Talk:Economic history of Mexico

message: This shouldn't be speedy deleted. It's public domain text from the library of congress. Please see http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/mxtoc.html the source for all text in the article.  The other site happens to use this public domain text as well.  --Bkwillwm 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

message: :Image:Time Magazine Dec 20 1982 Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Time Magazine Dec 20 1982 Cover.jpg

message: Mexico now lags 47 years in income.
In Felipe Calderon's government, the minimum salary took a loss of 43.1%. Prices would have to remain frozen for 47 years to recover the lost buying power.
And 46.88% of mexican families have three family members working, to get same income as one person got 25 years ago. 
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/09/10/economia/030n2eco
First sentece has no sources. Link for second sentence has no primary source. It would also be desirable to see a similar study from another source.
The article is based on egg prices which rose globaly independently of other food's prices http://www.theworld.org/2012/09/eggs-in-short-supply-prices-rising/)
It is not valid or relevant.
comment added by StratoWarrior (talk
=== Answer ===
Everything was sourced. Stop deleting stuff using unrelated sources (as you did, linking to an article about egg prices as your source) or I'll report you. You already deleted the added info multiple times. 
Inrockuptible (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not unrelated. What I'm saying is that the article you are using is not a reliable source. Read the study. In it they base Income on ability to buy eggs, but egg prices raised globally independently of everything else as they showed in the article, here's another one http://www.businessinsider.com/egg-prices-2012-9. LA Jornada article is just wrong and that publication shouldn't qualify as a reliable source. I'll wait for your reply for a couple of weeks before deleting the article.
StratoWarrior (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Here http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/estudios/indican_indi/indica_v25iv12.pdf, it shows Iflation Adjusted income did not change. This is an official source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StratoWarrior (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of income 

message: Everything was sourced. Stop deleting stuff using unrelated sources (as you did, linking to an article about egg prices as your source) or I'll report you. You already deleted the added info multiple times. 
Inrockuptible (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not unrelated. What I'm saying is that the article you are using is not a reliable source. Read the study. In it they base Income on ability to buy eggs, but egg prices raised globally independently of everything else as they showed in the article, here's another one http://www.businessinsider.com/egg-prices-2012-9. LA Jornada article is just wrong and that publication shouldn't qualify as a reliable source. I'll wait for your reply for a couple of weeks before deleting the article.
StratoWarrior (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Here http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/estudios/indican_indi/indica_v25iv12.pdf, it shows Iflation Adjusted income did not change. This is an official source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StratoWarrior (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer 

message: Undoing this. 
So, latest news is that there are 97 million poors in Mexico (80% of the population), and you insist that because the Government says so, that income has stayed the same, that's the truth??
You still insist on focusing on egg prices, oblivious to the fact that Mexico has the priciest gasoline in the whole world! You are oblivious to so many things, razor-focused on this single thing, closed to all other things.
It's like if Obama said "no, we are not spying Mexico", that's the truth?  
(He is spying on Mexico, btw).
First of all, I listed TWO sources, one of them was El Universal, La Jornada was the other one. I also have listed as sources: Milenio, ADNPolitico and Carmen Aristegui.
But you focus on La Jornada, "those damn agigators" you might say.
I agree that La Jornada is SEEN as having a bias against the government, but of course they will be seen as "agitators", they well be seen as the bad guys, since they are an island, lost in a sea of "me toos" (Loret Jr., Brozo, all the TV puppets, etc). 
90.7 million poor Mexicans have to live with Televisa and TV Azteca, gettint drilled on his head, getting repeating ad-nauseaum messages 24 hours a day that Peña Nieto "is so handsome", HIDING that he couldn't even mention 3 books! 
No one at Televisa mentioned this blunder, NO ONE. "This didn't happen"... No one at TV Azteca said a thing about this. No one in the radio stations run by those companies said a single thing. It didn't happen?...
Sadly, La Jornada and Proceso are two of the ONLY reliable media sources in Mexico, they have escaped from the corruption that runs freely in Mexico and the huge, rampant corruption of the Mexican Government, I think you'll agree with that, 
Mexico's corruption is only above that of Nigeria!. 
All other media sources where responsible for Peña Nieto's getting elected, all the other newspapers and their poll companies reported a big error in their polls. And to add to this, Proceso today in their website lists all the ways that Peña Nieto has failed to do any good to the country, freeing famous drug lords, freeing Raúl Salinas and returning him his 200 TWO HUNDRED! bank accounts, and of course the selling of Pemex.
I listed TWO sources, one of them was El Universal, La Jornada was the other one. I also have used other sources.
But you only focus on La Jornada, shielding yourself behind "the government says the truth".
Example of the nation-wide corruption, check this: 2012 was a year with strong election coverage, followed closely online. The following is a list of Media (News, Print, TV) companies, their surveys companies and their difference in their forecast against the real results:
    UNO TV: 1.73% error difference against real results.
    Grupo Reforma: 3.93% error
    Televisa, poll company Mitofsky: 8.59% error!
    Excélsior, poll company Ulises Beltrán: 9.93% error!
    El Sol de México, poll company Parametría: 9.13% error!
    El Universal, poll company Buendía y Laredo: 11.03% error!
    Grupo Fórmula, poll company Con Estadística: 11.63% error!
    IPSOS-BIMSA, poll company 12.33% error!
    El Financiero: 20.2% error!!!!!!
Honestly it still surprised me why you keep insisting on not reporting things as they truly are.  
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inrockuptible (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer by Inrocks 

message: Hello as i was reading this article i noticed there was a severe lack of sources especially for much of the technical data.  I added a few citation neededs but i also saw that someone had cited urban society chapter 2 by saying "(see urban society chapter 2)"  I wasn't able to find what they were referring to but if someone could figure that out and cite it correctly using the Wikipedea way that would be great. the cite i am referring to is in the Mexican Miracle section.  Also if you do find it go ahed and correct the one on the Mexican miracle page it looks like the same guy wrote it because it has the exact same citation to urban society chapter 2. Thanks 
Sunfishtommy (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: "Since 1910 to this day, the Mexican peso has devalued 7,500%"??? Pardon me, but that's nonsense, unless you really meant that 100 pesos put into a bank account 1910 is worth -7400 pesos today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devalued 7,500%???