aztec Empire as the Mexican Empire.

FYI - Mexico has only been known as the Mexican Empire (we should use the English words for Imperio Mexicano in an English article) on TWO occasions: (1) 1821-1823 and (2) 1863-1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.169.250 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A weird part in the "Mexicans of European descent" section

Could anyone correct the following?

United States
16,794,111 ^a

References

Would there be 35-40 million Mexican-Americans now? The article said 11.6 million (2014), while the reference from the U.S. Census Bureau states 16.7 million (2011). 67.49.89.214 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to adjust commas in sentence

As is right now: "Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization and it is the most visited country in the Americas, after the United States."

Should be either:

Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization, and it is the most visited country in the Americas after the United States.

OR

Mexico has been traditionally among the most visited countries in the world according to the World Tourism Organization, and it is the second-most visited country in the Americas, after the United States.

AND ALSO CONSIDER CHANGING:

Mexico has been traditionally TO Mexico has traditionally been — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.169.250 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016

74.98.209.223 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexico was not known as Imperio Mexicano from 1325-1521.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Evergreen, I think it is pretty obvious what the previous requester was saying. That person was saying that Mexico was not called Imperio Mexicano from 1325-1521. If you thought about it, you would realize that the beginning of that period was before the arrival of Columbus in the New World in 1492 and before Mexico was colonized after the fall of Tenochtitlan in 1521. In other words, there is vandalism in the article by someone calling the previous Aztec Empire as the Mexican Empire.

FYI - Mexico has only been known as the Mexican Empire (we should use the English words for Imperio Mexicano in an English article) on TWO occasions: (1) 1821-1823 and (2) 1863-1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.169.250 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

I would like to add the year the mexican war of independance began

Kyreau (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as the article has a whole section on Independence from Spain which also points to our article Mexican War of Independence - Arjayay (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MS SUAREZ IS FROM MEXICO!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.128.77 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

I want to change where it says that Mexico is " in the southern half of North America", it is a racist comment and I demand equality, it is been years since a plan for the rest of the inhabitants of the American Continent to do not feel identified as Americans started and we are all Americans. The USA took the big name of the continent because that is what their Monroe Doctrine claimed 'America for the Americans', so, by not letting the rest of us, Americans, called like that, we are promoting killing of the native Americans, invasions, etc., so I want to change this " is a federal republic in the southern half of North America" for this " is a federal republic in North America".

I demand respect.

Gsus83 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Is it not in the southern half of North America? Isn't that more descriptive than your suggestion? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210212235/http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.grec.cat/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417145758/http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml to http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#m
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814205200/http://opanal.org:80/opanal/about/about-i.htm to http://www.opanal.org/opanal/about/about-i.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210212235/http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022220348/http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf to http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823015618/http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html to http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009152736/http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/Pob_ind_Mex.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/Pob_ind_Mex.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402011950/http://www.rsssf.com:80/tablesm/mexhist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mexhist.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Mexico Protests

Nothing about the Mexican protests? Funkinwolf (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Translation of Mexico

Hello guys,

Just wanted to clarify that the correct translation for Estados Unidos Mexicanos is Mexican United States and not United Mexican States, which would be Estados Mexicanos Unidos.

Best,

Felipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegasoline01 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mexico has long held that the official name of the country in English is "United Mexican States." That is the name on all English-language treaties and what Mexico has reported to the United Nations.81.65.169.250 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

207.251.101.34 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Pretzel Production of Mexico is 3.1%

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Please remove the spanish name as this is the english wikipedia 198.52.13.15 (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC):

 Not done. Native names exist for all country articles. El_C 23:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect GDP

Hi everybody. I think that the GDP mentioned in the article is way off considering recent devaluations. The current IMF figure is 987,303 and it ranks the country 16th not 15th. Please correct it so as to reflect the real value of the MXN.--148.245.232.6 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/01361697524573725088802/p0000001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007045210/http://cruzadabosquesagua.semarnat.gob.mx/iii.html to http://cruzadabosquesagua.semarnat.gob.mx/iii.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025020343/http://normateca.ife.org.mx/normanet/files_otros/COFIPE/cofipe.pdf to http://normateca.ife.org.mx/normanet/files_otros/COFIPE/cofipe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025020343/http://normateca.ife.org.mx/normanet/files_otros/COFIPE/cofipe.pdf to http://normateca.ife.org.mx/normanet/files_otros/COFIPE/cofipe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025020343/http://normateca.ife.org.mx/normanet/files_otros/COFIPE/cofipe.pdf to http://normateca.ife.org.mx/normanet/files_otros/COFIPE/cofipe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125114503/http://mexidata.info/id2684.html to http://mexidata.info/id2684.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003124001/http://report.globalintegrity.org/globalindex/results.cfm to http://report.globalintegrity.org/globalindex/results.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.senado.gob.mx/gace.php?sesion=2008%2F12%2F04%2F1&documento=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807101157/http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-15.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430200457/http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm to http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513110559/http://www.dina.com.mx/history.html to http://www.dina.com.mx/history.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f53c9268-005a-11db-8078-0000779e2340%2Cdwp_uuid%3Dbfb8911e-ff83-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716114353/http://dgaf.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/EST_BASICA/EST_BASICA_2005/EST2005_12INFRA.pdf to http://dgaf.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/EST_BASICA/EST_BASICA_2005/EST2005_12INFRA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501154553/http://www.systra.com/Project-for-a-Mexico-City-Guadalajara-High-Speed-Line?lang=fr to http://www.systra.com/Project-for-a-Mexico-City-Guadalajara-High-Speed-Line?lang=fr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717201141/http://www.normateca.gob.mx/Archivos/34_D_1247_22-06-2007.pdf to http://www.normateca.gob.mx/Archivos/34_D_1247_22-06-2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002122317/http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/Hablantes_Nahuatl.pdf to http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/Hablantes_Nahuatl.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Error In size.

An error spotted in the page about México. Mexico is NOT the 6th largest country in the Americas, but the 4th.... After Canada, Brazil & USA. Skovløberen (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Women section, no men section

In the Demographics section there is a subsection on women, but no subsection on men. Suggested action: remove the women section, or add a men section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingovelocity (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)