Talk:Mexico/Archive 1

message: The previous version of this page now lives at Mexico/Old. Any remaining information that's there but not here should be moved either direcly into Mexico or into the appropriate subtopic (for instance, pages on the individual states). --Brion 18:25 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)
Note: The old version of this page is now at Talk:Mexico/Old version.
NB: At first glance, it would appear that the entire section on "Divisions of Mexico" has been removed from the current version of this article.  This is not quite the case.  There is a section titled "Political Divisions of Mexico" in the current version of this article.  However, rather than providing information about each state in the Mexico article proper, an enumerated set of links is provided to the Wiki article on that state.  Not all of the information in the "Divisions of Mexico" section below has been folded into the Wiki article for each state.  However, to determine what has and has not been folded in would require someone comparing the information below against the Wiki article for each state.  Hint, hint: anybody want to volunteer?
Richard 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous version of this page

message: In the Federal Government all the officiall documents have to be signed at the buttom with the  motto "Sufragio Efectivo No Relecccion" (Effective Elections No Relection). This was the the slogan of the non-relection movement of Franciso I. Madero during the first stage of Mexican Revolution. Madero demanded at that time free elections without the participation of president Porfirio Diaz.
I just want to share my opinion about all of this "pages" and comments. I am originally from Mexico D.F. and I am very happy of its contents. Thank you all.
  Things you may take in consideration. 
  The "Sufragio Efectivo No Reeleccion" can be considered as the "motto" of the Government, but not to the country itself... If by any situation and/or "inquiry" it would be the nation anthem itself.
  Also, The Mexican-German "situation" then, the Mexican Government never negotiated, accepted or recognized such document. It was a proposition from the Germans to the Mexican government for them to invade the US, and as a "token of appreciation" they would give back at least Texas back to Mexico. Mexico has always been a neutral country... well unless we get invaded of course!! like Spain, USA, France to name a few...
  Anyway, just so you can take a deeper look at that, and again, thanks for making such a great page!!!
sincerely,
Alejandro. 
63.105.65.10 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National motto (more)

message: Does anyone know if Mexico has anything resembling a national motto? I haven't turned one up so far via google searches. --Brion
: I have a books at home which may list it, but the coat of arms (the eagle on the cactus) doesn't seem to have a motto below it, so maybe it just doesn't exist? Jeronimo
:Could be. As far as I know, there's not actual requirement for every state of the world to have a motto. ;)  Speaking of the coat of arms; there's a nice one at Flags of the World, but with the usual caveats.  --Brion
: That I don't know, but there's a very relevant motto inscribed on the seal of the UNAM, which says "Por mi raza hablara el espiritu."  That's great, but why does it matter?  The motto, as well as the seal itself, was created by Jose Vasconcelos, who REALLY needs to be included in this article.  Jose Vasconcelos is one of the major players in Mexican history: a member of the 1910 revolution who would later become the Mexican Minister of Education.  To get an idea of his significance, take a look at an essay he wrote called "La Raza Cosmica" in which he predicts the rise throughout Latin America of a universal race that would result from the continued mix of indigenous and european bloodlines (mestisaje).  It was controversial for sure, but for better or worse it goes quite a ways to summing up Vasconcelos's worldview, and given the extent to which his influence resonates in modern Mexican society, it can't be overlooked.  So what does "Por mi raza hablara el espiritu" mean, then?  It is a symbol of the rise of Mexican and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Latin American Universalism.  The twenty years following the revolution were the most important in the evolution of modern Mexico because they were where the modern Mexican identity was defined.  Vasconcelos was part of a major government-sponsored effort to make Mexicans view themselves first and foremost and Mexicans, the sole heirs to several of history's most remarkable ancient civilizations.  That's why Vasconcelos paid the muralists to plaster renderings of Mexican history and identity throughout the nation.  So yeah, long comment, and you still can't post it as the national motto, but you should mention it.  Keep in mind also, that Mexicans define themselves in symbols as much as they do words.  The best example of this is the Mexican Flag, the significance of which I can't explain in less than 1000 words.  Let it suffice to say that it goes well beyond the story of Tenochtitlan being founded where the Mexica saw an eagle on a cactus eating a snake.  Hint: it represents the feathered serpent (Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan), the mesoamerican Prometheus/Christ figure.  It's almost the same as putting a Christian cross on the flag in that it symbolizes the deep religiousity of the people.
----
Mav, I thought the Mexican Revolution was the 1910-ish one, with Pancho Villa and the PRI? --Brion
----
Brion, maybe we should wait with moving the template articles until at least all of the headings have been reasonably filled. Pages with empty heading don't look very good... Jeronimo
:People kept editing the old page and ignoring the new one. If you think things are missing, fill them in! --Brion
Oh, that's silly. I'll try add some stuff when I have time. Jeronimo
----
What the hell is going on?  I put in a lot of info about states, and now it's gone.  I agree it didn't really belong on the main Mexico page, but should have been allowed to remain there until it was all moved somewhere else, and now some jackass has just removed it into the ether.  You know, editing these articles actually implies some responsibility towards the information and towards other authors.  Get a clue.  --John Knouse
:Did you not read the message at the top of this page? Thank you. --Brion 00:02 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)
::Your message at the top of this page states that the old version of this page was moved elsewhere.  Do you MEAN that the old version of the MEXICO page was moved elsewhere?  Say what you mean.  --John Knouse
:::Cute. Just take the chip off your shoulder and follow the link. --Brion 11:19 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)
Note: The old version of this page is now at Talk:Mexico/Old version.
----
Could someone who knows the subject add Cajeme into the Mexico article? Kingturtle 05:59 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
----
hi ,
i don't want ot be mean or anythimg but you need to organize your website better
i have no idea what it's saying it just.. just there. 
i am trying to find the motto of mexico to.
           -hannah
---- 
Motto, motto, motto:  I'm not sure there is an official one, but I suspect  "sufragio efectivo – no reelección" is a better candidate than "el respeto al derecho ajeno...". (In any event, neither has the enshrined official status of, for example, E Pluribus Unum or Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité: the notion of "official state motto"just doesn't apply here).
–User:Hajor 13:51, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Some anectdotal background from a native: "sufragio efectivo, no reelección" means "effective vote, no reelection", and was a banner for the revolution that deposed Díaz; it's also the reason Mexican presidents can only serve one term. While it was a motto of the revolution, and was institutionalized into stamps and stationery by the (aptly named) Institutional Revolution Party, it's not much of a rallying cry for the general Mexican. Not a motto. Can't think of one... --wolfe 20:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: National motto

message: To any Mexican , please define the meanings in colloquial Mexican or Nahuatle. These are Filipino words, thanks.
Donde andas?(Chavacano) denotes 'Where are you going?'. (Spanish: anda - to walk or operate)
Seguro means 'Maybe'. (Spanish: seguro-sure, secure, stable) Do they have different meanings with European Spanish?
Siempre means 'Of course'. (Spanish: siempre-always)
Pirmi (Visayan, Chavacano) means 'Always'. (Spanish: firme-firm,steady)
Basta - as long as (Spanish: basta - enough)
Maske - even if (Spanish: mas que - more than)
Cubeta - toilet/outhouse (Spanish : bucket)
Casilyas (Visayan, Chavacano) - toilet/toilet seat/to shit (Spanish: casillas-Chess squares/hut /cabin)
Lamierda - 'paint the town red'  (Spanish:la mierda- shit, excrement)
Nanay-Mother (Nahuatle:Nantle -mother)
Tatay-Father (Nahuatle:Tatle -father)
Palengke - Town Market (Mexican?) - Anecdotally: in Mexico, a palenque is a place where cockfighting takes place (yes, it does); the event always includes music, drinks and debauchery, and in modern times happens mostly without the cockfighting. I suspect cockfighting used to happen in town markets and such in times of yore, and came in from there.
Chico - A fruit
Avocado -A fruit
Guava -A fruit
Sabon - Soap (Spanish:Jabon-soap)
Relos -watch (Spanish :Reloj -watch)
Thanks from --Jondel 00:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some additional translations in italics. --wolfe 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Another question. My Spanish is not so good. Seguro should mean for sure or guaranteed to happen, stable.Doesn't it? In the Philippines, it means --Maybe-- (quizas). How about in Mexican?--Jondel 00:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the same in "Mexican". It's probably used (or originated) in a sarcastic manner or with questioning tone, and evolved like "mañana", but I dunno. --wolfe 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh , you mean siguro means 'maybe' in 'Mexican' when it should mean 'for sure' in Standard Spanish? I was thingking that the siguro of Mexico evolved from 'siguramente' Is this only in Mexico?   --Jondel 00:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seguro" means "for sure" in Spanish, including Mexican usage. It does not mean "maybe"; rather, it's like the use of a sarcastic "yeah, sure" in English, which doesn't mean "for sure" either. As in English, you know from context. Hopefully this is clearer. --wolfe 19:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_culture_in_the_Philippines#Philippine-Mexican_Words|Philippine-Mexican words]]

message: I remember reading somewhere that Nahuatl was recognized as an official language in 2002. Can someone verify that?--129.125.103.28 12:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No - Spanish continues to be the only official language of Mexico, at least as of January 2005 (date on my reference book). --wolfe 19:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a little town, in the state of Mexico, that declared nahuatl as the "oficial" language. Of course is not really oficcial, is more an statement to try to keep nahuatl as a live language. Nanahuatzin 06:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nahuatl 

message: Just letting you know that I removed the following offensive material from the introductory paragraph:
"Mexicans go around the country and capture Americans buying weed. Then they cross the river to USA. They live in a huge but cramped houses. THey like to eat chinchilla, la curcarachas and monkeys. They play HALO 2 and buy weed on XBox Live."
I didn't read the article thoroughly, I'm just browsing around looknig for some obscure historical information, so I just wanted to give everyone a heads-up in case any more stuff like that is hidden in the article.
: That was junk added a little earlier today by a passing vandal. That user has been warned to stop adding junk or risk being banned from editing. You were quite correct in removing it (though know if you hadn't, someone else would have). Thanks, -- Infrogmation 21:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content 

message: The Federal District should not be included in the list of States, as it is NOT consdiered a state. (The article was saying that Mexico is divided into 31 states yet the list contained 32 names of states!).
According to the Mexican constitution, and as children are taught every year at school: "México está dividido en 31 estados y un distrito federal", that is "Mexico is divided into 31 states and a Federal District" making the distinction. It is pretty much the same way as in the US, DC is not consdiered a state, and people usually make the distinction. 
It should be interesting to know, though, if the representation of the Federal District in the National Chamber of Deputies and Senate is the same as for every state or whether it is like Washington DC that has limited representation.
::Senate: the DF gets three senators (2+1), just like the states. In the Chamber: similar population-based representation as the rest of the country; currently 30 of the 300 first-past-the post deputies. There's no functional difference btwn senators/deputies from the DF and those from the rest of the country. Hth, as they say. –Hajor 22:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: States and the Federal District

message: Does anyone know how is a portal created, or where can it be proposed? I think we should create a portal of Mexico, that would allow us to improve and create more articles related to this country, as they do for other countries. --J.Alonso 23:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Portal:Mexico. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. After I had written this I found the portal. The thing is, the link was located at the bottom of the page, not at the top (as it is with Brazil and Germany, for example), and I didn't scroll down enough to find it. --J.Alonso 01:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: portal

message: I wonder if article Alarma is correct? Or is this magazine some kind of urban legend? As the only sources online seems to reffer to a single book which mentions it, called Muerte: Death in Mexican Popular Culture. The competitor magazines Alarde, Enlance and Poliester seems to be mentioned just in one page online except for wikipedia mirrors; Poliester magazine is mentioned elsewhere too, but it seems to be writting something about culture rather than dead bodies. Also, the stated 15 million copies per week would mean that like over 10% of all Mexicans buys it every week; it would be strange that magazine of this size wouldn't even have its own website and be mentioned only in a few pages online. Or maybe there are more refferences in Spanish about it? Matsuhito 11:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ¡Alarma! is most definitely for real. 15 million a week is unbelievable (although it is sold in other countries) but as the article states, it's the mag's claimed circulation: banging up the numbers like that is exactly its style. No website? That's surprising, but maybe they just assume that their target audience doesn't have net access. Or maybe they just don't know where to find someone willing to host their kind of material.  –Hajor 12:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: About 6 years ago I worked in a newspaper stand in Mexico City, close to a Metro station, and back then I hardly sold any copies of Alarma! Newspapers like La Prensa sold a lot more. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 09:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Check this (Alarma! magazine)

message: It's been 5 years since the last INEGI population count and in four days we must update many numbers in the Mexico related articles.--Fito 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the figures for current conteo wouldn't be available till 2006 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that so? I just assumed that the new figures would be up as soon as the conteo ended. I guess I was very wrong XD. Ok, we'll just have to wait.--Fito 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New figures

message: What? Cornish-speakers in Mexico?! Cornish is supposed to have become extinct in the 19th century, and the variety today spoken by a few people in Cornwall is a revived dialect with a phonology disputed by most linguists. If the language really survived as a mother-tongue in Mexico, this seems almost to good to be true. Bab
Miners went from Cornwall (or Wales) to work at the Real del Monte silver mine in Hidalgo. It is attested to in several historical souces.
:Cornish survived into the 19th century only in the most remote areas on the Duchy's southwestern coastal fringe. We're talking about isolated individuals, such as on the Isle of Man today, who have varying degrees of native knowledge of a language that is no longer used as a community language or learnt (except very exceptionally) by children. The difference is that Man now has a language revival movement, whereas Cornwall had to wait a century (and even then the Cornish revival didn't pick up much steam till after the 1960s). But I digress. The point is that hardly any emigrant miners would have been old enough, by the time of Cornish migrations to Mexico, to have picked up any significant amount of Cornish. The idea that Cornish survives to the present day as a community language in Mexico is far-fetched, bordering on absurd; somebody probably put that sentence in as a hoax. There is, unfortunately, no Cornish Gwladfa. Oll a'n gwella, ha Kernow bys vykken, QuartierLatin1968  02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornish?! 

message: There is so much stuff Mexicans take for granted that is never questioned; there is so much stuff whose only authoritative source is vox populi like the inflated and irrealistic population estimations for most of Mexico's metropolitan areas. However, there is one more thing that I am not quite sure if it is official or not. As I was about to write an article on the "Languages of Mexico", I started researching about the 62 indigenous languages, that according to the CDI , are oficially recognized by the Mexican government. I then went to the Constitution of Mexico (three sources: , , and a .pdf file with the most recent changes: ) and to my surprise I did NOT FIND A SINGLE ARTICLE that says that Spanish is the official language of Mexico. I decided to review other legal documents, like the Código Civil Federal (Federal Civil Code) , and of the 3074 articles, there is NO SINGLE ARTICLE that specifies that Spanish is the official language of Mexico. I then suspected that Spanish is a de facto language, in the same way as English is the official de facto language in the US, but not de jure. So, then I started to review a couple of the constitutions of the states, to see if they specify an official langauge at all: Puebla  does not, Veracruz  does not, State of Mexico  does not, Yucatan  does not, and then I gave up.
So, my question is: is Spanish truly the de jure official language of Mexico? Does anyone know of another strange and unknown legal document that specifies it? (Please don't direct me to the webpage of the Presidency, a webpage is not an official law, the constituion is). --J.Alonso 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is de facto, as you correctly pointed out, just like with English and the USA. So that should be noted, somehow. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy  01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure that's buried somewhere in the current Constitution. If not, try looking at the either the 1824 or 1857 Constitutions. As long as it's mentioned in one of those we could say that Spanish was the de jure official language at some point. It is also interesting to note that for education purposes the "default" language of teaching is Spanish, although people  who speak indigenous dialects have the right to be taught in their own language. (Also, are you sure it's only 62 languages? I've read there were around 75 instead). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here is the link to the 1857 constitution: , and no article on Spanish as the official language whatsoever. I wonder, in which other document could a country specify its official language, besides the constitution? As for the indigenous langauges, like I said, there is no mention of their names in the 1917 constitution (though the second article defines Mexico as a "pluricultural nation" (maybe we should mention this), and declares that the government will do anything within its means to protect and promote the native languages. Here:  you will find that there are 62 indigenous languages officially recognized and "many more variants". --J.Alonso 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article 4 of the "General law of linguistic rights of the indigenous peoples" says Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio, localización y contexto en que se hablen. (The indigenous languages recognized in the context of the present Law and Spanish are national languages due to their historical origin, and have the same validity in its territory, localization and context in which they are spoken). So there you go. I will not go into the debate of equating national==official since that's a debate that belongs to the Courts, not Wikipedia. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is interesting. I had heard of the law, which was just approved 3 years ago (so there was no "national" language before). True, we should not debate into equating national==official, yet, if this is the only law that speaks of an "official language" then Spanish and the  62 indigenous languages are official as well (and I wouldn't venture to say that). I would then say that Spanish is just the  de facto official language in Mexico, and then say, as a footnote, that Spanish, as well as the 62 indigenous languages are considered national languages and have the same validity under the law. What do you think? --J.Alonso 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't venture to say it is the de facto language either, given the evidence above (after all, it is mentioned in some law, just the meaning of "national" it is not clear). Just say that it is considered a "national" language, without going much into details. This also doesn't preclude the mention Spanish as official language in some other law we are not aware of. I'm actually thinking of filing a request to IFAI on this... (After edit conflict: why did you erase some of your previous text?) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the IFAI? I was citing another article, then I realized that, even though it used different phrasing, it was the same idea of Article 4 that you cited. I thought it made no sense repeating the same stuff, so I deleted it. Sorry.  --J.Alonso 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs about the removal, I just thought it was strange. IFAI is the Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información Pública. A request to IFAI is the equivalent to a request under the Freedom of Information Act in the US. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bunch of stuff taken for granted

message: : Mexico has a sizeable population of Asians numbering around 21, many of them Chinese, the majority of which reside in Mexicali, Baja California and Japanese.
Should that be 21,000? References? Pretzelpaws 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: migration from the USA?  after the railroad work ended?  John wesley 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian Population?

message: Are the Jews fro Mexiko Aschkenasim or Sefardim? Simon Mayer
:From what I read at  it seems the majority are Sefardim, immigrating to Mexico since the 16th century. Immigration in the 20th century included both Sefardim and Aschkenasim --J.Alonso 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aschkenasim 

message: I changed Mexico's GDP based on the IMF 2006 numbers. You can find the info at the IMF website:  -Doug Johnson
:Though well meant, unfortunately the 2005 and certainly 2006 figures from IMF are for now still estimates. Till IMF updates (hopefully soon), we normally use the “real” 2004 figures. --Van helsing 16:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 GDP

message: Seems to me that the Aztec, Mexico and Hernan Cortes pages have been getting more vandalism than most other pages.  I have 30 pages on my watchlist and these three pages have had multiple instances of vandalism in the last week alone.  The other pages have had far fewer instances.
Do you agree that the frequency is higher than normal?  If so, what, if anything should we do about it?  
[[[User:Pauljeffersonks|Pauljeffersonks]] 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, but I personally believe the vandalism is over the immigration debate in the USA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is vandalism more frequent on this page than others? 

message: User Darkstar1st added a section named "Immigration law" . It was very long so I moved it to the article:Politics of Mexico because in my personal opinion I think it belongs there. If you want it back please use this talk page first so we can discuss it or you could also make a summary. Thanks!. Silversink 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration law 

message: User:Polaron took out the crime section on the grounds that it is unencyclopedic and needs sources.  I agreee.  Here is the text that was excised.
Crime is a  problem in Mexico stemming greatly from the great polarization between the rich and the poor. Criminal elements play a large role in the importation of illegal drugs into the United States. The Gulf Cartel,and Tijuana cartel and several other drug cartels play a major role in the drug trade. Corruption in the police throughout Mexico is rampant. Corruption in Mexico's elected officials and their association with criminal organizations prevents effective control of this problem.
--Richard 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime section 

message: The text in this section was copied from the Chiapas article.  It's true that the Chiapas article needs sources but I disagree that the text is unencyclopedic. 
--Richard 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiapas

message: The statement "The present administration is cognizant of the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize the tax system and labor laws, and allow private investment in the energy sector, but has been unable to win the support of the opposition-led Congress." is hardly NPOV. That there is a "need" to allow private investment in the energy sector, specifically, is only true from a certain political perspective, and indeed, it seems that the majority of Mexicans do not agree. It's not simply the administration versus the opposition-led congress, this is a complex issue, where the public debate in Mexico is vigorous. This needs to be changed. JZ 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So change it already. Be bold!--Richard 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree in that the "need" private investment in energy sector is not NPOV, but it is a fact that there is a need to upgrade infrastructure and modernize the tax system and labor laws; and it is true that Fox failed to win the support of an opposition-led Congress. --Alonso 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not business oriented. It really doesn't matter if the upgrade infrastructure comes from private sources or public sources. The point is, infrastructure needs modernization. --Alonso 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: There is an edit/revert war going on where an anonymous editor (User:68.154.34.192) and User:Mexxxicano have been deleting text about "Crime and Poverty".  Unless there is a valid argument that there is little or no crime or poverty in Mexico or that the crime and poverty is not noteworthy, then the text should stay.  If there are questions of accuracy, then fix them or challenge them but deletions of text without explanation and/or discussion here are unacceptable.
--Richard 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime and poverty

message: User:Drini reverted vandalism that was apparently caused by User:Mexxxicano.  My investigation seems to indicate that the vandalism had been introduced several edits earlier by User:64.90.241.179.  Here's the evidence
I have fixed the problem by reverting to User:Mexxxicano's last edit and then removing User:64.90.241.179's vandalism.
I'm sure User:Drini's action was an honest mistake based upon a cursory look at the first part of User:Mexxxicano's edit.  My guess is that User:Mexxxicano did a revert followed by adding his edits not realizing that his revert may have reverted to a vandalized version.
--Richard 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism misattributed to [[User:Mexxxicano]]] 

message: HI My name is Michael and I am in year 7. I need to know for a assingment, how many Mexicans live in Melbourne and what suburbs do they live in? And Why?
We are only about 500 in whole Australia
--203.58.188.211 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to http://www.fecca.org.au/World%20Views/Countries/Mexico.html, they said 1,190, with the figures being given by the 2001 Australia census. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexicans in Australia 

message: For example at the beginning of this article it is spent almost half the page talking about the Pre-Columbian civilizations, it's like if in the article for the USA half the page was about the native people of America, in that case they should create another article called "Pre-Columbian Mexican civilizations" which explains all those things, so we would get rid of all that unnecessary space, in fact I think there is already and article called “History of Mexico“ that already explains that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.177.80 (talk • contribs) 
:No. Mexico is A LOT older than the United States of America, and really values its history. Pre-Columbian Mexican civilizations play a strong part in defining the culture and history of Mexico, especially since the Spanish colonists intermarried with the native Americans. If the United States doesn't have much about the native people of the United States, it is because of its short history, and aversion to culture and intermarriage. Deepstratagem 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is way too long in all the wrong places 

message: The Largest cityu images need to be aligned --Pauljeffersonks 01:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City images 

message: Should this really be on this article?  The armed "conflict" in Chiapas lasted all of 12 days nearly 13 years ago.  The EZLN is popular on the internet, especially among American leftists, but it is virtually defunct in Mexico.  I'm sure that there are literally hundreds of thousands of aspects of Mexican life, culture, and politics that are more important than the EZLN.  Note the Colombia, which has been fighting a guerrilla army comprised of tens of thousands of full-time heavily-armed warriors for the past 42 years, does not have any section devoted to the war on its article.  --Descendall 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Zapatistas are still active in Mexican politics (see the Other Campaign). But your point is well-taken. Perhaps the solution is to dedicate a section (or a subsection of "politics") to armed guerrilla movements since the Revolution. It could discuss Genaro Vasquez, Lucío Cabañas, and the EZLN in the context of armed resistance to the Mexican government, and would probably be a more balanced approach. And Colombia's civil war should definitely be discussed in that article.--Rockero 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that I should have said that the EZLN is virually defunct as a guerrilla organization.  I'm certainly no expert on it, but the EZLN has essentially operated as a small NGO for most of its existance.  Aside from its first 12 days, it never has posed any real danger to the state.  In fact, I'd think that the various small "milita" groups in the US pose more of a security concern to the United States government than the EZLN poses to the Mexican government.  As a political entity, the EZLN is nowhere as infulential as the PAN, PRD, or PRI, or, for that matter, Convergence, the Green Party, the Labor Party, etc.  It seems pretty silly to give them a whole section on this page.  Just because Rage Against the Machine liked them doesn't make them powerful. --Descendall 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaipas Conflict 

message: How come the United States of America article doesn't have a section on crime and poverty? I personally hear more incidents of crime, especially school shootings and murders in the United States than in Mexico. Maybe its something to bring up at the United States talk page, but it seems a little biased to cover it here and not there. Deepstratagem 02:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime Section Bias?

message: Page is protected now, and will be protected for sometime due to vandalisms by puto's out there! Pls. Discussed it here first before making any changes to unlocking the Protected article. --Ramirez 05:30 25 August, 2006 (UTC)
: User:Rune.welsh deleted the above comment with the following edit summary "no, you did not, and watch your language please".  I am restoring the comment so that we can discuss the underlying issue and hopefully clear up Ramirez's confusion about how page protection works.
: I have to think that Ramirez is misunderstanding how protection and semi-protection works.  Perhaps he thought that he could protect the article just by adding a  tag to it.  I admit that I was one of the anon's who took off the tag last night( User:69.236.173.62).  I had to do it anonymously since trying to edit the article as a logged-in user was not a test of semi-protection (being logged in would allow me to edit despite semi-protection).  I would guess that User:67.121.243.44 thought the same way when he/she took off the tag later.
: I took off the semi-protection tag last night because, when I went to ask for the page to be unprotected, I found out that it wasn't protected in the first place.  
: The reason that I was going to request unprotection is that there is no rationale for this page to be protected at this time.  The rate of vandalism is running about 3-4 incidents a day which is manageable since this article is on a lot of watchlists including my own.  I rarely have to revert vandalism on this page because someone else usually gets to it before I even see it.
: If it hadn't been so late at night, I would have taken the time to explain to Ramirez how protection works.  I'm going to do so now.
: Only an admin has the ability to protect or semi-protect an article.  
: Relevant Wikipedia policies are Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy
: Simply slapping on a  tag on a page does NOT protect it.  If you are not an admin, you cannot protect or semi-protect the page.  That's why people kept taking the tag off.  It was stating something that wasn't true.
: If you want the page protected, go through the protection request process and an admin will consider your request.  As stated above, I do not think the rate of vandalism on this article in the past 24-48 hours warrants protection of any kind.  Moreover, Wikipedia policy is that protection should be temporary and should only be used to stop current, ongoing vandalism and not as a way of preventing possible future vandalism especially on highly watched pages such as this one.
: In any event, it is really silly to have an edit war over a   tag that doesn't actually effect a semi-protection and it's silly to have an edit war about trying to stop vandalism.  The edit war itself starts to look like vandalism after a while.
: Can we just stop it?
: Hope this helps and sorry for annoying Ramirez to the point of incivility.
: --Richard 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems rather silly that the page was actually protected because of this edit war... oh well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protected 

message: The derogatory term naco (bad-tasted), was forged by the middle and upper class Mexicans to refer to people of low class (often including loud U.S.A. tourists with a lack of cultural tact and poor morals). The term allegedly comes from the word totonaco, which is one of the ethnic groups in Valle de Mexico. Its use has been made popular even among the poorest classes. Mexicans differ in opinion about the meaning of the word. Some would use it for a person who dresses in a tacky or tasteless manner, others use it to mean a person that speaks in a non educated manner, some use it to refer to the natives, some to the poor classes, and other for people with less education or culture and other ideology. 
The term fresa (preppy), is in some terms the opposite of naco, and it is not always derogatory and means always some relative high economical status of the person termed in that way. Traditionally, people with more European looks and belonging to the middle or high classes are called fresas. Fresa in Mexico is also generally directed to describe a young woman that dresses well and likes objects that are considered adorable, for example a Hello Kitty doll. In general, a "fresa"-being is followed by a way of speaking and dressing. Nuances in the meaning are a complex subject. The term has been made popular in other Latin American countries since Mexico is the largest exporter in the region of TV productions. 
Is this important? i dont think so, can we eliminate it?
Mexxxicano
:These terms have their own articles, so all removed text could be merged there. I don't see how it could possibly fit in this article as it stands right now anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It does seem quite irrelevant. Titoxd(?!?) 06:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless text?

message: "The standard of living in Mexico is higher than most of other countries in Latin America drawing people from places like Argentina, Brazil or Cuba to the country in search for better opportunities." (under Standard of Living)
It may indeed be true that people from Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba have migrated to Mexico, I don't really know the numbers.  It seems to me though that it is suspect in this case to, in an attempt to establish that Mexico has a higher standard of living than most of Latin America, to cite three Latin American nations with comparable, if not higher standards of living.  Perhaps it would be better to mention Central American nations or other Latin American nations with which the gap is more distinct, or to better explain reasons why, for example, people would migrate from the Southern Cone to Mexico. Triphook 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it surprises me how the main source of immigrants historically (Spain, particularily during Franco's rule) is not mentioned. Titoxd(?!?) 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is anecdotical information, but may be interesting/amusing to some: I've known a handful of Argentineans and Cubans that emigrated to Mexico with the intention to become actors, with a couple actually making it into some indie movie or the odd TV ad. This motivation, of course, does not account for the totally of immigrants from those countries but I thought the coincidence to be quite curious. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inmigration 

message: The history section in this article is too long for a standard country article.  I realise that Mexico has a fabulous history, but the detail belongs in History of Mexico.  I have reviewed about 150 countries over the last 2-3 months, and the only article I have seen with a longer history section was Spain, which has been trimmed a little since I pointed out the problem there.  For example: Mexico, 11 screens; Peru, 7 screens; France, 2 screens; Japan, 4 screens.  This would help trim this article from the current bloated 87 kB. Walkerma 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%.  I think it should be divided into only 3 sections: Pre-Columbian civilizations, Colonial period, and Revolution onward.  I mean, the Zapatista movement is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of Mexican history, for inclusion on the main Mexico article (especially since it's not much of an issue any more).  --MateoP 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section too long

message: I would like to say that this article has a few good pictures! :) 172.191.128.197 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Pictures 

message: Mexico has a extremely diverse society. There are many kinds of things that affect positively the Mexican culture, such as in music, fashion, etc. Like in every other country people are open to any kind of music. For example, Mexican people like to hear hip-hop as well as reggeaton. One of the most popular genres of music is Electronic Dance Music. Many mexican teenagers and young adults like to attend places were famous Electronic djs perform their best music. Many people called them "raves", but they are not since the Mexican Government allows does kind of events to occur. The Electronic scene is growing faster and faster in the Mexican culture. However, we are still connected to our own roots, since we also like traditional Mexican genres of music (Ert383 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: On the article they are described as "walled villages", its much more comparable to an American gated community.  I live in one, it's definetly not a village, that makes it sound like a pueblito.
:Heheh.... yes I agree the proper name should be gated community. --Alonso 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraccionamientos 

message: Trademarks and Patents in México Information about Intellectual Property in México 201.139.54.204 08:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam in External Links 

message: The so-called Regions of Mexico are not an administrative division of Mexico. In fact, I've searched the INEGI site to see if there was such a classification, but I coulnd't find it (I only found a socio-economical classification of the states ). Mexico is only formed, oficially and constitutionally by 31 states and the Federal District. The regions shown in the map are totally arbitrary. --Alonso 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current redaction of the paragraph gives the impression that the regions highlighted in the map are considered "Administrative divisions". That's wrong. There is a geographical division of regions in Mexico (very similar to the one presented in the map), but it is not official, only referencial. In the public educational system they teach us about this regions, but again, everybody in Mexico know they are only referencial. The only administrative division in Mexico is Country > State > Municipality. I will produce a new map and edit the section to prevent confussion. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regions of Mexico