Talk:Mexico/Archive 2

message: Has anyone seen "BABEL" yet, what do you think about this film?, do you think it promotes stereotypes about the Mexican society?, cuz I think it does, and being Mexican myself I couldn't feel more insulted by that movie, everything from the music that they listen to, the wedding, the way they dress, is totally absurd, because of that kind of crap is that people think we live in towns, kill chickens, carry a gun and wear sombreros. --Supaman89
Yes let´s accept it any one fears to go to the board of Mexico, drugdealers kill people. the presidents give a worst reputation to the mexicans rather than an artistic film.
It is our reality Dude think, Dont you wath TV or news? And the Board with the US is still today like Speedy Gonzalez or popeyes cartoons. Yes guys with guns and sombrero, in ugly houses like in the 50s theres no evolution since then.
Sorry but the truth is Mexicans live like that at least the 75% of the population, the 8% lives richly but What is the cost? to have a poor market without serve the real needs of the mexicans.
President Calderon wishes to have an agreement with president Bush, conclution send more poor people to the US to reproduce like rabbits. Poor people has about 8 kids, Do they know condoms exist? and educated people has what? 2 kids. Mexico city is like  a country town and people lives like that not with chickens but the same miserable way stucked into traffic. And we should be proud of cowboys, and about real country lifestyle, to understand what a real farm is not a ranch in mexico with a ford mustang or a truck and with no water, and sickened cows what comes out to be the real mexican country life. 
: The US media's endless stereotyping of Mexico and its' people (Mexican Americans) has damaged the social status of US Hispanics (or American Latinos, depends on what title to use is appropriate or P-C to many people). If the American people in the US opposed such negative portrayals and exaggerations of racial and national minorities, and other cultures (African-Americans, Asians, Jews, Arabs, Native Americans, white ethnics like Irish or Italians or Poles, Southern rural whites, homosexuals and the disabled), how come it remains acceptable to offend or defame Mexicans and other Latin Americans? The Babel movie, if done by accident or some of their writers hold prejudice on Mexicans, seems to depict the country and people as backward, criminal, dirty, happy (or "child like"), lazy, macho (i.e. Latin males harass white Anglo women), patriarchal, submissive, uneducated and violent "non-European race" of "brown people". I mean in the year 2006, the Hispanic/Latin American countries and peoples are targeted like this by TV, movies, cartoons and comedy clubs like it's allowed for the US or "white Americans" generalize what or how they view Mexico, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central or South Americans, etc. I don't think it's racist or nativist to view Mexico a "third world" country, but Mexico is geographically and historically in North America like the US and Canada are, and I thought the US has a diplomatic friendship with Mexico as a war ally (but neutral), tourist destination and trade partner. The Mexican people may have their own ideas or stereotypes of Americans, Europeans and other nations (Guatemalans,  Salvadorans or Hondurans come to Mexico or as a springboard to enter the US gets bad ethnic/national jokes in Mexican media), but so far most Mexicans, esp. immigrants and multi-generational Americans of Mexican descent, don't view America as full of "cowboy racists", "yanqui imperialists" or "moneyed gringos". It's true at this time, a wave of kidnappings of American tourists and businessmen is gonna affect the tourist industry Mexico depends on, but it has a diversified economy (unless for hotel resorts on the coasts). 63.3.14.1 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Babel is a Mexican-US coproduction, it was written and directed by Mexicans. Indeed, I don't feel that it promotes a stereotype, as some people in Mexico do live that way, though not all... Hari Seldon 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think the movie promotes the classic misleading stereotype because there is no reference making clear that is not the only way Mexicans live. It suggests that all Mexicans are like that. Even if this wasn't made on prupose, however it sadly promotes a stereotype because of the lack of clarification. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter! The movie isn't part of the article! Anyway, the move depicts stereotypes, but it doesn't promotes them. In any case, it criticize them. Hari Seldon 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BABEL MOVIE

message: I noticed this article was missing a geography section despite already having a subpage for it. I grabbed the intro from the subpage - but someone that knows Mexico should expand and rewrite.  Kmusser 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: I've added a to-do up top to get a general idea of what needs to be improved. What needs to be expanded, what needs to be tweaked, sourced, etc. Try to be specific, if possible. W3stfa11 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: todo

message: In the second paragraph:
"Mexico is very gay and all of the god damn wetbacks that live there take it deep."
I find this horribly offensive and profoundly incorrect.
:That is vandalism and should be removed.Hari Seldon 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find this horribly offensive and profoundly incorrect.  

message: Reference:  Culture Roman Catholic  There is a reference to the percentage of romain catholics here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html
--JMWTech 03:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference:  Culture Roman Catholic 

message: What is up with that??, is it just me or Mexico seems to be the only article that has such section, I don't see one in the articles of Brazil, USA, India, Ukraine, South Africa, etc. and those countries have like the same or a bigger crime rate than Mexico, so you decide, whether we start including a "Crime Section" in all those countries, or we take it off from this one. --Supaman89
:I agree with Supaman. I don't think crime in Mexico is any  more relevant than crime in Colombia, Russia or the US; I don't think the section is encyclopedic. --Alonso 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with removing the "Crime" section. Hari Seldon 15:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. AlexCovarrubias  ( Let's talk! ) 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime Section????? 

message: Since the page is "semi-protected", someone else will need to correct the spelling error: "agiculure" which most likely should be: "agriculture".
68.60.59.250 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: spelling

message: In my opinion, the Cristero War is a conflict to small to be relevant in this article. This article strives to give GENERAL information about Mexico, and the Cristero war is too specific, and should probably be included in the article about the Mexican revolution.
Besides, NPOV wording is a challenge, and A LOT OF sources must be provided before adding anything about it. This is yet another hot potato ideal for more and more edit wars. Caution is suggested before thinking about including it in this article. I am open, of course, but lets discuss it first. Hari Seldon 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't think the Cristero war is as significant (for good or bad) as the Mexican Revolution, which shaped twentieth-century Mexico both politically, economically and culturally. If at all, briefly mentioning something like the conservative religious sector in Mexico opposed many of the liberal reforms embraced by the Mexican Revolution (most notably secular public education) which sparked a violent conflict known as the Cristero War, should suffice. --the Dúnadan 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cristero War

message: Is it me or is the whole section on demographics gone from this article? I personally don't think that's OK. We delete the entire section because of photographs??? We need to put it back...every country profile has a demographics section....it's common practice I would think. If someone is doing a report and needs to know the different ethnic groups of Mexico....they're out of luck? Cali567 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put 2 pictures meanwhile, if you guys can get better ones, you may change them. Supaman89 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics??? 

message: could someone put a list of folk stories and fairy tales of mexico for me please
:La llorona
:Los Niños Heroes
:The Mexican national team will one day win the FIFA World Cup
:Mexico is a first world nation
:Mexico City is the center of the universe
:Government will solve all of the people's problems
:Government involvement in the economy protects consumers
:Government should give people work and pay for all their needs. People have the right to happiness (instead of the pursuit of happiness)
:Hari Seldon 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fairy tales and folk stories 

message: Once the page is unprotected, we should change the list of the states of the federation. The Federal District is numbered as the 32nd state of the Union. This is wrong, the Federal District it is not a state, but a... federal district. Moreover, Mexico city is not the capital of the Federal District; Mexico City is the Federal District. (see both the 44th article of the constitution and the Statute of Government of the Federal District). --the Dúnadan 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: States

message: POLLING CLOSED, please do not edit this section
DEADLINE: February 8, 2007 at 00:00 (midnight) (i.e. February 7 at 11.59 is the last minute you have to participate). It just dawned on me that we all live in different time zones. Therefore, let's wait until February 8, 2007 at 12:00 PM at GMT (UTC+0); that way all time zones (if there is an editor in the mid-Pacific) would have reached the deadline. the Dúnadan 06:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *object --the Dúnadan 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *object Corticopia 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Hari Seldon 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Aldoman 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object SqueakBox 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object --the Dúnadan 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Corticopia 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Hari Seldon 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Aldoman 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object SqueakBox 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *indifferent --the Dúnadan 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *indifferent (as a conciliation only) Corticopia 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Hari Seldon 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Aldoman 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support SqueakBox 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support --the Dúnadan 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support Corticopia 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support Hari Seldon 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *object Aldoman 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support SqueakBox 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support --the Dúnadan 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support Hari Seldon 03:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support Aldoman 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support (prefer 'southern' as it's verifiable and more precise) Corticopia 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *support Supaman89 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *oppose SqueakBox 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Like I had told Corticopia I would do, I made a review of a small number of encyclopedias in my university's library and online, and here's what I found:
* Wordlmark Encyclopedia of the Nations (2001)
:*Mexico: located on the North American continent
:*No entry for Central America (after all this is an encyclopedia of nations not continents or regions), but Mexico is implicitly excluded from Central America in that the entries for the Central American countries explicitly state that they are Central American republics, whereas that of Mexico doesn't.
* Encyclopedia of the World's Nations (2002)
:*Mexico: located on the North American continent
:*No entry for Central America (same as above), but Mexico implicitly excluded from CA. The entry for Guatemala reads: "Guatemala is located in Central America... it is the third largest nation in Central America" (i.e. after Nicaragua and Honduras, Mexico excluded).
* World Geographical Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill (1995)
:*Mexico: located between the United States and Central America (explicit exclusion from Central America)
:*Latin American entry states that Central America geographically could include Mexico by considering the Gulf of Mexico a "Mediterranean Sea" but that the conventional definition of Central America refers only to that hinge that joins the North American and South American plates, and therefore Mexico is not included in Central America. (Tectonic plates are used then for the "conventional definition").
* World Geography encyclopedia is made up of 19 volumes of the different regions of the world. There is no volume on North America, but separate volumes for the US and Canada. Mexico is included in the Central American volume, as part of the "Central American arc" (sic)
* Columbia Gazetteer of the World
:*Mexico: located in southern North America
:*Central America: located in the southernmost region of North America, geographically CA starts at the isthmus of Tehuantepec, but it is composed of 7 republics (i.e. Mexico is excluded).
:*North America: includes all of the mainland and related offshore island lying N of the isthmus of Panama. Distinguishes between "Anglo-America" (Canada+US, with (largely) British/English roots) and "Middle America", the latter is composed of Mexico+republics of Central America+Caribbean. 
* Oxford Dictionary of the World (1999)
:*Central America: "the narrow strip of land to the south of Mexico linking North America and South America and including Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa rica, and Panama". This implicitly states that North America is Mex+US+Canada. 
:*Mexico: "country in North America"
:*North America: "northern half of the American landmass, connected to South America by the isthmus of Panama..." (i.e. all-inclusive definition of North America). The rest of the entry briefly elaborates on US, Canada and Mexico, but only mentions Central America as Mexico's "...Central American neighbors to the south". This means that Central America is a region within North America to which Mexico does not belong. 
* Merriam-Webster Dictionary 
:*Mexico: located in southern North America
:*Central America: the narrow southern portion of North America connecting with South America and extending from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the Isthmus of Panama OR the republics of the Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Belize
:*North America: continent of the western hemisphere NW of South America
* Britannica (not the online version, but the paper version)
:*Mexico:federal republic located in North America. 
:*North America: From Alaska to Panama. The introduction reads: "This article treats the physical an human geography of North America... for discussion of individual countries of the continent see the articles CANADA, MEXICO and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Other North American countries are treated in articles on regions under the titles CENTRAL AMERICA and WEST INDIES" [caps not mine, I am not shouting, that is the way Britannica writes it). This means that Central America is a region within North America to which Mexico does not belong. 
* Hispánica (in Spanish, 1992)
:*Mexico: (a very confusing long introduction) ...el país más poblado de habla española, México, extiende por América del norte y central (sic). I assume it implies it stretches over North and Central America, however this would have been written as "México se extiende". Afterwards it states that el istmo de Tehuantepec... constituye para la mayoría de los geógrafos el límite entre América del norte y América central. 
:*No entries for North America or South America, but one for America (the Americas). That is, Hispánica follows the Spanish convention in which América (i.e. the Americas) is a single continent, and in which North and South America are geographical subregions or subcontinents but not 2 separate continents.  As such, in the "América" entry, the definitions of "Norteamérica", "Sudamérica" and "América central" are purely geographical and not geopolitical: "Tradicionalmente se distinguen dos grandes conjuntos territoriales, los subcontinentes norteamericano y sudamericao, unidos por una serie de istmos que componen la América central (Tehuantepec, Guatemala, Nicaragua y Panamá) y por el conjunto de archipiélagos del mar Caribe". Central America is thus defined as a "series of isthmuses" that "includes Tehuantepec", which then heps explain the introduction on the entry about Mexico.
* Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (I am translating from Catalan, if you are fluent in Catalan, follow the link) 
:*Mexico: "country of North America"
:*North America: I think it does an excellent explanation on the possible definitions of this word:
::* "subcontinent formed by the northernmost part of the Americas, [the area] north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec"(i.e. geographical definition)..."
::* "...or if we follow a geophysiographical (sic) definition, [it refers to the area] north of the Trans-Mexican volcanic belt.
::* "...conventionally [lit. practically] the limit between North America and Central America is the border between Mexico and [the countries of] Guatemala and Belize..."
::* A fourth additional definition was used in the 1970 version of the encyclopedia. I assume they eliminated this alternative definition given the economical shift produced in the 1990's in which Mexico has become economically, and arguably politically, integrated with its northern neighbors. The definition was: "...following economical, political and cultural criteria, North America [when] used [only] in opposition to Latin America, refers to the regions north of Rio Grande and excluding the Caribbean islands". Arguably, the UN scheme might follow a similar logic when it separates "Northern" America (compare with Anglo-America), from Latin America/Caribbean or from the region of 'Central America (including Mexico) and the Caribbean'. 
As for myself, and given the above, I think I slightly support the (5) alternative over the rest. I don't find "southern North America" to be universally used. But all the information above is for your benefit. Read it, and may it help you in deciding how to vote on the poll.
Cheers --the Dúnadan 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your worthwhile research -- it is most appreciated and, hopefully, it will help guide future decision-making in this article and related ones. Corticopia 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of a couple of publications

message: I suggest that we reduce the list of largest metro areas to only those with more than 1 million. The list is way too long, and there is an article (List of metropolitan areas of Mexico) which can list 20 or even more metropolitan areas. --theDúnadan 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. :) Corticopia 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, also remove from the list the subjective regions... Hari Seldon 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also edited the List of metropolitan areas of Mexico accordingly. --theDúnadan 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Metro areas

message: Are the books listed in the bibliography section really used in the text or are they simply recommended readings? (Or worse, advertisement?)
* When in Mexico, Do as the Mexicans Do, was it really used?
* Opening Mexico: The Making of a Democracy I read this book myself, but I don't think (other than general historical data, available elsewhere) that it was used for the history section or the politics section.
* The link to Cristobal : The Political climate, the article doesn't even speak about San Cristóbal!!
* The link to a description of Mexico's geographical situation by Ekaterina Zhdanova-Redman is redundant. It is not used in the Geography section. Corticopia has offered more relevant sources. 
* The link to the Zimmerman Telegram, even though it is interesting, the article doesn't even mention anything about World War I!!!
Therefore, I think we should remove this "bibliography". --theDúnadan 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly haven't read them, but if better sources have been provided and/or the texts are not used in the article, then why not? Hari Seldon 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography or recommended readings?

message: Has anyone thought to edit this page for fundamental syntactical errors? Little things like tense, subject object agreement and correct pronoun usage. rad2 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find them, fix them. --theDúnadan 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: There is a consensual rule of thumb for naming articles of places already in use for cities and states in Mexico. (See: WP:Naming conventions/city names/Mexico). While this rule has been applied successfully, there are two issues that require our attention: (1) an inconsistency in regard to boroughs in the Federal District (2) naming convention with regards to metropolitan areas and core cities.  Please participate by expressing your opinion, agreement or disagreement so that we can reach a consensus. The debate is taking place here. 
--theDúnadan 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: &#%$, they blocked the page again? Supaman89 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only to anonymous users to prevent vandalism. You can edit yourself. --theDúnadan 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate and poll on naming conventions

message: National Palace is the seat of the Executive? Pardon my ignorance, but, other than Wikipedia, I cannot find a source for this. Isn't Los Pinos supposed to be the main Office of the President, and therefore Seat of the Executive?
However, Lopez Obrador had promised that he would move to Palacio Nacional if he won the election. Since he lost, and this fact doesn't seem to be easily sourced (at least not online), I find having this information without a source controversial. Could somebody provide a source?
Hari Seldon 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure. I know that it was (or is) considered the symbolic seat of the executive and that many offices, including some offices of the general staff, were therein located, whereas Los Pinos was the "official residence". Fox transformed many of the residence buildings at Los Pinos into executive offices during his administration (in fact he moved out of the main complex where presidents used to live and built a "small" adjacent cabin that has been expanded by Calderón), even though some staff still works at the National Palace, so I guess it can be argued that Los Pinos is now, for most practical matters, the seat of the executive. --theDúnadan 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question