Talk:Mexico/Archive 4

message: I will like to see a picture of the Basilica de Guadalupe under religion as this is an very important symbol of religion in mexico. Can some one help put a image up?76.235.132.48 00:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they put the image of Guadalajara's Cathedral because there were already too many pictures of Mexico City, but you may argue with these guys to see what they think, I don't really mind. Supaman89 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the Cathedral of Puebla not Guadalajara, which happens to be the largest in area in the continent. I agree there are too many pics of Mexico City. It's better to provide pictures of the whole country. --the Dúnadan 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion  

message: In the sport section, regarding about the soccer in Mexico the references to the mesoamerican ball game are totally inacurate, mainly because it states that the aztecs used heads to play its ritual game which is completly false since they used a rubber made ball, I also disagree totally with later part of the paragraph that states soccer was inspired by the mesoamerican ball game which is also incorrect becuase by the time modern soccer was created (1863) mesoamerican ball was no longer played and also because the games is not really similar to soccer it has more similarities with basketball or even volleyball.
Pure 360x 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, why don't you fix it yourself?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports  

message: I'm wondering whether the word "Azpec", which has just been introduced into this article, is correct.  In a Google search, Azpec is the name of an optics company in Singapore.  In a Wikipedia seach, Azpec does not show up anywhere else.
Wanderer57 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azpec? 

message: I was wandering if we should change the current map for one like the follwing: What do you guys think?Supaman89 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, np, we'll stick to the current one then.Supaman89 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: This might be a stupid question but, is it just me or some pictures actually don't show up? when I click on them they do appear but in the article they do not, I might just be my anti-virus though, anyway that's why I'm asking, does anyone else have the same problem?. Supaman89 17:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I've a question

message: However, Mexico has come under scrutiny for the alleged inhumane manner they treat incoming illegal immigrants from El Salvador, eliciting accusations of hypocrisy and human rights abuses [44].
Can this be removed due to being a dead link...?
MiztuhX 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead link 

message: this is obviosly a huge mistake made by someone who edited the page, probably an intentional one. You just have to look at a list of countries by their GDP and see that both the UK and France have a GDP nearly three times bigger than Mexico's. I don't think that that person was talking about GDP per capita either:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaghion (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're completely right. I don't have any idea who introduced that, but it is wrong and I've edited it accordingly with your comments. Thanks! AlexC. ( Talk? ) 08:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mexico has a large enough economy to match the UK or France?... 

message: I was asked to review this article by AlexCovarrubias, and have listed multiple items that should be addressed for the article to reach Good Article status. I have looked over the entire article, focusing on the requirements of the GA criteria. Although the following list is long, by addressing the issues, the article will be signficantly improved. If any of the points seem harsh, forgive me, I'm only showing what I think will improve the article based on prior experience. The largest issue with the article is insufficient sourcing, and I have listed almost 30 statements that should have inline citations added after them. Once you have addressed these issues and looked over the rest of the criteria (which focuses on stability, image, and NPOV issues), consider nominating the article at Good article nominations. If you have any questions over something I wrote here or disagree on some points (if Mexican English follows different grammar rules then what I may have pointed out, feel free to correct me), then let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to get back to you as soon as I can. A good way to show your progress in improving the article would be to use the strikethrough feature or put checkmarks next to the fixed items. In conclusion, I hope you do address these issues to help significantly improve the article and help it reach higher quality in educating the many readers who reference this article. Good job so far and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for reviewing the article, we'll try to focus on those points, I hope we have them fixed as soon as possible. Supaman89 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both images have been removed from the article and from Wikipedia itself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's been a long day. I finished with the general fixes except for the pictures and the toponomy of Mexico section (I asked the creator of this article to summarize it). I also started with the in-line citations. Good night! AlexC. ( Talk? ) 05:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comments

message: "Maria Candelaria (1944) by Emilio Fernández, was one of the first films awarded a Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1946"
According to the Palme d'Or article in Wikipedia, this was first awarded in 1955.  Before that was the Grand Prix du Festival International du Film.
Wanderer57 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palme d'Or in 1955 

message: I think the same words should not be used in the Introduction and in the Economy section.  It would be better if one was changed.
I think saying that "It is an upper middle-income country...." or "Mexico is an upper middle-income country...." is quite definite.  Adding "firmly established" does not make it any more definite, just more wordy.  Wanderer57 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a quote from the World Bank. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 23:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize that, but I think using the exact words once is enough.  Wanderer57 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'firmly established as an upper middle-income country' 

message: Suggested wording changes to these sentences from the introduction. 
Since partaking in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, its economy has diversified and grown to become world's 12th largest, and has the economical power to match nations such as the Canada and Spain. Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) that held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that had begun at the local level since the 1980s.
Here it is with suggested changes bolded.
Since joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, its economy has diversified and grown to become the world's 12th largest. Mexico has the economic power to match nations such as Canada and Spain. Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) which had held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that had begun at the local level since the 1980s.
Notes: 
"partaking in" is perhaps not strictly wrong but it is a very unusual use of the word.
The first sentence was too long.
"economic" is the word needed, "economical" has a narrower meaning (efficient, not wasteful of resources).
Canada, not "the Canada".
The last sentence is not clear.  I do not know the history but I think perhaps it should say:  "marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency from the Institutional Revolutionary Party "
Also, "had begun at the local level since the 1980s." suggests the process began after the 1980s.  Maybe it is supposed to say: "began at the local level during the 1980s." ??  
I hope this is useful.   Wanderer57 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the paragraph had some mistakes, thanks for the corrections, I just don't like one thing tough, it states: "Since joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, its economy has diversified and grown to become the world's 12th largest". I'm pretty sure Mexico's economy was quite important way before that, NAFTA basically reinforced the integration between the three countries, so I think that part has to be re-worded so it won’t look like the economy was “on the ground” before that one treaty, in fact only until recent years it was passed by Brazil, what do you think? Supaman89 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sry man, it's me I haven't had much time lately, we'll continue with this talk later okay?, cool. Supaman89 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm pretty busy also. We'll talk if/when we get out from under.  Cheers. Wanderer57 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Pardon me? Did someone change the introduction? let me check. Supaman89 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, pardon me?  The prior version didn't make sense (Since the signature of NAFTA...), and if editors took the time to read my edit comment when I changed it, I proposed a number of variants. "... Since the signing, since participating, since the inception of NAFTA, since becoming a member of NAFTA, since NAFTA entered into force ..."  Word. Corticopia 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for discussion, which I am involved in (directly or not), but let's get one thing straight: I do not need to consult you on anything.  If that were true, you would have had to have consulted me beforehand (as the editor who boldly added the text in its current state), which is bullocks.  But, thank you for asking.  Corticopia 13:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested wording changes 

message: A subsection dealing with Culture that doesn't include the literature produced by members of that culure is lacking. I see the performing/visual arts are represented. Is there any objection to adding literature to this. I admit a certain bias towards Carlos Fuentes and Juan Rulfo, and really wouldn't be able to give much shrift to feminist writers, but im sure someone else could fill in the blanks.Die4Dixie 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current culture section briefly lists some of the most important authors. I'd personally like to expand it a lot more! (especially the Fine Arts subsection), but article lenght is a problem we have to deal with since we are considering applying to get GA-listed (Good Article). If you proposition is to add some other names, go ahead. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture

message: The last sentence is:  "In lieu with this new openness  in Mexico's foreign policy, some political parties have proposed an amendment of the Constitution in order to allow the Mexican Army, Air Force or Navy to collaborate with the United Nations in peace-keeping missions, or to provide military help to countries that officially ask for it."
I think this should be "In line with", not "In lieu with".  Wanderer57 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you see any grammatical mistakes like those just fix them, unless there is a whole sentence that has to be reworded or something like that, then we'll check it here, thank you again. Supaman89 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Relations section - wording 

message: In term of per capita income and other statistics, Mexico is far from a deveoped country, not to mention a fully developed country. It is listed in Developing country as a newnly industrialized country. Google search result can show numerous sources refering Mexico as a developing country. Coasilve 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And putting quotes around developing economy cuts the sources down to half that number. We also need to see how many of the links are non-wikipedia related. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for bringing this issue to the Talk page.  My reason for undoing your change was not to argue, but to ask for significant references to support the change.  "Numerous sources in Google" is too vague.  (Also I just found 17,000 sources in Google that use the word "elivator"; that doesn't mean it is the correct spelling of "elevator").   Wanderer57 04:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me but I don't see where in the article it states that Mexico is a fully developed country? it says that it is a NIC country which is right, but I don't think anywhere in the article it would say that Mexico was fully developed. Supaman89 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, ok I agree, that part has to be removed, I mean I'm the first one to say that Mexico is better than a lot of countries (even some Europeans), but it'd be a lie to say that it is fully developed, even if it was sourced, we could also find more sources stating otherwise; we have not yet reached "first world" life standards, so yes I vote for removing that part (only the bolded text, not the whole paragraph). Supaman89 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: CIA, IMF and World Bank all classifiy Mexico as a developing country. These information can be found in the developed country article. Coasilve 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fully developed country ? 

message: Ok, I understand that you're trying to put that Mexico is a full-fledged developed country, and I mean, that's fine sometimes I feel so as well, in fact I'm probably one of the most patriotic persons there is, but we gotta be honest, even though northern Mexico is definitely developed, the southern part of the country, is still developing, and I mean I don't want people thinking we are telling lies or something like that, because then they'll think that the rest of the article is "biased" as well. I understand that Hollywood has given us a lot of bad reputation, and we all want to clean all those stereotypes but as long as there is people living in “third worldish” conditions in the southern states we cannot say that we are fully developed, cuz that could lead to more negative consequences that positive ones. Supaman89 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with stereotypes. There are also Americans living under proverty line. The matter of fact is Mexico's statistics doesn't make it a developed country. Coasilve 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also biased to claim that the "north" is developed and the south is "third worldish" (sic), a comment that I rather attribute to lack of information and not a "stereotype" many norteños have of the south. The state with the largest GDP per capita in the country (excluding the Federal District which is higher than all at +17,000 USD) is Campeche at 13,153 USD a southern "third wordlish" (sic) state. Quintana Roo, another "southern" state has a GDP per capita of 12,030 USD higher than Baja California, Baja California Sur, Durango, Sonora, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosí and Tamaulipas, all "northern "states. Even Nuevo León's GDP per capita, at 13.033, is lower than that of all Western European Countries and even Argentina. Population in poverty in Monterrey is over 30%, and any regiomontano just needs to drive to other areas in the north and far west of the metro area to get a reality-check with poverty. Portraying the north as "fully developed" and the south as "underdeveloped" is also an unjustified and biased stereotype. The north (with exceptions) is simply more developed than the south (with exceptions). --the Dúnadan 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Newstormer

message: I recently updated the area of the country but it was reversed to its previous value quoting "more sources". I believe that the important thing is not the amount of sources but their accuracy. If the National Geography and Statistics Institute and the Presidential Office website state that the area is X sq. Km, shouldn't we taking this values instead? I mean they are Official sources anyway, aren't they? EOZyo (мѕğ) 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, as I explained to you in the message that you left me, basically when I reverted your edit I put another source to back it up, I understand that both references are just as valid, but if you do a quick Google search most sources state it as 1,972,550 km² so in cases like this I when we have more than one reference regarding the same matter I think we should stay with the majority of sources. Supaman89 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: i disagree with one of the assertations in the paragraph about the evolution of the word "mexico".  i read the link that the source cited, the real academia, and it never says that the sound was voiced. 
also i am well versed in romance linguistics and i have never read anything that posits a voicing of spanish sibilants in their evolution. i've been out of the game for a while so the only source that comes to mind is Ralph Penny (1991) "A History of the Spanish Language"
this is a tiny detail that may not interest anyone but i read the article and this discrepancy stuck out to me.
zach
66.235.34.185 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. --the Dúnadan 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  velar fricative 

message: I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.
Here is the link:
* Mexico Travel Guide from GlobeGnome.com Shaun Wright 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - As with the links at United States and Mexico, I cannot support the inclusion of this link as per WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (no. 13): "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". But thanks for seeking consensus. --SRHamilton 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New External Link 

message: Can anybody tell me what Mexico's national bird is?  I'd like to add a photo of the appropriate species to the lead paragraph of List of birds of Mexico. Also, is there any reference available that talks about the eagle on the Mexican coat of arms?  It would be nice to know if that was modeled after a real species (and thus something I can add to an appropriate picture caption), or if it's just a generic eagle!  Thanks for any help you can offer. MeegsC | Talk 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have a national bird (I might be wrong), though if it helps you the coat of arms shows a Golden Eagle (Aguila Real), you may wanna add that to the article. Supaman89 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Bird? 

message: From the topographic map, it looks as if Distrito Federale is close to the highest elevation in all of Mexico.  Is this true?
If it is, why do people say DF is in "the Valley of Mexico"?
Thanks, 
          
(Wanderer57 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not the highest elevation of Mexico, but it is surrounded by some of the highest elevations of Mexico (hence, it is a valley). --the Dúnadan 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valley of Mexico 

message: I did a few edits in Toponymy & Pre-Columbian civilizations.  I think they are straightforward.  I'll be glad to explain if asked.  I got rid of a few excess words.
I notice in the section "Pre-Columbian civilizations", only the first sentence is about Pre-Columbian civilizations.
Wanderer57 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on the national holidays of Mexico?  Maybe just a list or links to pages about the holidays (Cinco de Mayo, Dia Del Nino, Navidad, etc.). nd2010 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Holidays? 

message: Can someone link the wikipedia article Mexican pop under Pop for this article to have a more throughow representation of popular music in Mexico. In additin feel free to edit this article for a more respectable and informative outlook on the genre in Mexico.75.62.146.6 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: The 2004 HDI report on Mexico (ref 58) is not available at the link provided. It also comes up on a google search under the same, missing link so mustve been taken down. Anyone know where it might be? (I also wanted to cite the HDI comparison between northern states and the EU & Southern states and Africa to demonstrate income disparity ina paper!) 172.200.6.43 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy - source no longer available