Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mexico

2012-04-28T02:24:36Z

189.228.64.250:

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{todo}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=B}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Mexico}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=22:17, 22 May 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=132679001

|action2=FAC
|action2date=18:03, 4 June 2007
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mexico/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=135824584

|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Mexico|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Latin America|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject North America|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries|class=B
| b1  = yes
| b2  = yes
| b3  = yes
| b4  = yes
| b5  = yes
| b6  = yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas|class=B|auto=Inherit|importance=Top}}}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-23|oldid1=5427723|date2=2004-09-16|oldid2=16335418|date3=2005-09-16|oldid3=23298813|date4=2006-09-16|oldid4=76045453|date5=2007-09-16|oldid5=158218427|date6=2011-09-16|oldid6=450684734}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=91|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 140K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 9
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(91d)
|archive = Talk:Mexico/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Mexico/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Mexico/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}

== Geographical Position ==
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone knows for certain, with evidence, whether Mexico is considered part of Central or North America by most of the world? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LeviathanPMS|LeviathanPMS]] ([[User talk:LeviathanPMS|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LeviathanPMS|contribs]]) 02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 
:Depends on politics mostly. Americans who like to distance themselves from Mexico will say that its Central America and so do those Mexicans who like to distance themselves from the Anglosphere and look towards partnerships with other latin american countries. Mexicans who like to see themselves as closely tied to the US prefer to say North America. This even draws over into the ways in which different hispanic gangs in the US see themselves as sureños or norteños base don how tied they feel to the US or to Mexico. There is no information with evidence about what most of the world things about anything.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 02:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Communications ==

hi im living since always in mexico and yI will tell you that the biggest companies in telecomunications are :
1º telmex
2º unefon
3º Telefonica (movistar)
and right now other companies are getting on the business companies that began as cable companies as:
1º megacable (is more common than unefon) and is getting to be the first rival for telmex in mexico.
2ºtelecable (is being purchased by megacable little by little by sectors)
and more
well the point of this is to tell you that Axtel and Maxcom aren't players on comunication in mexico

== Iceland–Mexico relation ==

Some help can be used on the article [[Iceland–Mexico relations]] to find Spanish language references.

== Upcoming improvements ==

This article is in the top 300 viewed article in wikipedia - and it is one of the [[WP:VITAL|Vital articles]]. It should be good - but is not currently in a stage where it is feasible to go for FA status. I would like to start slowly moving towards that goal though. I have started improving the layout and removing some of the superfluous trivia - mostly about how fantastic Mexico's technology industry is. Other sections require more information rather than less and a better structure. For example the history section need serious imporvements including a better description of the precolumbian history, conquest and colonial era. And the territorial and political development in the independence era needs to be more coherently presented, the description and importance of the Revolution should be emphasized more and the political developments during the PRI and post-PRI eras should also be consolidated. Also the section on Administrative divisions could be expanded, with information about substate divisions, and the basic historic process leading to current divisions. In the Demography section information about social issues are lacking - Mexico is among the countries in the world with the highest degree of wealth disparity - this should be presented somehow - instead of the very artificial inclusion of cherry picked data showing that Mexico apparently has unusually high gender equality and that equality is ''in favor''[!] of women. These statistics contradict most published research on gender relations in Mexico. Better information on human rights in Mexico and on freedom of press will also have to be included. I will keep working over the next few days, and will appreciate help - especially in cleaning up sections for unimportant trivia and boosterism, and with making prose flow coherent. The article should be a cohesive text, not a list of disconnected facts. It should also not be an advertisement for Mexico, but should include all notable facts both pleasant and unpleasant.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:If someone cares to provide "[[Wikipedia:Alternative text for images|alt-text]]" captions to images to make them readable on screen readers for the visually impaired that would be excellent to. Having Alt text is necessary for FA status and will eventually have to be done if we want to promote the article.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:I find your goal a good one, but the way you're requesting help is terrible at least. In few words, you're trying to say this article is wrong and plagued with boosterism which is not true. Even if I don't agree with the very large and detailed economy section, I wouldn't dare to call it "unimportant trivia", because that's just uncivil and kinda agressive to the editors that worked in that section. All the facts in that section were backed with references. Did it need to be pruned? Yeah. I personally will try to help and also to check if the "improvements" are not actually a tide of negative facts disguised as "balanced" text. ''[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Alex]][[User:AlexCovarrubias|Covarrubias]]'' [[User_talk:AlexCovarrubias|( Talk? )]] 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
::The article was plagued with trivia and boosterism - largely inserted by a certain now blocked user with whom we are both acquainted - although you haven't exactly counteracted that development yourself. This has been a long recognized and longstanding problem. It is even in the to-do list where I didn't put it. I am under no obligation to maintain a civil tone regarding content - I do not think that the deleted material is hurt by my calling it trivia. Not all cited information is relevant especially not in a top-tier general article like this. I expect nothing less from you than "keeping an eye out for a tide of negative facts"" since I know you are allergic to those. I will make sure to advertise for assistance from other editors as well. Sincerely yours: [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I hadn't visited this article in a long time, and I am surprised not to find important sections (whose content had been edited by consensus) such as the one on "Security". IMHO the article would need a lot of [unbiased] work to be a GA (and much more to be a FA). -- [[User:Dúnadan|dúnadan]] : [[User Talk:Dúnadan|let's talk]] 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Agreed, give a hand please?[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

==="Demographics"===
I'm completely against using steretypical wording and pictures that only help mantain ignorance about any topic or subject. This is the case of the selection of pictures included in the section "demographics". Two pictures depicting indigenous peoples in rural areas, even if the vast majority of Mexicans are mestizo. Indigenous and 100% "whites" groupings represent almost the same percentage of the population so... why to include not one, but two pictures of indigenous peoples? This is obviously stereotypical. The same problem happened when a picture of Mexico's vast forests was deleted in favor of a desertical picture.

In the past, it was decided not to include pictures in this section, and I agree with that. I personally think that if we cannot follow and represent accurately the demographic information we have about Mexico (70% mestizo, 15% "white" and 9.8% or 11% [as some say] indigenous), then it's not worth it including pictures.
:If your problem is with having pictures of minority people in the demographics section then instead I will create a separate section on indigenous peoples where such pictures can go. They are not "stereotypical" - they are fully representative of the large rural indigenous population of Mexico - although I don't expect you to know about that sitting in safety up in moneterrey where everything is nice and white. Just like Mexico has both forests and deserts. The demographics section is currently the only place to show the country's ethnic diversity. There are no other pictures of indigenos people in the article (unless we count Benito Juarez) But htere are tonnes of pictures of Criollos, and rich people (who make up a very small percentage of the population).[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 04:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to chime in and offer my own opinion here. I agree with Alex that the images are in fact stereotypical and the text included is very generalized and I would even dare to say mildly offensive to indigenous Mexicans. Showing a poor sustenance farmer using a donkey is not only stereotypical towards Indigenous Mexicans but Mexicans as a whole. It is undue weight to have two picture of indigenous Mexicans but no image of people from the Mestizo majority or white population and if there should be a picture of an indigenous Mexican it should be an important indigenous person who people would recognize such as Francisco Luna Kan, Moteuczomah, Benito Juarez, Armando Manzanero or Emiliano Zapata.

Its quite generalizing to say that indigenous Mexicans can be characterized by living in rural areas as there are a great deal of urbanized Indigenous Mexicans especially in the Yucatan, Quitana Roo, Mexico City and Puebla. This article seems to only point out the problems indigenous people face as their only difference from general Mexican society which is not the case. Rates of crime and corruption are much lower amongst the indigenous for example while these two things are pervasive much of the rest of Mexico and indigenous areas and the states they are in are much safer. The section also completely fails to provide any cultural or historical information about indigenous Mexicans which is much more important as it is what differentiates them from other Mexicans.

While many indigenous Mexicans live worse of then the national average by a full 1/3rd margin, many still do fine but reading this text one would get the impression that all indigenous live in abysmal poverty in rural zones. Even the included statistics point out that about half of the indigenous live just as modernly as the rest of Mexican society. Indigenous sectors and the south in general have been modernizing significantly in the past decade due to educational, health and infrastructure improvements and government support and investment. It would be incorrect to say that the majority live in undeveloped parts of the country as these states have the highest concentrations of Indigenous people but are highly developed and rank as High on the Human Development index. 

*Yucatan, 59% indigenous, HDI 0.821
*Quitana Roo, 39% indigenous, HDI 0.854 
*Campeche, 27% indigenous, 0.825

And there also are a great deal of white Mexicans so I believe they should be worth at least a picture and section of text within the greater demographics section other wise an entire section dedicated to indigenous people is undue weight. While genetically indigenous people may constitute 30%~40% of the Mexican population depending on estimates, these people are not adherents to indigenous culture which is a requirement to count as indigenous via Mexican census policy. In fact, some genetically indigenous majority Mexicans can even be considered white and vice a versa due to INEGI census practices depending on which cultural or linguistic norms they adhere to as in Mexico race has much more to due with culture than genetics. Therefore this should be kept in mind during this writing and there should be an explanation of this. Just my 2 cents.
[[User:V.S.Gonzalez|V.S.Gonzalez]] ([[User talk:V.S.Gonzalez|talk]]) 15:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* In regard to the discussions above:
# Is the article "plagued with technology boostering" etc, ? Maybe, maybe not: Perhaps we should consider that some editors are not exactly great writers, and what is perceived by one editor as trivia and boosterism may simply have been a good faith attempt by another editor to add info that was perceived as missing. Perhaps there is some truth to both sides, and the real truth lies somewhere in between. Perphaps what we need to say is that Mexico's technology has increased considerably (by XXX%?) in the last YYY years, according to source ZZZ.
# While an approach such as "slowly moving towards that goal" is certainly commendable, terminalistic statements such as "Other sections require more information rather than less", for an obvious question is "Why?". Also, when stating "the history section need serious imporvements including a better description of the precolumbian history, conquest and colonial era", the question becomes "according to who?". And if we are going to state "the territorial and political development in the independence era needs to be more coherently presented," some one could argue "What's so incoherent about it?" Who are we to say that, without some [[WP:RS]] to back it up, "the description and importance of the Revolution should be emphasized more"?? Have we considered that the statement "the political developments during the PRI and post-PRI eras should also be consolidated" might require consensus? And, what is the basis to establish that "the section on Administrative divisions could be expanded with information about substate divisions, and the basic historic process leading to current divisions"? If Mexico is among the countries in the world with the highest degree of wealth disparity, then let's just be [[WP:BOLD]] and add it. If the article states that Mexico has unusually high gender equality in favor of women, is that wrong in its own right? Have we stopped to consider that, like habits, long-established impressions die hard? Maybe the statistics presented do contradict most published research on gender relations in Mexico, but how reliable is such research? Perhaps the alleged research comes from reliable SOURCES but, does it depict recent trends or the current situation? Another statement made is, "better information on human rights in Mexico and on freedom of press will also have to be included" but, again, why? Can we prove that the information currently in the article is not current? What I am saying is that the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Was Alex too aggresive in his own response that "the way you're requesting help is terrible AT LEAST"? Probably; but without judgment, one thing is certain: That was HIS perception of Maunus' comments. As V.S.Gonzalez stated above, I too have a concern that the wrong use of steretypical wording and pictures may be used to perpetuate (conscientiously or not) ignorance about a topic.
#At times we may be tempted to use the blocked-user argument, especially if it helps our cause. I tend to view this with a good amount of distrust for two reasons: blocked users and banned users are not the same thing, and 2, it is almost never perceived as genuine when someone seeks to exalt his own honor by pointing out someone else's disgrace. While it is Wikipedia policy that "Not all cited information is [necessarily] relevant" ([[WP:DUE]]), statements such as "I am under no obligation to maintain a civil tone regarding content" (Not a Wikipedia policy anywhere), may be conductive to WWIII but are certainly not conductive to improving an article in a communal fashion. Of course, claimimg that a label like "unimportant trivia" is "uncivil and aggressive" to others, may be blowing things out of proportions as well, which is why I am saying the truth may lie somewhere in between.
#There was some chatter going back and forth above on the issue of pictures in the "Demographics" section and pictures in general. While it is true that some people (indigenous or not) may be offended by the inclusion of certain pictures, it is also true that some people view them with pride. In the end, pictures help explain a topic. It may be argued that if a country is 70% mestizo why include a picture depicting people from a segment of the population that accounts for only 10% the population? This is not undue weight, as a picture of the majority would not help explain the issue of the existing minorities. We should not seek to present anyone "in a bad light" but should not seek to bad-mouth them either in subtles ways ([[WP:WEASEL]]). Inflamatory and presumptouos statements made by one editor to another, such as "I don't expect you to know about that sitting in safety up in moneterrey where everything is nice and white", are not characteristic of a community spirit and in the end will generally be viewed as unconstructive. The same can be said of a phrase such as "If your problem is with having pictures of" when the less aggressive "If the objection regards having pictures of minority people" conveys the message but doesn't leave a sour taste of dealing with a tyrant. Maunus' alternative to create another section for pictures could alternatively be accomplished via a (balanced) Gallery of pictures at the end of the article. On the other hand, the suggestion from Gonzalez that "if there should be a picture of an indigenous Mexican it should be an important indigenous person who people would recognize such as Francisco Luna Kan, Moteuczomah, Benito Juarez, Armando Manzanero or Emiliano Zapata" is a valid one to keep a balanced perspective of the indigenous contribution to the Mexican heritage. In general, we should attempt to maintain an encyclopedic, neutral, tone in the text as well as the pictures included. Gonzalez's statement that "this article seems to only point out the problems indigenous people face" is an important one: an encyclopedia is not the place to point out perceived problems of minority people ([[WP:POV]]), especially if the section is about the demographics of a country. The same goes for his well-backed point that "Its quite generalizing to say that indigenous Mexicans can be characterized by living in rural areas as there are a great deal of urbanized Indigenous Mexicans especially in the Yucatan, Quitana Roo, Mexico City and Puebla." Such misconceptions should be removed from the article to avoid [[WP:OR]], [[WP:POV]] and the like. Pictures may be aiding to perpetuate such misconceptions. We should strive to present the country of Mexico (and any other country) in its best light but without using superlatives ([[WP:PEACOCK]]) that inflate reality.
#The word "criollo" is used only once in the article, and I avoid it in any discussion of demograhics (in the article and this discussion page) for it has considerably more to do with social status and virtually nothing with ethnicity. As such it can only lead to confusion and I recommend not to use it here either. In any event, is it really irrelevant to point out that "there are tonnes of pictures of Criollos, and rich people (who make up a very small percentage of the population)." If such people together with the rich and the famous represent the heart and soul of today's Mexico, if they are the means by which the economy moves and if they set the fashion trends and establish their cultural values, if they are at the forefront of science and technology there, then it is appropriate to include them, regardless of whether or not they make up a small percentage of the population. That's not undue weight. Gonzalez also states that "cultural or historical information about indigenous Mexicans is much more important [than] what differentiates them from other Mexicans. While I would consider them both important, but with culture and history probably more (but not necessarily MUCH more) important than diferences, the article should point out the differences (poverty/crime/etc) between them and the population at large only when these differences are notorious.
'''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 20:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''

Perhaps a new subsection in the culture section about indigenous Mexicans and their influence and abbreviated history, both historical and modern can be added while at the same time some of the more generalized statements currently in the demographics section can be ommitted while more pertinent ones can be either kept in a rewrite of the indigenous section of the demographics or can be integrated into this new indigenous sub-section of the culture section. Or alternatively, relevant statistics regarding the indigenous can be put into the general demographics section, while the indigenous section of the demographics can be deleted entirely while the indigenous subsection in the culture section can focus mainly on the indigenous Mexicans themselves and their history/influences/importance etc. [[User:V.S.Gonzalez|V.S.Gonzalez]] ([[User talk:V.S.Gonzalez|talk]]) 02:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the ethnic groups information in the top information box may be incorrect. It states Mexico is 70% Mestizo, 15% White, 9.8% Indigenous and 1% other. There are a few problems with this. This uses two conflicting citations for different ethnic group even though each categorizes them all. This does not equal 100% because different statistics from different citations are used. It looks like someone tried to make the indigenous population appear smaller by using a different citation for them but now the total only comes out to 95.8%.

Additionally I think the information may be obsolete to begin with. This edit is using the obsolete way of reporting ethnicity in Mexico, meaning based on language and culture. The government now uses genetic studies to determine Mexico's ethnic structure using INMEGEN data. Genetically Mexicans are 70% Mestizo, 30% Amerindian, 9% White and 1% other. I spent 3 harrowing hours on and off on hold with different people at INEGI and they all gave me the same answer and Mexican government websites display the same information. http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271

We should now decide whether we should use the genetic studies that the Mexican government uses to determine the proportions of ethnicity in Mexico or the social/linguistics based determinations used in citation 7 made by the University of Morelos. My vote is for the genetic government studies as they were actually determined by scientific process by a government institution and have the backing and faith of the Mexican federal government. However the other ethnicity study carries some weight as well because in Mexican society social norms unfortunately are used to determine ethnicity but this study is not supported by scientific data nor is used by the Mexican government.
Either way we should remove the current interdependency that cite 7 introduces immediately and use only cite 6 as it currently does not make mathematical sense with citation randomly inserted. I'd like to hear you're opinions on which one to use though as they both provide relevant information. Or perhaps we can include information from both noting that one is genetic and one is determined by social interpretation. [[User:V.S.Gonzalez|V.S.Gonzalez]] ([[User talk:V.S.Gonzalez|talk]]) 03:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
::The Mexican government does emphatically not use genetic studies to determine who is indigenous. The inmegen data does not purport to show who is indigenous, but only the ratios of indigenous genetic material. The mexican government through INEGI determines who is indigenous based on cultural factors and selfidentification (basically whether someone lives in a household where an indigenous language is spoken). The population genetics material is not about ethnicity but about genetics - and it is not used for policy purposes by the government. {{User|Maunus}}.

:::I'm confused then. The Mexican government states that Mexico is 30% indigenous http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271 . I talked to people at INEGI who also said Mexico is 30% indigenous and said the 9% statistic only counts indigenous language speakers. [[User:V.S.Gonzalez|V.S.Gonzalez]] ([[User talk:V.S.Gonzalez|talk]]) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::You are confusing two meanings indigenous one is used to mean "having genes from a precolonial population", that is what INMEGEN counts. The other meaning of indigenous as used by UN, by anthropology and in internaitonal political organizations such as ILO is about pre-colonial ethnic minorities "indigenous peoples" which has nothing to do with genes therefore having genetic material from amerindian sources does not make a person "indigenous". INEGI official data uses an operational definition of the second kind when it defines "indigena" as someone who speaks an indigenous language or lives in a household where it is spoken. In short being "indigenous" in Mexico and in most other places (not US) has something to do with your ethno-linguistic and cultural identity - not with biological-genetic identity (which is usually understood to relate to race - not ethnicity or indigenousness). Also CDI and INALI are the two branches of the mexican governement that have to do with indigenous peoples - and they use the second definition. You can not get assistance from CDI or INALI because of your genes, but because your a member of a cultural minority. Also being indigenous is actually defined in Mexican law and the law makes it quite clear that it does not count genes as having any thing to do with being indigenous - only culture and language. [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article is being misquoted currently: http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/03/30/inegi-cada-vez-mas-mexicanos-hablan-una-lengua-indigena. The text of the wikipedia indigenous section states that the Indigenous Mexican population is shrinking. This is not true. The CNN article clearly states that the indigenous population is growing. However the general Mexican population is growing faster therefore as a percentage of the total Mexican population, the Indigenous population is shrinking. I advocate that this information be introduced to the article. What are your opinions? [[User:V.S.Gonzalez|V.S.Gonzalez]] ([[User talk:V.S.Gonzalez|talk]]) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
:::You are misreading the text in the article. It says: "''The absolute indigenous population is growing, but at a slower rate than the rest of the population so that the percentage of indigenous peoples is nonetheless falling.''" which is exactly what you are saying - absolute numbers grow relative numbers fall. I think the article should mention that Mexico is in fact the home to the largest indigenous population in Latin America in absolute numbers - ahead of Guatemala and Bolivia with indigenous majorities but much smaller total populations. {{User|Maunus}}.

== Picture of Mexico. ==

I think it would be a good idea to put the next image of Mexico in the article, ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Earth_western_hemisphere_from_Suomi_NPP.jpg ), maybe in the geography section that would be great. --[[User:Alex gnpi|Alex gnpi]] ([[User talk:Alex gnpi|talk]]) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

== Ethnic Groups ==

Clearly this needs updating, it doesn't add up to 100%. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.132.140.112|86.132.140.112]] ([[User talk:86.132.140.112|talk]]) 19:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

== Quality of article ==

Some articles are good and some are not so good. This article is very bad. [[Special:Contributions/24.146.214.85|24.146.214.85]] ([[User talk:24.146.214.85|talk]]) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:Well, maybe you should try and improve this article. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. [[User:ComputerJA|ComputerJA]] ([[User talk:ComputerJA|talk]]) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

== Poverty? ==

In the Economy section it reports poverty in general population at under 20%. Yet in the Wikipedia article "Poverty in Mexico" it reports according to the 2010 census over 44% living under poverty line! Can we resolve this?
[[Special:Contributions/38.117.214.70|38.117.214.70]] ([[User talk:38.117.214.70|talk]]) 03:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:This article used a cherry picked article showing that poverty declined in the early 2000s, but not noting that it rose dramatically after 2004. I have added data from the january 2012 OECD report on Mexico based on the newest data from CONEVAL.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

== Official language... YES or NO? ==

I think there needs to be some research done and, afterwards, a decision taken into whether Spanish is Mexico's official language de facto or de jure.
Some time ago, this article used to say that Spanish was only official de facto, like in Argentina. But now, it says that it's the official language.
YET, there are a bunch of other wikipedia pages that say that Mexico has no de jure official language and that Spanish is only de facto official. An example? [[Languages of Mexico]] and... OH, this article contradicts itself [[Mexico#Languages|right here]]... So, which one is true? This needs fixing. We can't really have an article about a country that contains such a big contradiction! [[User:Cancerbero 8|Cancerbero 8]] ([[User talk:Cancerbero 8|talk]]) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
:It is de facto official. There is no de jure official language. The info box says official spanish because of the very strong de facto status.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 14:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
::Please provide a RS citation that supports your edit that Mexico's official Spanish language is not a de jure official language. The citations provided do not say that Mexico's official Spanish "is not de jure". Meanwhile I have reverted the article to the version that can be supported by the citations provided. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
:::Which citation says that Spanish is an official language at all?[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Those are not reliable sources for Mexican legislation.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
*Article four in the mexican law of Linguistic rights says: "ARTÍCULO 4. Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio,
localización y contexto en que se hablen." Showing that Spanish is a National language with the same legal status as the indigenous languages.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
:::There is currently a welldocumented political movement to make Spanish the oficial language of Mexico. Would that be the case if it already was? [http://www.informador.com.mx/cultura/2011/277513/6/el-espanol-no-es-lengua-oficial-en-mexico-labastida.htm] [http://www.fundeu.es/noticias-articulos-propondran-una-reforma-constitucional-para-que-el-espanol-sea-lengua-oficial-de-mexico-6465.html][http://www.aztecanoticias.com.mx/notas/cultura/63779/promueven-el-espanol-como-lengua-oficial-de-mexico][http://www.justa.com.mx/?p=29148][http://impacto.mx/pdf/2247.pdf][[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Please discuss this thoroughly per provided channels, before engaging in [[WP:BOLD]] unilateral changes based on [[WP:OR]]. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
::::::Nonsense, we have discussed this a hundred times on this page and it has been always been the consensus to include Spnaish only as a de facto oficial language because it has no legal oficial status. Someone came along and changed that old cosensus using unreliable sources. That was a bold unilateral changed and it will be reverted.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

*Maunus, according to this wikipedia policy [[WP:CCC]] your argument above is a non-argument. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''

== RfC:Does mexico have an official language ==

{{rfc|hist|soc|lang|pol|rfcid=08FFA25}}

Should Spanish be mentioned as an official language in the infobox in spite of the fact that the only legislation that mentions the status of the Spanish language calls it a "a national languages with equal validity".(Article four of Law of Linguistic Rights passed in 2001) And in spite of the fact that there is currently a political movement in Mexico seeking to give Spanish official status? If it should be included in the infobox should it be mentioned that it is only "de facto" official and not "de jure".[http://www.informador.com.mx/cultura/2011/277513/6/el-espanol-no-es-lengua-oficial-en-mexico-labastida.htm] [http://www.fundeu.es/noticias-articulos-propondran-una-reforma-constitucional-para-que-el-espanol-sea-lengua-oficial-de-mexico-6465.html][http://www.aztecanoticias.com.mx/notas/cultura/63779/promueven-el-espanol-como-lengua-oficial-de-mexico][http://www.justa.com.mx/?p=29148][http://impacto.mx/pdf/2247.pdf][[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
:Why not put "Spanish (de facto) and ''(insert quantity)'' [[Languages of Mexico|indigenous languages]]"? [[User:Simon Burchell|Simon Burchell]] ([[User talk:Simon Burchell|talk]]) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*[http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/mexico/ this (old) Mexican government website] explicitly states that Spanish is the official language. [[User:Simon Burchell|Simon Burchell]] ([[User talk:Simon Burchell|talk]]) 13:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
:That is from 2004 and is a site for summary information for school children. It does not trump either the constitution or the ley general de derechos de linguistics, or the testimony of an UNAM professor noting that Spanish is not legally official. It is easy to find all kind of sources saying that Spanish is the official language - but because of the fact that the law does not establish it as such the status is de facto. I do not take exception to mentioning Spanish as the de facto official language - since that is quite clearly the case (the constitution for example doesn't mention the Spanish language but is written in it for example and not in any of the indigenous languages that it does mention). [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

*Robert B. Kaplan. 2007. Language Planning and Policy in Latin America: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay Multilingual Matters, Jun 30, 2007 p. 14 "Spanish is the de facto official language of Mexico". [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*John Fisher, Daniel Jacobs, Zora O'Neill, Paul Whitfield. 2007. The Rough Guide to Mexico. Penguin. (no page number) "Spanish isn't ''the'' official language of Mexico, just ''a'' language, one of 63 legally recognized there"[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*Akhtar Majeed, Ronald Lampman Watts, Douglas Mitchell Brown . 2006. Distribution of Powers And Responsibilities in Federal Countries McGill-Queen's Press. p. 191 "As already mentioned, Spanish is the most common language, but federal law has not declared it to be the official language of Mexico"[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*William Luis, Julio Rodríguez-Luis, State University of New York at Binghamton. Translation Research and Instruction Program, Dennis J. Schmidt. 2000. Translation Perspectives: 2000, beyond the Western tradition p. 290 "With respect to languages, although Spanish is not constitutionally the official language of Mexico, it has been considered THE language for handling public administration, legal, economic and political affairs..."[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::As I say, perhaps "Spanish (de facto) and 63(?) indigenous languages" - but I certainly wouldn't rely on a guide book - they get half their stuff off wikipedia anyway. The other refs look pretty solid. [[User:Simon Burchell|Simon Burchell]] ([[User talk:Simon Burchell|talk]]) 15:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Most guidebooks say Spanish is the official language. This one just happens to be right.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''': "De facto official language" is a contradiction in terms. In order for something to be the ''official'' anything, it must be declared so by law. If a language is not ''de jure'' the official language of a country, it's ''not'' the official language. [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::It surely means something that the legislation that doesn't mention an official language is written in Spanish and not any of the other 66 national languages.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*The "official language" box is for official languages. I would think that's obvious. These boxes are not for demographics, but for legal status. Take a look at the country next door, which has a similar situation: official langs are listed as "none at the federal level" for the US (because there are official langs at the state level – I don't know if that's relevant for Mexico; if not, it should just say "none"), and national langs are listed as "English (de facto)", because it has no legal status as a national lang. In Mexico you have scores of ''de jure'' national langs at the federal level, though Spanish obviously predominates. They should all be listed under "national", with some way of indicating the de facto superior status of Spanish. Maybe just ''National languages: Spanish and 66 indigenous languages'' ? (I think it's 66.)
::I thought I'd check w embassy sites, but they disagree with each other and can't even get their dates right.
::IMO we should also verify that the box at the top of [[Languages of Mexico]] reflects national status. Not all 66 (or 68) are listed, and some seem inconsistent (such as Mixtec, and then lower done specific varieties of Mixtec). Assuming there even is an established number of national languages? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
:::There isn't. INALI updates the numbers very frequently, and currently they don't operate with a clear definition of "language".[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::That's the impression I got, but I didn't want to wade through the legalese. We should just link to [[languages of Mexico]], then, and try to keep the boxed list sync'd. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 20:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish is the official language of Mexico. The Secretariat of Foreign Relations and Encyclopaedia Britannica (both reliable sources) [http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271][http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379167/Mexico/27385/Languages] are used as references at the article Mexico. Both mention Spanish as the official language.

On the other hand, the indigenous languages are '''never''' mentioned as official, not even co-official. They are simply called "national languages" and accordignly with the law, they have the same validity as Spanish in the "context in which they are used". The General Law of Linguistic Rights for the Indigenous Peoples recognizes all Amerindian minority languages as national languages and equally valid only in territories where spoken. [http://www.cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=90]

I'd like to see a source indicating that the indigenous languages are official. This has been previoulsy discussed at the talk page and the outcome has always been the same: Spanish official, indigenous lang. regonized as national languages. ''[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Alex]][[User:AlexCovarrubias|Covarrubias]]'' [[User_talk:AlexCovarrubias|( Talk? )]] 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::You are misrepresenting previous discussions where it was made quite clear that Spanish is only de facto official and that the only Mexican legislation that mentions the Spanish language calls it a National language just like the indigenous ones. You are also misrepresenting the legislæation of your own country. The law of linguistic rights give exactly equal rights to Spanish and Indigenous language because Spanish is also only valid in the context where it is used! You are outright lying about the legislation when you say that Spanish has any special status - there is no document that gives Spanish any special status relative to other languages. This is clearly recognized byt the Academica Mexicana de la Lengua '''or they woouldn't be campainging to make Spanish the official language'''. By lying about the laws of your own country on wikipedia you are going to far in your POV pushing.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::*Maunus, per the [[WP:CCC]] wikipedia policy, the argument you are constantly going back to (basically, ''"Hey, but this is how it was decided in the past"'') is an invalid argument. For everyone's time sake, I suggest you abandon that stand and focus on strictly factual issues.
::::::*Also, where is a citation (for your claim above) that states that "the ONLY Mexican legislation that mentions Spanish language..."? You will need to take care of this, or your statement is simply [[WP:OR]].
::::::* Finally, I have reverted your edit in the languages section related to the use of "de jure", until you can come up with a [[WP:RS]] citation that '''actually uses''' the exact phrase "de jure". You are not even obscurely presenting the "de jure" claim, but doing so authoritatively upfront, in the very first statement of the Languages section. That's going to necessitate a more convincing set of citations that '''actually use''' the phrase "de jure". A Wikipedia editor cannot be the first one making this sort of claims. Otherwise, again, you are venturing into [[WP:OR]] policy violations -- especially when so many other editors are displaying objection to many of your claims. When there are differing view on a subject, it is best to publish only that which is the "common denominator", that which is agreeable by everyone, at least until a resolution/consensus/compromise can be achieved later. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
::::::::::You misrepresent my argument. I have provided many new sources to support the old consensus. I am not doing any OR here - everything i have written is supported by sources. It is not my fault that you don't understand what "de jure" means. If you think I am wrong about mexican legsilation you can easily provee me wrong by finding any other law that gives special status to Spanish. It doesn't exist and that is what the Academia Mexicana de la Lengua is trying to change - do you really believe that professors at UNAM would be so stupid that they mount a movement to change legislation that is already in place? [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 23:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::* I don't disagree (at least not entirely) with your statement that you have provided many sources related to the languages issue. What I see, however, is that you seem to have a tendency to '''stretch''' the meaning of what you provide a bit beyond what the source actually states. I am not providing any specific examples here for a reason, not because there are none, but instead in an effort that you may reconsider this propensity of yours. You probably have a very good reason (in your mind anyway) for this propensity to take form and become reality. Maybe if you articulate your position more precisely, maybe other editors would be more undertanding of your stance. On the other issue of the AML and UNAM, etc., I think it would be best to leave whoever and whatever they are ''"trying to change"'' aside because such "trying" speculation is not going to determine the current status of this language/s issue/s. We don't know what is in the minds of the professors at UNAM. We cannot sustain that their actions are proof that a certain legislation is or is not in place -- proving that a legislation is or is not in place is done by presenting a link to the legislation itself or via a RS secondary source. We just can't make that sort of if/then arguments. IMO, such arguments are at worse outright OR violation, and at best borderline OR violation. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
::::::::::::::::::Of course we can know what the AML and Jaime Labastida thinks - because they say so. ("“La gente se asombra cuando les pregunto, pero no hay lengua oficial en el país”, expresa el también doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), quien buscará el reconocimiento constitucional del español."[http://www.informador.com.mx/cultura/2011/277513/6/el-espanol-no-es-lengua-oficial-en-mexico-labastida.htm]) They think that Spanish is not legally the official language and they want it to be. To say so is not OR. There is also no speculation involved. It is also not OR to use the encyclopedia britannica to contradict them, but it is a strange way of prioritizing information. I have linked to the legsislation which is readily available online - both the Mexican constitution and the Law of Linguistic Rights. I have read them both with careful attention to linguistic issues.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

:Excuse me, but Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reliable source? I thought it had more mistakes than wikipedia (or, well, that wikipedia has less mistakes than it). The website you linked from the SRE says to have been last updated in 2010, yet there are many articles from 2011 in newspapers all over Latin America documenting a movement by the [Academia Mexicana de la Lengua] about making Spanish the official language of the country, since, apparently, it's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I had seen the SRE website before, and it was the only official website I could find that mentioned Spanish as the official language. It's not on paper (which is quite important), it's not in the constitution, the article in the Spanish wikipedia[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9xico] also mentions that there's no official language (and so do many other articles related to the Spanish language in both wikipedias) and the fact that there's a movement by the Language Academy kind of proves that the official status is not that "official", so to say. The issue here is not whether indigenous languages are official or not, it's whether SPANISH is official or not... [[User:Cancerbero 8|Cancerbero 8]] ([[User talk:Cancerbero 8|talk]]) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You make some valid points above. Rather than debating "loose-cannon" style, maybe we should first consider the following questions (the same can be considered for the other languages of Mexico):
*Is Spanish the official language? (&, Is Spanish the de facto official language?)
*Is Spanish the official national language (&, Is Spanish the de facto official national language)?
*Is Spanish the statutory official national language?
*Is Spanish the constitutional official national language?

Also,
*What does the Mexian Govt mean by "official"?
*What do they mean by "national" (i.e., national vs. regional???)?
*Are our definitions of these terms consistent with the Mexican government's definitions?
This should be helpful in achieve some common understanding and common ground.
'''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''

:*All legislation, public information and education is carried out in Spanish, and only secondarily in other languages. This should be enough to establish Spanish as "de facto" official.
:*Spanish is declared a national language in article 4 of the Law of Lingustic rights which states that: "''Las lenguas indígenas que se reconozcan en los términos de la presente Ley y el español son lenguas nacionales por su origen histórico, y tienen la misma validez en su territorio, localización y contexto en que se hablen.''" (The indigenous language that are recognized under the definitions of the present law '''and Spanish''', are national languages by their historical origin and have the same validity within the territories, localities and contexts in which they are spoken). So yes Spanish is an official national language (just like the Indigenous languages).
:*Define Statutory official national language? That is not a term used in any Mexican legislation.
:*The Mexican constitution does not mention the Spanish language even once - but does define Mexico as pluricultural and recognizes the rights of speakers of indigenous languages to use and develop their languages. (this of course means that Spanish is implied as the primary language of the state and the indigenous languages as secondary to it - but it does not establish it as contituionally official in any sense of the word).
:*The Mexican government does not mean anything by "official" in relation to language, because it mentions no official language.
:*By National languages the Mexican government means "having a historical origin within the Mexican nation" (this can quite easily and unproblematically be inferred by the same quote form article 4 in the Law of Linguistic Rights). [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 02:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
On Britannica: It wouldn't surprise me if sources that are talking about Mexico in general and mention official language in passing (perhaps as part of a standard part of the article) might get this wrong. This is no knock on Britannica which in general is great source, but occasionally it gets passing items wrong, and this might be the case.

In any case, it seems like there are laws on the book that say it is not the official language, I would go with "None" with maybe a footnote on the subject. Although as a footnote on the [[United_States#endnote_engoffbox|United States infobox]] pointed out there are differing definitions of "official" when it comes to these matters. [[User:Jztinfinity|Jztinfinity]] ([[User talk:Jztinfinity|talk]]) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:Maunus, from your statements above, it seems to me that the right thing we can state categorically is that Spanish and the indigenous languages are all (administratively) official languages in Mexico, but that Spanish is the only (de facto) national language. This would make Spanish the only administratively official as well as the only de facto national language. The indigenous languages are also officially recognized by the government but they are not national languages (meaning, that they are mostly used regionally or locally). As I go around the various sources, I notice that there are sources which support these statements, but let's bear in mind that we need not depend only on the Mexican Government for Wikipedia sources; in fact, such MG sources may not be preferable as they may be primary sources and, as such, not ideal for Wikipedia use ([[WP:SECONDARY]]).

:Note that I use "official" as the sources are using it, not in the sense that a government may have/have not stated "Spanish is our official (or, only official) language", or even because the government has in its "official" capacity made some statement related to the language(s) of the land --which it has via Art 4--, but from the perspective that other sources state it is the official language. I further notice that the government recognizes the indigenous languages but (like Spanish) only from an administrative perspective: for example, if you are Mexican and speak no Spanish, and, say, are brought to court or are applying for a driver's license or are filing a complaint with the police, etc, etc, ect, then the government (at all levels) is obligated to take on the burden of accomplishing the interpretation or translation necessary to complete its obligation to the citizen.

:Some of the indigenous languages also appear to be de facto languages within some localities. But, for comparison, this would be no different to French being de facto in Van Buren, Maine, Spanish being de facto language in East LA, Spanish Harlem, etc.

:Unless I have missed something monumental, and since the infobox is suppoosed to be a summary of what's said in the article (and not the other way around!) I think someone could put together proposed wording for the Languages section and for the infobox and, hopefully, we can all come to some sort of resolution. Becuase of the unique intricacies involved in this subject, I wouldn't rule out that clarification for entries, in particular, in the infobox may be necessary -- possibly via footnotes. See the [[United States]] article Language section and infobox Official Language and National Language entries for ideas on this. For simplicity, I would steer clear of the UNAM professors, clear of which language IS NOT official (hey, Russian and Vietnamese are not official in Mexico either, so why say so?), and clear of what the Spanish language in Mexico IS NOT (IS NOT constitutional de jure, IS NOT statutorialy de jure, etc etc), etc. I personally consider this sort of issues distracting, argumentative issues, even speculative, and which do not carry weight ([[WP:WEIGHT]]) for this bigger official language / national language issue we need to focus on.

'''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
::You write that: "it seems to me that the right thing we can state categorically is that Spanish and the indigenous languages are all (administratively) official languages in Mexico, but that Spanish is the only (de facto) national language. This would make Spanish the only administratively official as well as the only de facto national language. The indigenous languages are also officially recognized by the government but they are not national languages (meaning, that they are mostly used regionally or locally)." This is the opposite of what the legislation would suggest which explicitly calls both Spanish and Indigenous language National, but not official languages. Spanish is the national that is de facto official, and indigenous languages are national languages that are not de facto official. I am thinking that you are unintentionally switching the terms in your statement - otherwise it would be odd. Otherwise i tend to agree. And yes the fact that indigenous languages are national languages with equal validity in the areas that they are spoken is different from the status of French in Van Buren because the government is legally required to supply all governmental services in those languages in those contexts. There are also places in which indigenous languages - and not Spanish - are the official administrative languages (for example in many communities under usos y costumbres). Also note that it says contexts and not areas - so basically anywhere an indigenous language is spoken it is (legally) equal to Spanish.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Maunus, it should say "it seems to me that the right thing we can state categorically is that Spanish and the indigenous languages are all (administratively) national languages in Mexico, but that Spanish is the only (de facto) official language. This would make Spanish the only administratively national language as well as the only de facto official language. The indigenous languages are also officially recognized by the national government, but they are not national languages in the sense they are spoken everywhere (meaning, that they are mostly used regionally or locally)."

:::However, it is necessary to stay within the boundaries: although the indigenous languages are nationally recognized, the statute(http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf) does not explicitly say that Spanish and Indigenous languages are NOT official languages: it could be argued either way that they are or that they are not based on the fact that, by virtue of it being Law, then it is "official" and that makes Spanish and the other 62 language "official" as compared to, say, Russian, Vietnamise, or any of the other indigenous languages not included in the 62.

:::I do not support reading into what the legislation would or would not "suggest"; that can be dangerously close to [[WP:OR]]. Because then would could establish that the legislation explicitly calls "both Spanish and Indigenous language National, but not official languages". And if you are referring to (http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf), then I fail to find that quote anywhere there. We need to be careful when stating facts vs. drawing conclusions in Wikipedia, especially in such contentious subject matter as this one.

:::Also, I have to disagree with you on your previous to the last statement above, namely, that "There are also places in which indigenous languages - and not Spanish - are the official administrative languages (for example in many communities under usos y costumbres)." It is not possible, in Mexico, to have a places in which indigenous languages - and not Spanish - is the official administrative language. If this was the case, then, in such places the goverment would be under no obligation to provide translation, accommodation, etc., services to someone whose only language was Spanish!

:::It seems to me you are giving too much credit to the indigenous tongues in Mexico. The reality is the indigenous languages ARE protected by law at the highest level, yes, but that does not automatically do away with the real fact that, in Mexico, Spanish is the only official language (again, official meaning that it is one of the 63 officially recognized) that is also the only national language (meaning not regionally spoken). This can lead to only one reality: Spanish is the only language in Mexico that is simultaneously BOTH, an official language AND a national language. None of the other 62 languages can say that. Agreed?

:::'''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''

:::::I missed this because of the indentation. I agree with the first part of this - they are all administratively national languages (in the sense of languages that are belong to the Mexican Nation), Spanish is in addition de facto official, because it is the main language of the Mexican state (which is not the same as the Nation). It becomes confusing when you then go on to use national to mean that they should be spoken universally within the nation - since that is not the sense used by the legislation. It is also not strictly meaningful to distinguish between regional and national languages in this sense since Indigenous people travel and speak their languages where they arrive so that most indigenous languages are spoken in the DF and there are large Mixtec communities in Northern Mexico for example. The law specifically provides for the possibility that as languages come to be spoken in new places they are then also legally recognized in their new contexts - the law does not distinguish between regional or universal validity within the Mexican nation.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 21:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::To be awfully frank you can disagree all you want but that will not change the facts that there are communities in Mexico where indigenous languages are the only ones used in administration. Mexican la explicitly provides for this option and did so even before the passing of the Law of Linguistic rights by the statutes of usos y costumbres. How much time have you spent working with indigenous languages in Mexico exactly? I did my first fieldwork in a Mexican indigenous community 8 years ago and have lived a total of two years in indigenous communities in Mexico. Believe me it is possible to go to places where administration is not conducted in Spanish - not many places and not large places - but they are there. And no - I am not trying to use this as anecdotal evidence or OR to insert anything to that effect into the article - but I do use it to take issue with your flat and erroneous statement about what is possible in Mexico. And I still don't know why you insist on using the terms national and official to mean the opposite of what they mean in Mexican legislation. But ys Spanish is the only National language that can also be said to be the de facto official language of the Mexican state (state is not the same as nation).[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the editors most involved in this conversation should take a break or summarize their points and wait for input from others. This discussion here seems to have reached a point of where there is a lot of repetition which, among other things, is making it difficult for editors coming here for the [[WP:RfC|RfC]] to get up to date.

Here is my $0.02: [[User:Maunus]] (and others) has provided pretty good legal documentation (i.e., Mexican laws) that Spanish ''does not'' enjoy an official status within the law. The fact that he/she has found laws and other primary sources which document this fact does not mean we will qualify it as [[WP:OR|original research]] just because had to do work to find it. It's also quite clear that Spanish ''is'' the only ''de facto'' national language and this should clearly be noted.

A good template for this might be the [[United States]] article which has a similar situation of no single ''de jure'' language but a strong and clearly recognized de facto language. You can find tons of embassies and articles that say English is the official language of the US too; they are simply wrong and Wikipedia would be wrong to report their mistakes.

In the absence of a better idea, the best option would be to follow the example of the [[United States]] article and to list official language as something like "''None at federal level''" and the national language as ''Spanish (de facto)'' with a similar silly little footnote in the info box explaining the whole situation. —[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|mako]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|๛]] 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

:I'm not planning on keeping up to date on this page so if folks want my opinion or clarification, please leave a message on my talk page. —[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|mako]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|๛]] 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

::Mako provides some interesting observations. Fundamentally, the controversy here occurs because there are two sides both of which have meritable arguments. Maybe equally meritable, maybe unequally meritable, but arguments of merit to one degree or another nevertheless. IMO, this official language subject is not black or white: it exists in the gray. Hopefully this is something we have all come to appreciate.

::There are, imo, two ways to handle this: the win-lose approach and the win-win aproach. In the win-lose approach we ask, which side has the most convincing arguments?, and formulate text based on that, with the result that one of the original sides gets his way and the other side does not. In the win-win approach we decide that, "heck! this is a matter that even the sources can agree upon", and we formulate text with that basis in mind.

::One thing is awfully evident however: There is no dispute that the Ameridian languages are -not- the ones under debate here. I have yet to hear someone here say that "heck wait [[Otomi language|Otomi]] (or substitute any one of the other 65 Ameridian languages) is the national, official, de facto, de jure, de this, de that, etc etc etc language of Mexico". So an undisputed fact is that Spanish does hold a -unique- place amongst the languages of Mexico and, per the inverse of [[WP:UNDUE]], would deserve greater treatment in any entry about languages. But such greater treatment should not be oriented towards what Spanish is not (not de jure, not official, not this, not that) which, in itself, would lean towards the win-lose situation above. Instead, it should discuss the "positive" aspects of the language: how it is used, how it became predominant, how or if it is singled out in the law, in day-to-day government services, whatever. (Compare, for example, the negativity in the [[2012 phenomenon]] and the "positivity" in the [[Resurrection of Jesus]] - yet they are both two highly contended subjects).

::To achieve [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]], we need to divest ourselves of our own personal views, perceptions, experiences, preferences, etc., and let the article's content be dictated by what is actually said by the sources, and whenever the sources differ, we can point out such differences in the article. This is an important component of [[WP:NPOV]]. The finished product should be characterized by what I will term "professional harmony": readers should not be distracted by cues that there was no agreement in the part of the editors putting the article together. This is often achieved by including those points where everyone (or most everyone) agrees and leaving out entirely (or possibly discussing under a controversies section in another article, like [[Languages of Mexico]]) those areas where editorial disagreement exists.

::It is best to be alert for not falling victims of the common fallacy that "if this, then not that". For example, does the statement "Spanish is a national language in Mexico" automatically disqualify the statement "Spanish is not an official language in Mexico"? That is, are the two statements [[logic|mutually exclusive]]? It is important to sort of this out, or else, I see this subject will return back to haunt everyone here again. For example, imo, (I am not defending either side; I am simply stating my opinion) it has been established that Spanish is '''the''' official language of Mexico when we consider certain sources which appear to focus in "practical" (as compared to, say, legal) issues --Mexican embassies, blah blah blah included-- and that Spanish is '''the''' national language of Mexico when we consider that it is the only language spoken nationally (that is, not regionally). There are some very valid govt sources, the Executive branch included, that state Spanish is the official language. An editor pointed out above that while Spanish is mentioned (rightfully or not) as the official language in Mexico (and as I doubled checked this appears to be by a seemingly endless number of sources) none of the other 66 Ameridian languages are ever mentioned as official. We need to consider what sort of weight that reality should carry/not carry. We also need to consider definitions, what do we mean by "official", or, for example, does the fact that sources state Spanish as official is enough for Wikipedia to contain that statement/claim?/fact? An editor above stated (and I am not saying this is right or not, only pointing out why having clear definitions is probably the first step in this discussion) that in order for something to be official it "must be declared so by law". Is this our definition of "official"? why? why not? Also, is it OK for us as editors to play the role of supreme court of the land and ''interpet'' what was meant by some piece of Mexican legislation? IMO, we would probably be frowned upon if we took this direction. Agreed?

::'''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
*Just noting that I don't think you correctly represent either the issue or my arguments. Otherwise I will follow Benjamin Mako's suggestion to await more outside input.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 16:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

:::* '''Enough is Enough!'''. Assuming [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]]'s account of past dispute resolution is correct, both this RfC and the change were inappropriate. It is unacceptable to just start a new RfC that fails to provide context for the discussion, and to essentially ignore multiple previous DR processes. If something is widely agreed upon in mediation, someone wishing to challenge that needs to explicitly reference the previous discussions, explain why they were found wrong, and attempt to change consensus. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE does not mean that you just get to, a few months later, get a quick answer on an RfC to override months work of previous work--there is a very strong onus on the person wanting to change the prior consensus to argue for that change and only proceed with editsgiven a clear indication that consensus has, in fact, changed. While I haven't yet looked into [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]]'s links, if they are correct, I consider this RfC to be disruptive. [[User:Sonarclawz|Sonarclawz]] ([[User talk:Sonarclawz|talk]]) 07:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
::::huh? What are you talking about? Mercy11 has not made any claims about prior consensus and he has not participated in any prior discussions about this (especially not for months). I have. There has been no mediation. I would say that if one counts voices instead of verbiage above there are only two participants who are in favor of calling Spanish "official" with at least twice as many leaning towards no mention or qualification such as "de facto official" (which was the prior consensus by the way) [[User:Maunus]] editing logged out [[Special:Contributions/128.148.211.79|128.148.211.79]] ([[User talk:128.148.211.79|talk]]) 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::It is the official language, the others are equal status but not used equally unless they are of note in a given area.[[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]]) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Would you mind giving the rationale behind your opinion also?[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'd support the infobox saying "Languages: Spanish (majority) and 51 [[Languages of Mexico|Indigenous languages]]". I don't see a need to call it "official" there. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) ps. Frankly it's a little hard for me to tell exactly what the various parties in this debate are advocating; I can see which "side" they're on but not their precise goal (without reading more text more carefully than I care to).
True, but Wikipedia is not a democracy... one wise man by himself can drown out a server load of fools in this forum. The very fact that the discussions have been dragging on for months displays a common set of symptoms here on Wikipedia. calling for an RFC is not going to work at all if those symptoms and attitudes continue to persist. [[User:Sonarclawz|Sonarclawz]] ([[User talk:Sonarclawz|talk]]) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::It is true that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|not a democracy]], but it is also true that when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia you should [[WP:IGNORE|ignore]] all the rules. We are having this discussion because [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] -- ''and not calling participants "fools"'' -- is the primary method how decisions are made on Wikipedia. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
*''' "de facto" in infoBox''' - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] Agree with user Mako's summary above. If official government sources indicate that there is ''not'' an official language, that trumps dozens of guidebooks etc that say to the contrary. Suggest follow the InfoBox pattern from the [[United States]] article, which has "National Language: English (de facto)". It would also be nice to mention the quantity of indigenous languages there, if a good Reliable Source can be found that counts them. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:*Noleander, the problem is that (unless I have missed something of astronomical dimensions in this discussion!) '''NO''' official government sources indicate that there is ''not'' an official language in Mexico. What has been presented so far is that (1) the Legislative Branch of the Mexican government states that Spanish and 66 indigenous tongues are "national languages" in Mexico, and (2) that two Mexican Executive Branch sources at the federal level, namely the Office of the President of Mexico and Mexico's Department of State ("SRE"), state that "Mexico's official language is Spanish" ([http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/mexico/ HERE]) and that "Languages: Spanish (official)" [http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271 HERE], respectively. This is the heart of the discussion. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
::You don't mention that the first of those websites is from the previous presidency before there was any legislation about languages in place - and that the second is just an information sheet for foreign investors and the like - not an official document.[[User:Maunus|•ʍaunus]]•[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw•]] 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Maunus, No, I do not mention the first is from a previous Mexican presidency website; I also don't mention that the law about '''national''' languages doesn't have an iota of effect on an Executive Branch decision to formally and officially make a language an '''official''' language -- to be specific, they are two different things. And, no, I do not mention that the second is "just an information sheet for foreign investors... not an official document", and the reason is that this second source is actually from the Office of [[Patricia Espinosa|Patricia Espinosa-Cantellano]], the [[Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Mexico)|Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs]], a Cabinet-level dependency of the current administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderon and, as such, it '''does''' represent the position of the current Mexican President and, by default, the position of the Government of Mexico. No offense, I sense you are too fixated on equating "official" ONLY with that which comes from the Legislative Branch; I remind you that in a republican form of government -- like Mexico's -- all three branches carry equal weight.

:::Maunus and, once more don't take this personal for you seem to be a dedicated fellow Wikipedian but, IMO, this is not the time to reverberate stuff that has already been candidly presented before: this discussion really needs to come to a resolution shortly. I can understand why you may want to oppose other editors' positions by using your interpretations of the links presented, and you have every right to do that. But the reality is that editors can go to the links and interpret those links for themselves -- which is the purpose of the link system to start with. Tomorrow it will be three weeks since you opened this RFC; I am moving this ahead to the next phase, namely a Resolution.

:::With my apologies to any editor whom I may be misplacing, I am submitting the Resolution section list below. Note: I ask any editor whose name I may have misplaced to, please, reposition his/her username under the correct group. Thanks. (For the sake of erring on the side of overcautiousness, I have positioned only those who have stated their position in no uncertain terms.). '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''

::::You presented your reverberation and personal interpretation of those links and I presented mine. I'll decide when it is time for me to speak thank you. The fact that it comes from any of the other branches than the legislative is exzactly what makes Spansih the ''de factor'' and not the ''de jure'' official language - that is the definition of the difference between ''de facto'' and ''de jure'' in fact. And also you misrepresented my position again in your section below as you have through out this discussion. [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Maunus, the reason I did not include ''de facto'' as an option is because your RFC (see above) focused on whether or not "''Spanish [should] be mentioned as an official language in the infobox''". Only after that was settled (you reasoned in your RFC above) did you state "''If it should be included in the infobox should it be mentioned that it is only "de facto" official and not "de jure"''". It seemed clear that in the absence of any additional ongoing discussion on your part the issue at hand was "Official vs. Not official". There is no problem in adding a '''de facto''' column for purposes of a Resolution, but this is not what the frequency of your comments implied. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''

'''Does Mexico have an official language? NO.'''
This is a very, very complex question. I think that even academicians and legal authorities in Mexico would argue over this, so it's not surprising that it's provoking fits and starts among WP editors, many of whom probably are not in Mexico and are not intimately familiar with Mexican law and customs.

The first problem, as noted by Mercy earlier, is that we don't have clearcut definitions of “official language” and “national language.” Before you can make an informed decision on what to put in the infobox, you need to establish the meanings of those two terms. Do they mean the same thing? If they do not, what is the difference between them?

The second question is, ''Is WP's use of the terms “official language” and “national language” the same as the usage of those terms by the authorities whom we are planning to cite as sources?''

Experiences in other countries show that these are not merely academic questions.

Take the case of India, for example, a country that has long been described in travel guidebooks and the like as having two official languages (Hindi and English).
An Indian state high court recently ruled that there's no national language in India. A plaintiff had sought to require manufacturers to label products in Hindi. As reported in the Times of India, “the court asked whether there was any notification saying Hindi is India's national language, for it's an 'official language' of this country. No notification ever issued by the government could be produced before the court in this regard. This is because the Constitution has given Hindi the status of the official language and not the national language.” The court denied the plaintiff's request.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-25/india/28148512_1_national-language-official-language-hindi

Or consider Singapore:
The Constitution of Singapore states, in section 153A Official languages and national language:
“(1) Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the 4 '''official''' languages in Singapore.
(2) The '''national''' language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script: Provided that – (a) no person shall be prohibited from using or from teaching or learning any other language; and (b) nothing in this Article shall prejudice the right of the Government to preserve and sustain the use of the language of any other community in Singapore. (emphasis added)
(you can Google the Constitution of Singapore to read the section text in context)

So it is evident that “official language” and “national language” are not necessarily the same thing, in legal terms. What do we mean by these terms for WP purposes?

There is a scholarly book edited by Kirsten Süselbeck entitled '''''Lengua, nación e identidad: la regulación del plurilingüismo en España, y América Latina''''', published in 2008, that offers a number of observations directly relevant to this discussion. (Unfortunately, there is no copy available in my local library, so I am limited at the moment to reading a few excerpts from it that are available online. I think it would be prudent for the editors who are most committed to addressing this topic on WP to get a copy of this book to review, and/or to get in contact with some of its authors to see if they can offer further suggestions or sources for WP.)

On page 243, in a chapter on “La 'defensa' del español en Hispanoamérica,” author Silke Jansen includes Mexico as one of 6 Latin American countries that do not list Spanish as an official language (the table also shows countries that ''do'' list Spanish as the sole official language, and other countries that list Spanish as an official language in addition to indigenous languages that share official status with Spanish).

In a footnote on page 265 from the same chapter, there is this comment on Mexico: “Hasta la fecha, ha habido tres proyectos de ley para declarar el español la lengua oficial de la nación, pero todos han fracasado por la resistencia de las institucionales indigenistas (Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista), que pretenden que la oficialización del español perjudicaría a las lenguas indígenas.” (my loose translation: “To date, there have been three attempts to legally declare Spanish the official language of the country, but all have failed in the face of opposition from advocacy institutions for indigenous peoples [Dirección General de Educación Indígena e Instituto Nacional Indigenista], who claim that bestowing an official status on Spanish would discriminate against indigenous languages.”)

Something else noted in the book (see for instance p. 258-263) that is especially interesting and relevant is that despite declining to establish Spanish as the “official” language of the country, the Mexican government has enacted laws that mandate that specifically Spanish be used in product labeling. See also:
http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=708514&fecha=01/06/2004

Manaus has throughout this discussion made reference to the fact that Prof. Jaime Labastida, the director of the Mexican Academy of Language, has been saying that Spanish is not the official language of the country and that he wants legislation enacted to make it so. There are quotes from a number of others in this article discussing Labastida's proposal who agree that Spanish is not the official language:
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/cultura/65191.html

There is testimony as well from Senator Pablo Bomez Alvarez, who only 3 weeks ago said in remarks in the Mexican Senate: “Yo creo que en México no hay una lengua oficial, y cualquier persona se puede expresar y hemos hecho reformas para que en el aparato de justicia, por ejemplo, la gente pueda defenderse en su propia lengua.” (“I believe that in Mexico there is no official language, and any one can express him- or herself, and we have made reforms so that in the justice system, for example, the people can defend themselves in their own language.”)
http://comunicacion.senado.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3281:sesion-ordinaria-de-la-h-camara-de-senadores-celebrada-el-martes-20-de-marzo-de-2012&catid=47:version-estenografica&Itemid=178

So my take is that no, Spanish is NOT the official language of Mexico and should not be so described by WP. (Official language in this usage meaning a language explicitly declared in the Constitution or in other statute as the “official” language of the country.)

I also agree with others, such as Angr and kwami, that the term “official (de facto)” is not appropriate here. Either a language has been explicitly declared official, or it has not. De facto is inappopriate with "official." (De facto could be used appropriately in some cases with "national," though.) In this case, the Mexican legislature has multiple times voted down attempts to pass laws making Spanish the official language.

On the other hand, Spanish is clearly a National language. It is so recognized in the law. It is the most commonly used language for business, the arts, and legal proceedings (eg the national legislature, courts, and executive branch). Product labels must be written in Spanish. And for even those who speak an indigenous language, the majority have some knowledge as well of Spanish.

However, the law also recognizes all those scores of other indigenous languages.

For these reasons, '''Option 2''' (ie, Official Language: none; National language(s): Spanish [default] and 60+ indigenous languages) is by far the most accurate and the best of the options.
A footnote or a link to an expanded discussion of some of the nuances would be appropriate, in addition. [[User:Dezastru|Dezastru]] ([[User talk:Dezastru|talk]]) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:Dezastru, I support most of what you say. However, when the Presidency of the Republic states that Spanish is the official language, I must accept that with the same degree of support that I accept Spanish is a national language when it comes from the Mexican Congress. I remind you that Mexico has a republican form of government and as such it has three powers, each of which can emit orders which carry the weight of law: Congress issues [[statutes]], the President issues [[executive orders]], and the judiciary issues [[court order]]s. The '''national''' languages order issued by the Mexican Congress has -nothing- to do with making or not Spanish (or any of the 66) an '''official''' language. It was issued to address only the matter of national languages. Therefore that law is a moot point in this discussion for this is a discussion over official languages, not over national languages. As such the only remaining powers left to review would be the executive and the judiciary via their corresponding presidential orders and court orders. The Mexican Supreme Court has not issued any orders in this regard that I know of. With the Courts also ruled out the only authority left to examine if the Executive Branch. Upon reviewing the evidence available, the Executive Branch has been found to have indeed issued either a presidential order in this regard or an [[internal memo]] to this effect because it is a fact that "Mexico : Languages : Spanish : Official" is found in a multitude of official sites within the Mexican government.

:I can understand (although I don't agree with) someone's reluctance to call Spanish Mexico's official language. After all, the official language issue hasn't been brought before the Mexican Supreme Court nor is there a Statute passed to that regard. But such reluctance, imo, is a display of negligent overcautioness that leads to the comfortable status quo. I say this because the Executive Branch does state TODAY that Spanish -IS- Mexico's official language (http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=271). Since most editors here are Americans, let me provide this example: No American would argue today that slavery was abolished in the U.S. over a century ago. Yet neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor U.S. Congress ever issued a Court Order nor ever proclaimed a statute to abolish slavery. The reason they didn't is this: they didn't have to. Slavery ended thanks to President Lincoln issuing an executive order to that effect. Adn that order has had the effect of law to this day.

:When I joined this discussion, my position was "Spanish is the ''de facto'' language, but it is not the official language", and in addition "Spanish plus 66 languages are national languages". However, as I dugged in and I reasoned over the evidence it became clear to me that Spanish is indeed proclaimed to be the official language of that country. Here's why: I have read editors here presenting evidence that such and such author, and such and such director of the Mexican Academy of Language and such and such Mexican senator and such and such Mexican academician, etc etc etc says there is no official language in Mexico, and those secondary sources use a spectrum full of arguments to support their position. To me, that is tantamount to saying that such and such and such and such American individual --prominent or not-- says slavery has not been officially ended in the U.S. because the U.S. Congress or the Courts never passed a statute or order to that effect. The point is this: it doesn't matter how high in the Mexican social, academic, intellectual, etc, echelon an individual may be, it does not matter that someone is the author or 1 trillion books on Mexican languages or that someone has lived for 100 years amongst the native Indians of Mexico, etc etc etc etc. What matters is who holds the power to declare a language official in Mexico. The President holds that power and the President has declared Spanish to be the official language, as evidenced in the multitude of official website of the Mexican government. That is enough for me,,,, at least until the Mexican Courts or the Mexican Congress overturns him. But as of today, that hasn't happened yet despite the kicking and screaming of many inside and outside Mexico.

:'''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 16:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
::It is not the case that simple because the president states so makes it so - it might if he stated it as a decree but there is no evidence that he has. And in anycase he has not even stated so - the president is not responsible for the statistics on the SRE webpage (which is also not fromtoday but from November 2010).[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Mercy, if I understand your position correctly, you (1) accept my point that a language is only a country’s “official language” ''if'' there is a law that declares the language to hold such status and that explicitly uses the term “official language” in the declaration; and you (2) take the presence of statements on executive branch websites listing Spanish as the official language to be evidence such a law exists.

:::I agree that those website mentions are problematic, which is one of the reasons this is such a complex issue, and one of the reasons that a footnote explaining some of the nuances of the discussion would be appropriate. But the website mentions are not ''sufficient'' for WP to present Spanish as the “official language” for several reasons.

:::First, we would need to ''assume'' that those specific website notations of Spanish being the official language were made with the direct knowledge and approval of the officials who hold the authority to make pronouncements carrying the full weight of law, and not just by an intern or office assistant somewhere (who are the very kind of people that usually put together the information for those kinds of webpages). It is not difficult to find factual errors on institutional websites, including government websites. The top officer overseeing a government department -- and this is even more true for the president -- generally does not write the webpage information him- or herself and is almost always too preoccupied with other duties to even bother reading what is on the websites (at least, what is on this kind of page of their website).

:::Second, we would need to ''assume'' that even if the mentions on the websites are accurate representations of the official views of the highest-ranking officials in that branch of the government, that individual’s views are valid representations of the law. Except that government officials write and say inaccurate things all the time. Sometimes they are just plain wrong, even though they may not realize it.

:::Third, we would need to ''assume'' that that official meant the term "official language" in the same way that we mean it for the purposes of the WP article.

:::On a controversial topic of interest to as wide an audience as this is likely to be, such assumptions need stronger, more reliable support. The burden of proof always falls on those making the claim that something (eg a law) exists rather than on those arguing that there is no evidence for its existence.

:::Fourth, you contend that the three general branches of government hold equal authority in establishing law in Mexico, which you say is analogous to the situation in the United States of America. I do not pretend to be an authority on law, and certainly not on the laws of Mexico. However, it seems highly doubtful that the president of Mexico holds the legal authority to unilaterally declare, by executive order or by any other means, what the official language of the country is, particularly if the legislature, which is constitutionally the body authorized to make law, does not agree with the executive’s proposal.

:::The Constitution of Mexico gives the executives at various levels of government (from the president down to local municipal executives) the authority to issue orders that include the technical details necessary to carry out the general laws passed by the legislature -- basically, for providing the flesh to fit on a skeleton dictated by the legislature. If the legislature votes against adoption of a law, it would be improper (if technically not actually illegal) for the president to then try to unilaterally declare the same measure by executive order. And as I mentioned in the earlier post, the evidence is that the Mexican legislature has on at least 3 occasions voted to reject adoption of Spanish as the official language. In fact, it seems that an effort to make Spanish the official language failed in 2003, when Representative Arcelia Arredondo García introduced a bill with that intent: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/sia/coord/refconst_lviii/html/249.htm

:::The declaration of the official language of a country is a matter of such fundamental importance, affecting the lives and civil rights of so many on so many different levels, that it is inconceivable that the executive would be allowed to assume such authority.

:::Finally, the analogy you make to the case of the United States of America does not help your argument. Slavery actually ''was'' outlawed under authority of law -- not by the president, but by act of Congress and the state legislatures, in the form of the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|13th Amendment to the Constitution]]. (Moreover, in the legal system of the United States, you can be assured that neither the legislature, the Supreme Court, nor many of the citizens would accept the president trying to unilaterally declare English the official language by executive order.) [[User:Dezastru|Dezastru]] ([[User talk:Dezastru|talk]]) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

===Resolution===
As per my comment above, here is where contributors appear to stand on this issue:
{{Infobox country
|native_name = {{native name|es|Estados Unidos Mexicanos}}
|conventional_long_name = United Mexican States (1)
|languages_type = [[National language]]s
|languages = [[Spanish language|Spanish]] (default) and [[Languages of Mexico|68 indigenous languages]]
}}
{{Infobox country
|native_name = {{native name|es|Estados Unidos Mexicanos}}
|conventional_long_name = United Mexican States (2)
|official_languages = ''none''
|languages_type = [[National language]]s
|languages = [[Spanish language|Spanish]] (default) and [[Languages of Mexico|68 indigenous languages]]
}}
* '''''Official language(s): None.''''' (1 or 2 at right)
**[[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]])
**[[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]])
**[[User:Dezastru|Dezastru]] ([[User talk:Dezastru|talk]])

{{Infobox country
|native_name = {{native name|es|Estados Unidos Mexicanos}}
|conventional_long_name = United Mexican States (3)
|official_languages = [[Spanish language|Spanish]]
|languages_type = [[National language]]s
|languages = [[Languages of Mexico|68 indigenous languages]]
}}
* '''''Official language(s): Spanish.''''' (3 at right)
**[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Alex]] ([[User talk:AlexCovarrubias|talk]])
**[[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]])
**[[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]])

{{Infobox country
|native_name = {{native name|es|Estados Unidos Mexicanos}}
|conventional_long_name = United Mexican States (4)
|languages_type = [[National language]]s
|languages = [[Spanish language|Spanish]] (''[[de facto]]'' official) and [[Languages of Mexico|68 indigenous languages]]
}}
{{Infobox country
|native_name = {{native name|es|Estados Unidos Mexicanos}}
|conventional_long_name = United Mexican States (5)
|official_languages = [[Spanish language|Spanish]] (''[[de facto]]'')
|languages_type = [[National language]]s
|languages = [[Languages of Mexico|68 indigenous languages]]
}}
* '''''de facto Spanish''''' (4 or 5 at right)
**[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]])
** [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]]
**[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]])
**[[User:Simon Burchell|Simon Burchell]] ([[User talk:Simon Burchell|talk]])

* '''''PENDING'''''
**[[User:Sonarclawz|Sonarclawz]] ([[User talk:Sonarclawz|talk]])
**[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|mako]] ([[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|talk]])
**[[User:Cancerbero 8|Cancerbero 8]] ([[User talk:Cancerbero 8|talk]])
**[[User:Jztinfinity|Jztinfinity]] ([[User talk:Jztinfinity|talk]])

As I noted above, my apologies to any editor whom I may have misplaced. Please reposition your name under the correct position header if necessary. Some users admitted not having a good comprehension of what the arguments on both sides were, and some others admitted either to being only passers-by (paraphrasing) or were early contributors who didn't benefit from more recent "evidence" presented by both opposing sides. Thanks for understanding if you were initially misplaced, but please do reposition your name as/if needed!. '''My name is [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.'''
*My position is this: Spanish is one of 66 national languages '''and''' the ''de facto'' official language. [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I created a "de facto" option above & put 3 editors in there. Someone should go thru the "no position" list and see if others should also be moved there. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Make that 4 or more in "de facto" vote. I don't know who created the summary above, but it appears they deliberately skewed the summary to show that "Official=Spanish" was the winner, ignoring the "De facto" option. That is not very civilized. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Also, characterizing RfC responders as "others admitted either to being only passers-by" shows a misunderstanding of the RfC process: the whole point is to gather input from objective, uninvolved editors. Assume some good faith. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I put the four people who said 'none' under 'none', and removed the checked-out IP, and added four sample infoboxes with possible wording. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 16:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree with being put under the "None" heading. Of options 1 or 2, I slightly prefer option 1, but am agreeable to either. [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
*I basically support all except option 3.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
*Actually it might be best to state Spanish, Nahuatl, Yucatec Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, and 63 others.[[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]]) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

*I am late to the party, but please see my rationale for choosing '''Option 2''' in the discussion area above the RESOLUTION section break. (I am absolutely opposed to Option 3.) [[User:Dezastru|Dezastru]] ([[User talk:Dezastru|talk]]) 09:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

==i would like to put up an anthem box==
t would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes [[User:Philpm930|Philpm930]] ([[User talk:Philpm930|talk]]) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
[[File:Himno Nacional Mexicano instrumental.ogg]]

== What? ==

The piramyids of the sun and the moon ar not in mexico city, bot teotihuacan--[[Special:Contributions/189.228.64.250|189.228.64.250]] ([[User talk:189.228.64.250|talk]]) 01:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:Which is about forty five minutes north of the center of Mexico city. And about ten minutes outside of the city limits.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 02:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, being in mexico, I think nobody here would think it is in Mexico City. Close? OK

Talk:Mexico

2012-04-28T01:54:12Z

189.228.64.250: /* What? */ new section