Talk:Mexico/Archive 3

message: I just want to make sure that no one made a mistake.
-G
:United Mexican States; also see Toponymy of Mexico. Corticopia 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United Mexican States -or- United States of Mexico?

message: The table shows 19 million people in Mexico City, but the Mexico City page says 36,720,916.  That's an awful lot more!  On the Mexico City page, that 19 million is just the suburbs ("greater Mexico City").  I wonder which one is correct?  And are the numbers for the other cities correct? Xezlec 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the figures shown in this page are those reported from the 2005 Census. Of course a mischievous user can change them arbitrarily, and it might take a while before someone notices the changes and reverts them back to the official figures. In any case, you may want to follow the link provided to INEGI's Conteo 2005 report. --the Dúnadan 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Xezlec 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  population figures 

message: what? which is the  source? ive searched but there isnt a source that show that this statement is a fact.
Its probably just an opinion. Nevertheless it is one of the most influential bands of the country. Should we chage it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegofrgc (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 June 2007
It is really (and thats a shame) the most known mexican band.  They are considerable popular in Germany for example, where their latest CD was reviewed in many of the most important specialized magazines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.86.108 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  maná the most known mexican band? 

message: I deleted a claim about the muncipality of San Pedro in economy section, due to the fact it has not a source the source it used to have; source Doesn't content the right caraceteristics to be considered as a source. And the first source; 2004 UNPD Mexico Report on HDI source 2 specifies clearly the first claim and never specifies the second claim, wich is probably true but as i said the source doesn't the caracteristics to be considered as so since you need an Spanish account to get the information. If somebody has a source wich specifies the claims i deleted please paste as soon as possible. Cheers--Raveonpraghga 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this discussion before... A newsgroup of wide circulation (like Reforma) is a reliable source and is allowed to be referenced in wikipedia. In fact, this sort of sources are recommended over blogs and other unreputed websites. You are attitude throughout the last few months makes me suspect that you are in a personal vendetta against Monterrey and/or in favor of Guadalajara. This has motivated you to make vandalistic edits instead of constructive ones (with proper english and reputable sources). I again encourage you to increase the level of your edits, and not be moved only by regionalistic emotions with no wikipedic quality. Hari Seldon 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hari is right. Reforma is a perfectly valid source. And the report that says San Pedro Garza García has the second HDI in Mexico is true. It was in the news also. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: As some of you know, I am a web designer and I started contributing here in Wikipedia because I wanted to improve the quality of the graphics used (I started with the Mexican Flag). So I would like to a make a list of the graphical material that might be needed to improve the article. Please, help me make a list. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not for this article, but I would certainly appreciate a graphical revamp of Pipo. I would do it myself, except that I am not in Monterrey and graphics offshore are hard to find. Hari Seldon 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I have any picture about Pipo, but I think I can do something about it, just tell me exactly what you need. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of doing it myself, but I am not an expert in Graphic Design (as my low-quality maps show). But can you make a map of the world highlighting in any color (say green) the countries with which Mexico has a free trade agreement? You can review the list of countries at: Economy_of_Mexico#Trade. Just don't forget that the European Union must include all 27 members (including the recently admitted Bulgaria and Romania; for a list of all 27 members see: EU#Member_states). --theDúnadan 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I included the FTAs map in the article Economy of Mexico. I also created a new map with the HDI of each state. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical material that might be needed 

message: As all of we know, there are two basic models applied to the American continent:
# America is a single continent, divided in North, Central, Caribbean and South.
# The Americas, with two separate continents, North America (Can, US, Mex and Central America) and South.
I created the article North America (Americas) that is about the region/subcontinent of the American continent. It was nominated for deletion because they say it is the same as North America (meaning continent). Both articles are about different subjects.
Please READ the evidence, comment and vote here. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North America as a region of America (continent)

message: Is prostitution legal in Mexico? What exactly are the laws, what is allowed and what isn't? -Mike Payne 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true. Prostitution is legal in Mexico. In Tijuana, for instance, prostitutes must be registered and pass periodical medical exams. --FateClub 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like in the United States, prostitution is regulated locally. It is illegal in some States, and legal in others. However, in Mexico, laws are often enforced discretionally, in all States. Hari Seldon 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Prostitution is in fact legal. What is illegal is  white slavery. Andy Rosenthal 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that and prostitution of children. --FateClub 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostitution 

message: Hey guys, I was thinking that the table with all the states' info is kinda repetitive (and looooong), since the main article already has one. What about creating a more visual-appealing table, with the map of states and only the state name and extension?
It is just that the current table is really long, I don't know... I think I can do create a more beutiful table. What do you think? Or perhaps a clickable map with the name of the states? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make two maps. One for the entire country, then a zoomed-in map for central Mexico. How on Earth am I going to be able to click on Tlaxcala, if Chihuahua is small as it is? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe, that map size wasn't the suggested size, I just put it there as an example of the old colored map. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You know what? I have noticed that even if there is no official regionalization of the states, the typical arrangement is not controversial, since there is a long tradition in Mexico about grouping states in a particular region. I have always lived in Mexico and with no doubt I can tell you that, for example, no people from Zacatecas would complain if their state is grouped in "El Bajío" region, because everybody know that. But they will complain if the region is included in "Northeast", because traditionally the state is not linked with this region. However I understand your concern and your opinion. Coloring the states could be another solution, but it will look wierd, because there are 31 states. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well yeah, I guess using regions could be kinda tricky. It is just that a colored map using regions looks more appealing. Well, I think I can think about something else about the coloring of the map, because I want it to be really professional looking. About the municipalities map, wow, it would be a really hard job (some states have more than 100), but I guess I can do it, patiently. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 02:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though I like the map, I was very disappointed to see that you divided the country into regions in your final version. You will find no references to support them. The only temporarily "official" regional division (only for development programs) was that created by Fox of five "Mesoregiones", which do not even resemble the regions you made up and which worked [if at all] from 2001-2006. I don't know what to say man. I have already tried to explain why regions are not only subjective, controversial but also constitute WP:OR simply because they do not exist. Since we have already discussed this issue in January (see here) and it was decided by all users to eliminate the old map of regions, I think you should re-think this issue again, and if you still want to pursue this matter, at least open a poll in order to change what constituted a loose consensus in January. --theDúnadan 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map can be changed. I will design a colored map with no region highlighting. It was very late and I was sleepy! Hey, I want to ask you, why you changed the map position? I think it looks better, more "book-looking" or "encylopedia-looking". AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I really like the new map Alex created and I congratulate him for his work. The article is improving in quality and design. Thanks for your valuable contributions. --theDúnadan 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Dúnadan, I appreciate it. I just finished a smaller version of the map that will fit the layout I want to give to the subarticle. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative Divisions Map 

message: I know that the SVG file is vectorial, so it can be resized. However, it is not a very extended file format and regular users can't really use it or edit it. Also the SVG version (a conversion, not an original file) has lower quality and the details of the COA are lost. Please comment/vote on this:
<-PNG  <-SVG
* Should we use the PNG version until a better/equal quality image is provided?
Please click the images and take a look at the higher resolutions available. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms (PNG vs. SVG) 

message: Given the above discussion, I have another rewording proposal. No qualifiers for the regions and noting NA as a continent.
:Mexico is situated in the south portion of the North American continent. Its territory lies in the regions of Middle America and North America. Physiographically, the lands east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec including the Yucatán Peninsula (which together comprise around 12% of the country's area) lie within the region of Central America. Geologically, the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt delimits the region on the north.[9] Geopolitically, however, Mexico is generally not considered a Central American country and its southern border with Belize and Guatemala delimits the region.
AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support this: the first line was largely to accommodate for the fact that it is in the Americas above all and in its mid-portion (general to specific).  Your prior proposals are more palatable.  And, if this holds, the prior poll and consensus -- not to mention the time investment -- meant absolutely nothing.  Again, this is wholly disconcerting.  Bye for now.  Corticopia 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you didn't get it. Above, I said it was just a proposal and that I did understand both yours and Dúnadan comments, in regard that this debate was not about the elimination of the line "Mexico is located in the mid-latitudes..." Ok? I did get it. That line is gonna be kept. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely 'got it' ... and stated as much above about 'slight differences' between the two of you in discussion points.  Here, I merely consolidated my comments because (1) the one reference dealt with other points too (e.g., the (sic) 'wierd' isthmus assertion) and (2) latitude. :)  More later ...Corticopia 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: ok then, I'll mention my edits here, though I think it's very silly because people make edits all the time without mentioning them on the talk page (dividing the history section in two sections for example, the one I rolled back):
History and Etymology should be two different sections, because it are two different subjects. The "Pre-Columbian Civilizations and Origin of the Name" is not about Pre-Columbian civilizations at all, but only about etymology while "European Colonization and Independence" deals with the entire history instead of just the European colonization and independence. Also the article "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire" is not the main article about that subject, but only about a part of it (apart from that it's a non-functioning redirect).
Finally the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is simply not important enough to mention on the history section of this article. Out of all the things that happened during the Fox administration the SPPNA is really not one of the most important facts. Better mention it in the History of Mexico article, which needs to be revamped anyway. Mixcoatl 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your edits. Thanks. --theDúnadan 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with all your edits, but the deletion of the SPP of NA. I think it is a political agreement that will play an increasingly important role in nowadays and future politics of the North American region. Perhaps it can be relocated, let me read the whole article again. For now, I added it back. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: In a recent edition, the first paragraph was changed. That change implied that the 2000 presidential election was the first time [ever] that an opossition party defeated the "ruling party" (PRI). That is totally wrong. The PAN and the PRD have already defeated the PRI in municipal and state elections before 2000. This year was the first time the PRI was defeated in a presidential race. That's all. Please, see the changes . AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [..]please realize that the article says "first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) at the national presidential race". It implies that in 1929 the PRI was the ruling party and it was defeated, neither is correct.[...] --FateClub 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to say that 2000 was the first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the ruling party in a presidential election. That would be more accurate. Hari Seldon 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000: the first time the opposition defeated the PRI? 

message: Why was semi-protection removed? Vandalism to this article has increased. Please semi-protect this article again! Hari Seldon 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Articles like this should probably be left semi-protected, just like United States. It is wearing, tiresome and frustrating to be reverting vandalism all day long, and it discourages honest and hard-working editors from improving or even participating in Wikipedia. --the Dúnadan 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: I agree as well. Keep the Semi-protection on. --Ramírez 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Just take a look at the history of this article and you'll see it has been protected so many times. It should be permanently semi protected. AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, as soon as it was left unprotected I had two revert two edits within minutes. --FateClub 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism has increased today, since the article got unprotected. Can somebody tell me if it is already listed in the Request protection page? AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Motivation for vandalism aside, how do we semi-protect the article again? Hari Seldon 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need to talk to an administrador and explain him the problem. Supaman89 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just finished asking semi-protection. Next time you want to do it, go here. AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Man, I can't believe they keep vandalising the page, even though have their user names. Supaman89 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection

message: In order to provide a fast way of showing the correct link to each political party article, and to show its initials and colors, I have created the following templates. Originally, the actual official logo was going to be used, but those logos were uploaded with a "fair use" license, and Wikipedia explicitly forbbids the use of such images in templates. So I created generic symbols, with the party initials and colors, as done in the Mexican press and media. AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 08:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally somebody reliped! Thanks Dúnadan, I hope people start using them. AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexican parties templates

message: Hey, guys I just wanted to show you the new template that I just made for all users from Mexico, if anyone wants to use it, please feel free to do so, now we have two choices instead of just one. Supaman89 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sup guys, look at my new template

message: Hello members of the discussion board. I'd like to submit for consideration adding an external link to [www.esmexico.com], which is an external website that contains a photographic database of all Mexico. The photos are do not comply with the GNU license, so I'm not able to just add them to Wiki images, but given the number of photos that it has (currently 11,000), it makes for an excelent visual database.
I'm a new member in the English version of Wikipedia, but have been a contributor to the Spanish version of Wikipedia on articles related to Mexico and its geography (user name is the same as here) for over a year. This external link was discussed and aproved in the Spanish language article of Mexico, and it's included as Base de Datos de Fotos de México on the External Links.
As a final note I'd like to add that it features 11,000 photos of geography and culture related images and historical (antique) pictures of Mexico. On top of these, we feature over 4,000 antique Mexican postcards. Altogether there are more than 15,000 images. More than any other website around, including goverment and tourism pages.--Esmexico 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographic database (external link) 

message: Did anyone request this page to be unprotected? This page gets constant vandalism everyday. Shouldn't it be permanently protected à la United States or George Bush?? --the Dúnadan 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But nobody unprotected the article. Last time an admin semi-protected it, used a temporary SP, and he said it will get unprotected by this date. All we can do is request SP again and make clear this article need permanent SP. I'll fill the request. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I reported and just minutes ago an admin granted indefinitely semi-protection. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much needed Hari Seldon 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who unprotected this page

message: I recently deleted the sources for Filipino Mexicans and added them to the list with other Asian peoples in Mexico (Chinese, Korean, etc.) One source read as follows:
( Following the Third World War and the Mexican conquest of the United States territories to its north, the liberal Mexican government resettled Hispanophone Filipino refugees from their camps in the East Indian Commonwealth to the promising if underpopulated northwestern states of greater Mexico. More quickly than Korean-Mexicans, the Filipino immigrant communities of the California and Sonora are quickly mixing with their native-born Mexican neighbours, due to the Filipinos' knowledge of Spanish and their Catholicism. )
First of all, who in the world really acknowledges that there has been a third world war? And when were the U.S.'s territories ever 'conquered' by Mexico??? These are not very good sources...just read them. They say nothing about what these people are trying to back up. 
Also, the Filipinos mixed in quicker than Koreans because of prior Spanish skills? Filipinos have virtually no knowledge of Spanish...let's find some real sources, besides what's wrong with adding them into the list with other Asians..why not show how many Chinese or Japanese immigrants there have been...Such a small group like Filipinos  really have no consequence in Mexico anyway. signed Cali567 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramírez, you might want to check your own language. Cali's comments are not racist, and you have attacked him by calling him "ignorant" and implicitly "racist". I think it is you who needs to be careful with the language and your choice of words. Besides, you are not administrator, so you cannot block anyone. Threatening to block other users is definitely a lack of etiquette; Cali has done nothing that would merit a block, but most importantly, you can't do it yourself. Wikipedia is the place of neutral point of views. Claims that cannot be sourced must be erased, especially if new sources contradict those claims. After you've done your research, then the information could be added to article. --the Dúnadan 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Filipino Mexicans? 

message: I find it interesting that the reference to the number of adherents of Islam in Mexico was removed as well as the Mexicans of African ancestry.
-Ken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.17.215.235 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were removed because they seemed to be personal estimations. Neither the census nor the demographics bureaus in Mexico classify population according to ethnicity, except when it comes to Indigenous peoples. So there is no official estimation whatsoever about the number of Afro-Mexicans. The last report on religion, by INEGI, does nor report Muslims (they might have been classified as "others", but that would include Buddhists as well, so we cannot tell how many (in number) people are Muslim in Mexico, at least, not officially. You might be able to find a reliable source on Muslims in Mexico from an external non-profit organization (maybe the UN, I don't know), and that could be cited as a non-official estimation. --the Dúnadan 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam?  

message: Where are these codes coming from? They are neither INEGI (national official) nor ISO 3166-2 (international official).
The official abbreviations per INEGI are:
Ags.
BC
BCS
Camp.
Chis.
Chih.
Coah.
Col.
DF
Dgo.
Gto.
Gro.
Hgo.
Jal.
Mex.
Mich.
Mor.
Nay.
NL
Oax.
Pue.
Qro.
Q. Roo
SLP
Sin.
Son.
Tab.
Tamps.
Tlax.
Ver.
Yuc.
Zac.
It may be useful also to order the states alphabetically.
Rodulfo 04:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide your INEGI source (a link, if you have it), and be bold, and edit yourself. Hari Seldon 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Alex created 2-letter abbreviations so that they could fit on the map (i.e. Tamps. was too long). If it is just a matter of space, then I propose that we use the ISO 2-letter codes.--the Dúnadan 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did the abbreviations come from? I have never seen that abbreviations used in México. (I am Mexican) They look more like the US States 2-Letter abbreviations applied to the mexican states. But that is not used in Mexico. I think they should be removed. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abreviaturas_en_M%C3%A9xico 15.227.137.71 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  codes (abbreviations) for states 

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have decided to fail the article at this time. The article needs a lot more inline citations, as there are currently almost none in the Toponymy, History, Topography, Climate, Political configuration, Administrative divisions, and Culture sections. There are also spacing issues with inline citations and punctuation; the inline ciations should go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. I also don't think that the article is stable enough at this time with the current request for mediation. Once the above issues are addressed along with the rest of the criteria, and the article stable again, please consider renominating the article again. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Good Article Review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the citations for Toponymy, History, Politics and administrative divisions. Maybe somebody can work on the rest. --the Dúnadan 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: IVE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ALWAYS ERASE MEXICAN PICTURES. WE KNOW YOU HATE LATIN AMERICA AND YOU WANT TO SEE IT FUCKED UP, I DONT CARE WHY. LETS NEGOCIATE ONCE IN FOR ALL WHAT STAYS IN THE PAGE AND WHAT DOESNT. AT LEAST KEEP 15 PICTURES IN THE GALLERY. I KNOW YOU DONT WANT TO MAKE THIS A TOURIST PAGE, I DONT KNOW WHY. BUT THIS PAGE ALREADY HAS INFORMATION, SO THEIRS NO BIG DEAL IF THEY ARE PICTURES. THIS PAGE REPRESENTS AND ENTIRE COUNTRY WHO IS TIRED OF STEOREOTYPING. WE MEXICO WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW A NEW MODERN MEXICO, A BEAUTIFUL MEXICO WERE THEY CAN SEE THAT MEXICO IS A GOOD COUNTRY. I DONT WHY YOU GET ANGRY ABOUT PICTURES OF MNEXICO, YOUVE ERASED EVERYTHING IVE DONE WITHOUT NEGOCIATE. KEEP THE BEACHES, BUT ARRANGE IT LIKE YOU PLEASE. IF YOU SEE ARTICLES LIKE FRANCE, ENGLAND, YOU CAN SEE ALOT OF PICTURES SO KEEP PICTURES. ECONOMY IS IMPORTANT TO SEE THE SANTA FE DISTRICT IN MEXICO CITY BECAUSE ITS THE RICHIEST FINANCIAL DISTRICT OF MNEXICO CITY AND REPRESETS ALOT IN THE ECONOMY.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokolate (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 June 2007
: What Wikipedia is not a gallery of pictures. That is what the Wikimedia Commons are for. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerahad Jerahad Jerahad Jerahad LETS DISCUSS ABOUT MEXICO. 

message: I agree with this guy. I saw the picture gallery and it was pretty good. Wikipedia is everyone's. I wonder if the people working on this article are mexican, otherwise I don't know what's wrong with showing the world what Mexico is like. Mexico is more than those pictures shown, Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons but a few pictures of Mexico won't hurt anyone will it? Let's not worry about it... the picture gallery will be back. Let's see who gives up first and if you guys have a real good reason then go ahead and explain why the gallery was deleted. Dragon Lost In Mexico 04:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Que los editores del artículo sean mexicanos o rusos no tiene absolutamente nada que ver. (Y sí, soy mexicano.) La galería no es ni necesaria, ni está de acuerdo con las políticas de Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures Of Mexico 

message: I´m Mexican and I can say that most of mexicans are not white, only a minority are. I look white, but I´m mestizo, because I have indian heritage. Only about 10-15% of Mexicans are mostly white (like me, because I´m mixed race, but I look white) is an exaggeration to say that 35-40% of mexicans are mostly white. That is the percentage of countries like Chile or Brazil. And if you go to those countries you can see a lot of white people, but in Mexico, usually only the people from the upper class are white. ( The Mexican media are irreal, most of Mexicans are not like the ones showed in telenovelas, and advertising). But not all are dark, like Americans think.
- It all depends where you live. Go to a private school or to an affluent area and youll see that most people are white, or at least castizo (3/4 european ancestry). Most people dont realize that Mexico still uses the Caste system. Maybe we should write ´bout it
:Mexico does not use the Caste system in any way. Please compare the caste system in India. --the Dúnadan 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny, because if I watch "Telenovelas", Televisa or TV Azteca, the great majority of actors and actresses, and I mean the GREAT majority are white, not Mesitzo, and of course, not Amerindian. So, my "appreciation" after watching TV (except probably Canal 40, 22 and OnceTV), is that the great majority of Mexicans are white. In fact, Mexican television has been criticized abroad for not representing the "true" Mexico, the Mestizo Mexico that a foreigner sees when he goes to the streets, not only Monterrey, which is only 4% of the total Mexican population, but the Mexico of Acapulco, Cancun, Guadalajara, Tijuana, Cd. Juárez, Torreón, Puebla and León. Maybe you should go out more often, and I mean, out of the White sector of Monterrey. Don't go that far, just go to Linares. But it really doesn't matter. Neither your appreciation nor mine should be stated here. Only verifiable sources. After all, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth (or "our" perception of truth) but verifiability. If you have a solid source to back up your claims, then, by all means, add it. --the Dúnadan 23:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely this issue ought to be resolved by reliable sources on the demographic make-up of Mexico, not by competing anecdotes.  Also, anon, please don't yell.  john k 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, this issue ought to be resolved by "reliable sources". Now, the Mexican Census Bureau does not classify population according to ethnicity except for Amerindians (which officially make up 12% of total population), and Mestizo is defined in Mexico as an individual with both Amerindian and European ancestry regardless of their physical features (they might look White or Amerindian). The ethnic figures shown in this article come from the CIA Factbook (30% of predominantly Amerindians and 9% Whites, 60% Mestizo), Mexican Census Bureau (12% Amerindians) and Britannica (15% White and 15% Amerindian, 70% Mestizo). By WP:Verifiability, threshold for inclusion is verifiability. In my personal experience these figures seem correct, in the anon's experience they seem incorrect. But threshold for inclusion is not "truth" (that is, what he or I perceive to be "true"), but what can be verified in reputable sources. That is why we (me and many other users) have repeatedly reverted the anon's and User:Onichivi's edits here and in Demography of Mexico, but the task is insurmountable: s/he has changed the ethnicity figures of many of the constituent states' articles! I have already warned Onichivi to stop reverting without justification. The anon uses a dynamic IP, so I didn't warn him. Arguably, they could be the same user. --the Dúnadan 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me that at this point, some sort of disciplinary action ought to be taken against the anon. john k 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:Verifiability. --the Dúnadan 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  35-40% Mexicans white??? 

message: Hello!--- Just to point out that the first official declaration of independence occurred on September 13, 1813, by the Congress of Chilpancingo, under José María Morelos; the very same Congress passed a bill declaring September 16 as a national holiday for the beginning of the Independence War. I suggest we should make that distinction in the summary of the article. Louie 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence Day 

message: Doesnt Mexico own some islands im sure it does I have heard of them ,but im not sure of there names or were they are?
:Several dozen islands (or more). Do you mean archipelagos? If that is the case then Mexico owns the Revillagigedo and the Islas María archipelagos. --the Dúnadan 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Islands