Talk:Mexican Army

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: There are several weapon systems currently listed in this article that are not in use by the Mexican Army (or, in some cases, in prototype stage). I't should be usefull to remove the weapons that are in prototype stage as there is either no reference to talks between SEDENA or reference in the weapon's dedicated page.
Furthermore, considering the lack of visually verifiable information we should only retain the weapons backed up by a picture of either the numerous parades during the 15th of September or pictures provided by newspapers, as the SEDENA reserves the right of declaring most of it's current operational status.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacker ARG (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok now at least we are talking. Please continue the discussion here before taking action in the article again. Also please sign your posts on the talk page with four tildes ~~~~.   Now am I to take it that you are claiming 'worldinventory.googlepages.com'is a more reliable source? Googlepages are personal websites, on the same level as geocities or a blog. In additon to the army recognition link, there is this http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1387214 as well. Apparently, much of this information was available on the SEDENA website in 2006 but I can no longer find it there. Even so, you have shown no reliable source of your own that backs up your claims, and now I have shown you two. Certainly if you are able to find reliable source stating that these weapons are not in Mexican military inventory I will relent, but as of right now you have nothing.  Oh, and if you are the same user as User:Slacker ARG, you should sign in before editing to make it easier to know who's who.  SJSA 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok that's not how wikipedia works. Please look over these wikipedia polices and guidelines: 1 and 2 Please stop making edits until you are clear on those polices and guidelines.  SJSA 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: *Well it has been a couple of days and nothing has been done to remove unfactual data from this page so I will do it myself. Wikipedia clearly says that information that is wrong or untrue needs no excuse to be removed. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Since you have not taken the time to read the polices and guidelines I have shown you I will reiterate: 
"Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." Photographs posted on a forum such as militaryphotos.net are not reliable sources.
Furthermore EVEN if they could be accepted as sources, the ONLY thing that you could prove with them was that a weapon IS in inventory, not that some weapon ISN'T in inventory simply becasue there are no pictures of it on militaryphotos.net. All of the weapons that you have tried to be removed have a citation and some have more than one. Regardless of what YOU think of their accuracy, armyrecognition.com and academic.ru CAN be used, and anything posted on an Internet forum such as militaryphotos.net CAN NOT be used. If you come up with something more reliable such as a SEDENA official website listing the complete inventory of the Mexican army feel free to use it. Please re-read the polices and guidelines especially Wikipedia:Verifiability.  SJSA 05:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I do not delete them because "I believe they are not true," I delete them because there is no reliable proof for them. The dic.academic.ru source does not substantiate it's claims with any research hence does not constitute any more of a reliable source than the Army Recognition website. For something to be considered reliable and scholarly it has to have a bibliography or a list of sources somewhere on the page where they reference where they got their information from. If they have sources then we can methodically check them to see if they are reliable or just a mere peddling of opinions found in blogs or personalized websites that aren't peer reviewed. There is some confusion as to the weaponry carried by the army because people often confuse the Army with the Navy. It is the Navy (marines) who use the UMP and it was a Marine who was carrying that G36 rifle in the picture I showed. The Mexican Air Force was also looking to purchase a couple of SU-27 Flankers and the Army had plans to domestically build the G36 rifle to become the new standard weapon but those plans were scrapped http://www.sedena.gob.mx/leytrans/petic/2006/diciembre/15122006a.html I know that just becuase there aren't pictures it doesn't mean they aren't in service. What I am stressing here is scholarship rather than mere speculation. Mexico has the money to buy almost any equipment they want but they have historically kept the armed forces very marginalized and the Mexican government to date in general has shown no true interest in having a modern army nor to give adequate funding. The Mexican Secretary of National Defence Guillermo Galván Galván has, on several occasions, complained to the senate of inadequate funding to keep the current equipment operational and in an analysis back in January 2009 by the Estado Mayor de la Defensa Nacional they concluded that if Mexico were to go to war the current Military arsenal would only hold up for 12 days of sustained combat. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/164857.html This Article shows the severe lack of vision of Mexican Beurocrats when the SEDENA proposes to buy 12 F16's to replace the obsolete F-5s: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/editoriales/42365.html Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the dic.academic.ru source does substantiate it's claims with a complete list of references at the end and your entire argument is invalid. Here are some of academic.ru's sources http://www.saorbats.com.ar/articulos/orbatMexico2006.pdf  http://www.sedena.gob.mx (website has been change to exclude information since 2006) SJSA 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing of several weapon system entries. 

message: * I thought this statement in the begining of the article is misleading: "[s]ince the early 2000s the Army has steadily modernised to become competitive with the armies of other Latin American countries. An interesting proof of the Army's increased budget is domestic production of the new FX-05 Assault Rifle." The first sentence is focused on Mexico's modernization and then the second sentence infers an increased budget (which is true and I don't dissagree with) and as proof of this the FX-05 rifle is referenced. It is to my knowledge, and to this article from the SEDENA: http://www.sedena.gob.mx/leytrans/petic/2006/diciembre/15122006a.html that the whole point of the FX-05 project was to reduce costs. So the FX-05 cannot be said to be proof of the Mexican Armed Force's increased budget if the whole point of it was to reduce costs. I am going to fix that statement in a few days if no one has any objection or other propositions. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The FX-05 proof of Mexico's increased military budget?

message: * The article needs a lot of work, but most importantly it needs to be founded and sourced on reality through scholarly rigor. We need to include history and past events and battles along with other technical data. Mexico as a Nation today considers it's pre-hispanic heritage as a cornerstone so I thought we should include at least a brief history of pre-hispanic military history (or a facsimile thereof). We should also include the history of this past century as well as the 1800's. I dont have a lot of information to post or the time to post it so I need feedback. Also someone else could take the initiative to start adding Mexico's military history to the article if I cannot do it fast enough but remember to always back up your words with scholarly or peer reviewed sources by at least following Wikipedia's guidelines: WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a lot of the history is missing -- not even brief mention of operations in Texas in the 1830's and the war between Mexico and the United States in the 1840's?  W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting to that, slowly... I'm basically translating the pages from the SEDENA website by myself (Which are dismally written to begin with and Google Translator doesn't help much). I'm using the history on the SEDENA website because it only includes battle details and it's very brief. But nonetheless there are a lot of gaps and the chronology, presentation and sentence structure is all messed up so I have to sit down for a few hours and read up on history to fill the gaps and then write and organize it all in a way that's easy to read and flows smoothly without awkward and fragmented sentences.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of History

message: * This article has downgraded into a editing war between several individuals who do not comprehend what constitutes a reliable source and me. I have tried my best to keep this article objective and I have explained, in as much detail as I can, why I make the changes that I make. While I do this, other individuals see fit to revert my edits without explaining themselves or by arrogantly stressing the supposed reliability of their two sources without ever actually coming to the discussion to prove it. It should be known that the SEDENA itself is not an infallible source as they have given contradictory information to the public in recent years: http://www.contralinea.com.mx/archivo/2005/septiembre/htm/caja+negra+sedena.htm Now if the SEDENA itself can be misleading and unreliable what are you people thinking in arguing that the Army Recognition website and the dic.academic.ru (this one appears to be a carbon copy of of Wikipedia's Mexican Army article) constitute as some sort of infallible dogma when it comes to the Mexican Armed Forces's military weapons inventory? The link that I provided in this paragraph shows the author (Jorge Torres), publisher (Revista Contralínea ), in text citations, and sources are clearly stated at the bottom of the page. Your two websites on the other hand do not show where they got their information from, they do not follow Wikipedia's WP:Reliable Sources guidelines so thus it's the reason I keep removing them. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: * I noticed that someone added the UMP submachine gun to the weapons list. This is wrong because it's the Navy who use the UMP not the army unless I am mistaken in which case I would need to see some evidence of the UMP being used under the SEDENA's (not SEMAR) jurisdiction. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to be confused with the Navy

message: There's no need for those to be there.  They do not represent the units they're associated with, they're the state flags, and city seals.  They have nothing to do with the units they're associated with beyond representing the region they're based in.  If you want to wikifi the City/state names so they link to the appropriate page, and ensure that the images are on the city/state page, then that makes sense.  It doesn't make sense to needlessly clutter a page with images.  Please see WP:Layout#Images.  Quoting the relevant line: "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can."  Also, speaking as someone who's stuck on dial-up, it adds a ton of loading time to the page for absolutely no gain.  They're not Mexican Army images.  The images you see on the US and German army pages actually are unit insignia, and are relevant. - Jonathon A H (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent image additions to the organization section 

message: The Mexican Army has grown quite a bit since the 2001, here is the link to a official document with an updated size figure, circa 2009:
http://www.informe.gob.mx/informe/pdf/1_8.pdf
So refrain yourselves to change the article to the long surpassed 130,000 size figure for the Mexican Army.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.23.62 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no dispute that the army has grown in size since 2001, the problem is that the increase has never had a reliable citation.  The document you provided is good, but the problem is that the 192,000 figure, while entirely believable, is still not supported.  The number given is 202,355 as a combined total for the army and the subordinate air force branch.  Could you point out or otherwise clarify where the figures for the army come from in that document?  - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army size 

message: Y'all might want to include that the Mexican Special Forces, I think, are using the Israeli-made Cornershot with Glock attachment.
Seen here: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/Moyocoyatzin/6e680b87007da94800yt2.jpg
I can't find the picture but the Special Forces of Mexico also uses the Barrett M95, this was seen at one of the latest parades. No older than 2008, probably 2009 though. So, y'all might want to look into that. The picture I saw was definately on militaryphotos.net though.
And a cool picture of their Panhard VBLs: http://www.platforms-mil.de/Bilder/Panhard%202009%20-%20VBL_MK2_KONGSBERG_15%20copie2.jpg
Brody Kennen (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Weapons 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:MSG-90SDN.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: It is stated that Mexico has not "suffered a major terrorist incident".  That is not correct.  There have been very many terrorist attacks, mostly carried out by drug cartels.124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which attacks exactly? ComputerJA (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Aztecs: 'Giving out signals using coats of arms was very common.'  According to wikipedia, a coat of arms is a unique heraldic design on a shield/escutcheon or on a surcoat/tabard used to cover and protect armour and to identify the wearer. Somehow, I don't think that Aztec warriors had coats of arms. Even if they did, one wonders how they could have been used to signal!
War of Independence: Size of Insurgent Army at different stages doesn't seem to tally with figures quoted in other wikipedia articles. Also, disagreement as to when elements of the Queen's Dragoons joined rebels.
Modern Army: 44 Zones, yet 45 listed! Even worse the Spanish site says 46 zones! It is hard to see how each zone has at least a btn (at least that is how I read wording). Discrepancy in number of each type of unit between English and Spanish wiki articles; I accept that armies are continually being restructured and thus two separate snapshops would have differences, but looking at infantry btns, one says 18, the other 106! The higher (spanish) figure makes more sense when you consider the allocation to zones. [The 18 looks like a typo to me]
As a reminder, if you are going to quote an order of battle, make sure you include the date of the order of battle.Glevum (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mexican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091125142946/http://www.fuerzasmilitares.org:80/multimedia/new_amigos/mexico_20091031_sedena/2009.html to http://www.fuerzasmilitares.org/multimedia/new_amigos/mexico_20091031_sedena/2009.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mexican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140709141114/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2F68%2F138 to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2F68%2F138
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mexican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307180616/http://www.mexico.vg/mexicos-armed-forces/mexican-military-gets-an-upgrade-in-pay-and-combat-support/2917 to http://www.mexico.vg/mexicos-armed-forces/mexican-military-gets-an-upgrade-in-pay-and-combat-support/2917
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804130111/http://www.elmanana.com.mx/notas.asp?id=66100 to http://www.elmanana.com.mx/notas.asp?id=66100
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I am looking at this and I just realized that there is no existing link for the Mexican Army's units. Can someone please make the articles? I would do it myself, but I can't due to restrictions set on my computer. Faith15 16:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican Units 

message: What the title says, should it be on it's own page. A large number of militaries (Argentine Army, Republic of Korea Army, Danish Army, ect) have a brief summary of equipment and a separate page that lists it. It would also allow for images to be included in the tables and so on without making the main page seem too long. There is a draft at Draft:List of equipment of the Mexican Army that things have been put into. Shaws username (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment to it's own page? 

message: The "National Defense" is another armed force different from the Mexican army. 189.219.64.123 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Defense