Talk:Mexico

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for doing the merge, Scott. It's not simply a matter of copy and paste, or I would have done it myself instead of tagging the articles. --Ed Poor 09:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

No worries - I hope the information is correct - I don't know enough about Mexico to tell, but I've fixed a few pretty dodgy country pages today. --Scott 10:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Are American style tacos really the best representative picture for the Mexico article? Czolgolz 22:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Probably not - especially since they're not mentioned in the text. Should they be removed, or have text or caption increased to create some connection? Please do whatever is best, and if you have a better picture, please add it. --Scott 10:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Emigration

This new paragraph

== Emigration ==

Many Americans (from US) have become angry at tendency for Mexicans to go to the United States, where there is a perception that they are welcome to go and use this healthy economy to make money. Because many aspects of such a culture (such as the common unwillingness to learn or speak English) which are incompatible with American (from US) values, these people are often unwelcome, especially those who immigrate illegally. Groups such as the Minutemen have been active in stopping this influx (sometimes killing them), but it is still a problem with which the US must contend.

is not in the proper article. This matter concern basically to the United States and there it should be. Not in an article about Mexico.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:53, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm prone to disagree. Remember that Conservapedia seeks to illuminate the American perspective, so it makes sense that such a huge issue should at least be mentioned. To suggest otherwise would imply a bias for those who choose to come to this country illegally. ATB 18:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

A common unwillingness to learn to speak English? I guess the three years I spent teaching English in Mexico was a fluke. Czolgolz 20:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I must point out that those were the ones who weren't coming over here. ATB 10:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

VERY LITTLE ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

WHY?

Because, frankly, this site is turning embarrassingly leftist. I'm not sure this is really what was originally intended at all, in fact. The idea that they are unwilling to confront such a huge issue (see my deleted portion of this article) which bluntly threatens the American way of life betrays a soft spot for bleeding heart, socialistic concepts of everybody being exactly the same. Am I the only one who feels this way? ATB 15:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure that all illegal aliens are Mexican? Where I live, everyone complains about Asians. I believe in northern New England they complain about French Canadians. I think in Florida they complain about the Cubans and Haitians. My impression is that you would like everyone to be exactly the same, i.e. speaking English, same political ideas, same religion, same clothing, same customs, etc.Panini 19:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Well said, Panini. Maestro 09:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I did a CTRL-F (that's FIND in a web page) using the word "illegal" on this article and found nothing. Even though not all illegal aliens are Mexican, a whole lot of them are. Not a single mention of Mexican illegal aliens? Zero Mexican illegal aliens? The massive number of illegal aliens from MEXICO aren't relevant in an article about Mexico? I am afraid to a) contribute such things to the article lest I be censored by the Conservapedia elite, and b) even continue discussing the situation since the 90-10 rule discourages thoughtful discourse (talk too much, you're banned). Now I have to find non-controversial articles to contribute to in order to avoid being banned. --AdmiralNelson 12:46, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
try improving this article instead: [1] Karajou 12:49, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

This article, I must say, is about Mexico and everything in it( including tacos, tamales, poverty and mexican history), NOT about illegal immigrants in the US. Ronaldperez

It is an article about Mexico, so U.S. immigration issues won't appear as you expected. You can add illegal migrants who enter Mexico. --Jpatt 10:54, 23 December 2011 (EST)

History

This section is too poor. Somebody should add some more information. --RichardKleiner 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)RichardKleiner

This is a wiki. You are very welcome to go right ahead and do it. BrianCo 14:37, 1 March 2008 (EST)


pictures

All the pictures of people in this article are of people of obvious European descent. this is makes no sense because the vast manority of mexicans aren't white. the pictures in this article should be more representative of Mexican demographics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emmagrrrl (talk)


The people pictured are Hispanic, but light Hispanic, not dark Hispanic which many people think all Mexicans look like, I live in a city in which there is a lot of Hispanics most are very light, we can try to find pictures of people who are more darker and also notable, if that is what you want -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (EDT)


i'm not saying everyone in Mexico has dark skin, i'm just saying the pictures aren't representative of the large indigenous and mestizo population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emmagrrrl (talk)

List some famous people who you believe are more representative -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I think that the picture selections for this article are really poor. There are 14 pictures on this article, out of which: -3 sport players and 2 miss Mexico. -2 pictures of the same university (UNAM) - A picture of the mexican youth that frankly does not represent mexican majority - A picture of the "sea in Mexico" that could be the sea anywhere in the world. - A very low resolution painting of what seems to be the valley of Mexico (With the Iztaccihuatl and the Popocatepetl) - Pictures of the "Virgen de Guadalupe", president Calderon (both without legends) and the city of Guanajuato. - A picture called Camp01.jpg that I still do not know what it is.

My suggestions are: Removing most of the sport players and miss Mexico pictures, the "mexican youth" picture, one of the UNAM pictures, the mexican sea picture, and Camp01.jpg. The Virgen de Guadalupe and president Calderon pictures I say should stay, but with a legend. The painting is nice, but the resolution is very low, and again has no legend. The Guanajuato picture should stay, and pictures of other Mexican cities and natural features may be added. --Quetzalcoatl 23:56, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Some changes have been made. Feel free to suggest new images. See more carefully the way some images are described. By the way the pic of a mural is there because of the mural not because of the university. --Joaquín Martínez 16:53, 3 July 2009 (EDT)
Can we use Wikimedia commons as a source for pictures? All pictures are free licence. If we can, I have the following suggestions:

A picture of an archeological site:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avenue_of_the_Dead_at_Teotihuacan.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chichen_Itza_CB.jpg

A picture of the Metropolitan Cathedral, to ilustrate colonial architecture:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zocalo_cathedral.jpg

A picture of Paseo de la Reforma and Cancun, to represent modern Mexico:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PaseodelaReforma.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imagebysafa2.jpg

I think this picture of Oaxaca beautifully ilustrates the ambience of a Mexican zocalo, but it has a very high resolution, and I have noticed that CP tends to uso low resolution pictures:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oaxaca009.jpg

Well these are my suggestions, sorry for some of my previous comments, the pictures without legend are well positioned in the article so it is clear what they are. My mistake. I do still think that there are too many pictures of sport players and miss Mexico girls.--Quetzalcoatl 23:12, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

OK, We will work on it. --Joaquín Martínez 11:59, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Good article

I don't find any negative tone in it, but does get to the point of discussing things about Mexico without being wordy or full of spin. The government section turned out not to be condemning the government as much, after all do many conservatives blame the country's problems on the way the Mexican tradition of democracy or politics as usual? I often heard Mexico was not only an one-party state from 1920 to 1994, but the PRI had a clearly socialist revolutionary stance under an elitist caste whom used propaganda that the "people" rule Mexico when in fact the majority of them had low living standards or conditions. + Getitstraight 15:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)

POVERTY

Poverty is one of the biggest issues the Mexican government has and not a single mention of it is found in the article. Ronaldperez

Please add your knowledge to the article.--Jpatt 10:52, 23 December 2011 (EST)
Personal tools