Talk:Mexico

Location of Mexico

We are having a big discussion in our household. My 9 year old and I both agree that THE UNITED STATES and MEXICO are both part of NORTH AMERICA. Now, my 13 year old and his SOCIAL STUDIES teachers have said MEXICO is not part of THE UNITED STATES and NORTH AMERICA, but that it is really a part of SOUTH AMERICA.

Now we have viewed this over the INTERNET and my 9 year old and I are both right.

If anyone has any discussion about this, please feel free to edit.

Alicia Renee Landrum

Mexico and the United States of America are both part of the continent of North America, along with about 20 other countries. There is a list of all the countries in North America in the article. (Click on the name to go to the article.)

There is sometimes confusion because in addition to the continents of North and South America, there are Geographic Regions.

The geographic regions include Central America and Middle America. These are very important regions but they are not continents.

Mexico is part of Middle America. It is not part of South America or Central America. However it is commonly accepted that Mexico is part of Central America. UEFA has chosen to classify it as such in the World Cup qualifiers.

This is an old discussion so I don't even know why I bother answering, but just to respond to the comment above that was made recientely, Mexico is in North America (region) along with Canada and the United States, below Mexico there is Central America, there is also this rarely used term called "Middle America" which includes Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Central America and the Caribbean. Supaman89 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is in "southern North America". Perhaps that was what the teacher said. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

North America shown in Mauve (Greenland), Blue (Mexico, the USA & Canada), Green (Central America), and Red (Caribbean). South America is in Orange

Mexico is part of North America, I hope that image on the right can help you, you can check other languages for more information, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

French: fr:Amérique du Nord
Italian: it:America settentrionale
Spanish: es:América del Norte
Portuguese: pt:América do Norte
German: de:Nordamerika
Romanian: ro:America de Nord
and so on.

(Click image to enlarge.) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What may be a little more controversial is which contries comprise "Latin America". However, México is not often part of that controversy, as it is almost always considered to be a part of Latin America. Yes, It is definitely considered part of North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico it's totaly part of Norhamerica U.S.A. Canada and Mexico are Northamerica. The true is Centralamerica was created by the Centralamerica countrys Guatemala,El Salvador,Honduras,Nicaragua,Costa Rica, Panama, all these countries created the union of countrys of Central America in 1821 after get the independece from Spain, and the reazon was exclude Mexico bicose they want a clear separesion from Mexico.

Geological and Climatological the world it's North and South and the middle it's the Ecuador that means, the right separesion it's Northamerica all the way to the Ecuador and Southamerica south of the Ecuador, and if you lookinfor the right Central America has to be the noth and south of the Ecuador thats means the north of Suth America it's the right Central America (chek a map, the Ecuador it's Centramenrica (Colombia, Venezuela,Ecuador,Guyanas,North of Peru,and norh of Brasil) that it's the right middle American Continent (chek a map my fiends) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilberto lopez (talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Name translations

We need to do some work on standardizing proper name versions and translations, not only for México, but throughout Wikipedia. Focusing on México, the proper names should be the "Spanish" versions. Even though the article is in English, the country is not. So, even the "common" name for México should be stated as "México". Then, yes, there are official English versions of the names. These should be stated as such along with any reference that makes them so. (For example--to be researched and verified--the US Bureau of Standards specified English versions, the US Congress specified recognized English versions, the Mexican congress specified English versions, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual name of the article, however, can certainly be left in the English common version, "Mexico", because it is an English encyclopedia and the most commonly used version of the name. However, the name should be clearly disambiguated so that any proper spelling leads to--and is validated by--the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

wow

(disambiguation). Estados Unidos Mexicanos United Mexican States

Flag Coat of arms

Anthem: "Himno Nacional Mexicano" "Mexican National Anthem"

Capital (and largest city) Mexico City 19°03′N, 99°22′W Official languages None at federal level. Spanish (de facto) National language Spanish, and 62 Indigenous Amerindian languages.[1] Demonym Mexican Government Federal presidential republic

-  President Felipe Calderón

(PAN) Independence from Spain

-  Declared September 16, 1810  
-  Recognized September 27, 1821  

Area

-  Total 1,972,550 km² (15th)

761,606 sq mi

-  Water (%) 2.5 

Population

-  2007 estimate 108,700,891 (11th) 
-  2005 census 103,263,388  
-  Density 55/km² (142nd)

142/sq mi GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate

-  Total $1.149 trillion (12th) 
-  Per capita $12.775 (60th) 

GDP (nominal) 2006 estimate

-  Total $840.012 billion (short scale) (14th) 
-  Per capita $8,066 (55th) 

Gini (2006) 47.3 (high) HDI (2007) ▲ 0.829 (high) (52nd) Currency Mexican peso (MXN) Time zone U.S Central to Western (UTC-8 to -6) Internet TLD .mx Calling code +52 The United Mexican States[2] (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos (help·info)), or commonly Mexico (IPA: /ˈmɛksɪkoʊ/) (Spanish: México (help·info) Spanish pronunciation: [ˈmexiko]), is a federal constitutional republic in North America. It is bordered on the north by the United States; on the south and west by the North Pacific Ocean; on the southeast by Guatemala, Belize, and the Caribbean Sea; and on the east by the Gulf of Mexico.[3][4] The United Mexican States is a federation comprising thirty-one states and a federal district, the capital Mexico City, whose metropolitan area is one of the world's most populous.

Covering almost 2 million square kilometers,[5] Mexico is the fifth-largest country in the Americas by total area and the 14th largest in the world. With an estimated population of 109 million,[6] it is the 11th most populous country and the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.

As a regional power[7][8] and the only Latin American member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1994, Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country[9].

Mexico is the 12th largest economy in the world by GDP by purchasing power parity. The economy is strongly linked to those of its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners, despite being considered an emerging world power[10] the country's social and security problems keep it away from being effective.

Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency from the Institutional Revolutionary Party ("Partido Revolucionario Institucional" : PRI) which had held it since 1929, culminating the political alternation at the federal level, which had begun at the local level during the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.104.79.105 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas table

I said it was vandalism because this is not the first time it happens, I usually put an explanation to every edition I make but this time (as usual) it was reverted with no summary at all (like if I didn't explained why) anyways, the two tables are basically the same, the "metropolitan areas" one was already there and it was fine, then Joao Felipe came and for no reason changed it for another one being pretty much the same (why? I don’t know), after I reverted it and explained why (again), he reverted it again with no comment... Supaman89 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments does not mean WP:Vandalism. If it is a matter of taste, I actually prefer his format. But this is the place to discuss, not to accuse each other of vandalism. --the Dúnadan 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but this is not the first time it happens with him, how would you feel if you put an explanation for you edits and I reverted it just like that with no comment, anyway you know the old table looked better, let's not make a big issue out of this, I'll just put it back so we can continue improving the article, cheers? Supaman89 (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the old table looks better? Didn't you read what I wrote? In design, I prefer his proposal. Secondly, please review what vandalism is. Not writing an edit summary is not vandalism. Engaging in an edit war by "putting it back" it not the way to go, mate. --the Dúnadan 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which table was whose, but they pretty much are the same. If we're voting on preference, I think the one that lists them in 2 columns with the pictures in the middle looks a little better because it doesn't seem to take up as much of the page. Also, I noticed someone changed it from "metropolitan areas" to "core cities." Would it be better to change it back to metropoiltan areas; I think "core cities" sounds a little strange to me (just an opinion). Kman543210 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the thing: the population figures cited are those of metropolitan areas, but the list (an links) are of cities, the main cities - also called core cities in demographics. So, in reality, Monterrey only has 1.1 milion inhabitants, but Greater Monterrey has 3.8 million. The problem is that the author/s of the table were mixing two different concepts, that of cities and that of metropolitan areas. So, if we want to keep the table as is, and if we do not want to misinform, then the title of the table should be "metropolitan areas" and the title of the column should be "core cities". But any other option, as long as it is accurate, could work. --the Dúnadan 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Kman543210 there was already a Metropolitan Areas table, and then for no reason user Joao Felipe changed it for another being pretty much the same (that itself is pointless) second of all, if he wanted to changed the table's look, he should've gone to the table's template not remove it and chage it here (as he did), third of all even though I explained to him why his edition was reverted he (as usual) reverted it again with no explanation, anyways Kman543210, here is the original and only template, there was no reason to be changed for another one practically identical. Supaman89 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) See the original template at:{{Largest cities of Mexico‎}}

Supaman, don't start an unecessary conflict. I will repeat myself for the third time:

• Nothing prevents a user from replacing a template with another template. Templates can be changed, replaced or deleted, if the community so wishes to. He made a proposal, you dislike it, and you revert it back.
• The reason to change it was aesthetics, just as many templates are constantly being changed. You yourself have changed that same template in the past. If you dislike the proposed new formatted version, you should object to it by discussing, not by reverting back.

--the Dúnadan 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see the two different tables, and Supaman is correct that they are practically the same; however, the replacement seems to take up a little less room and appears to be a little more symmetrical to have 2 columns on each side with the pictures in the middle. Again, either is fine, but that is just my preference/opinion (if feedback was wanted). I can't comment on the reverting or templates, just the appearance of the two tables that are very similar. Kman543210 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if he wants to propose the change he should go to the template's talkpage and propose it there, not come here and immediatly change it for no reason, further more if I tell him the reason why I reverted his edition he should at least give an explanation not just ignore me and do it again, so again if he wants to modify the template to look like the one he proposed is fine but he needs to propose it there, until then the article should stay the way it was, that is with the old version. Supaman89 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever read WP:BOLD?--the Dúnadan 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, if he's really interested in changing the table's appearance (which he's not) then he can go to the template's talk page and propose it any time, meanwhile the article has to stay the way it was until people there approve his change. Supaman89 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan, now I understand what you're saying about the numbers, thanks for clarifying. You're right that if it says metropolitan area, then the stats and ranking in the table should reflect that. The word "core city" just threw me off, but maybe it was just me. Thanks again Kman543210 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We could use "city proper" if that makes more sense.--the Dúnadan 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the table "Metropolitan Areas by Population" should include the states on the cities mentioned above. Mexico City (Mexico, Federal District, Hidalgo), Torreon-Gómez Palacio (Coahuila Durango), Puebla (Puebla Tlaxcala), Tampico (Tamaulipas-Veracruz). And Comarca Lagunera includes a zone larger than Torreón and Gómez Palacio, so it should not be used as a synomym.75.62.227.109 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Social Development section

I was thinking on adding a Social Development section, to include some facts and statistics about the life standards in Mexico, if anyone wants to help me to redact the section you're welcome to help me, like when we added the Health Care section, well that's pretty much it, all proposal and suggestions are welcome. Supaman89 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Floating graphic

This graphic looks oddly out of place. Other graphics on the page seem good - white space around them, that sort of thing. But this critter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mexico_states_map_small.png

has the text bumping up against the left hand side. Can anyone fix it? Someone who has dealt with the placement of graphics and has the power to penetrate the semi-protection of this article.

Good luck now.

Porthugh (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate, we got 2 versions of the same map but I think they both have the same problem, maybe we should decide for one and then try to fix the margin. Supaman89 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulf of
Mexico

Pacific
Ocean

Central
America

United States of America

Mexico City

AG

Baja
California

Baja
California
Sur

Campeche

Chiapas

Chihuahua

Coahuila

Colima

Durango

Guanajuato

Guerrero

HD

Jalisco

EM

Michoacán

MO

Nayarit

Nuevo
León

Oaxaca

Puebla

Querétaro

Quintana
Roo

San Luis
Potosí

Sinaloa

Sonora

Tabasco

Tamaulipas

TL

Veracruz

Yucatán

Zacatecas

Hi, Both images have problems. The colour of the text in the current image - the one with rounded corners - makes it hard to read. The other image is admittedly more fun with its background colours but many of the region names are truncated.

This harder than I thought. Maybe both images are out of place here.

Porthugh (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first image, just like Porthugh said, the blue colors of the second one make it hard to read the names. On the other hand, I don't see the names of the states truncated on either map; whenever the name was too large to fit, the official abbreviation was used. --the Dúnadan 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulf of Mexico Pacific Ocean Central America United States of America Mexico City AG Baja California Baja California Sur Campeche Chiapas Chihuahua Coahuila Colima Durango Guanajuato Guerrero HD Jalisco EM Michoacán MO Nayarit Nuevo León Oaxaca Puebla Querétaro Quintana Roo San Luis Potosí Sinaloa Sonora Tabasco Tamaulipas TL Veracruz Yucatán Zacatecas

We can fix the margins, but first we just need to decide which one we're going to use, I got the original SVG file for the first picture so I could probably fix it, and in the second picture is a PNG file so it could also be fixed even in MS Paint. Supaman89 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Hello again,

Truncated was the wrong word to use. Abbreviated is what I meant. Official abbreviations or not though, what use are they if we don't know in advance what they mean? Anyway forget about that.

This particular image has peculiar (to me) mark up which may or may not be connected to css mark up. I really don't know. Perhaps someone who does know could do something about the mark up so that the body/content text is not obscured.

I like the brightly coloured map even with the truncated/abbreviated names. Porthugh (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll try to make a mark around the first map to see how it looks. Supaman89 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I just solved the problem by adding a mark around it, I put it above so you can see the space difference, what do you think? Supaman89 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you correct the pronunciation of /ˈmexico/ in Spanish?

The current IPA symbols for Spanish are Template:IPAes, /e̞/ and /e̞/ are mid-vowels. It would be better to specify the pronunciation in Spanish of the official name of the nation as other articles; Estados Unidos Mexicanos would be in the IPA for Spanish, Template:IPAes. (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to add the question why the pronunciation is currently spelled with an x. Now, I'm not a language expert, but as far as I know, x denotes a throat sound, as in Scottish "loch" or German "Fach". The sound file makes it sound more like a fricative, something like the voiceless palatal fricative ç, if not exactly. Can somebody shed some light on this? Maybe it's a difference between Spanish as spoken in Spain an in Mexico? --134.130.57.186 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is the oldest European colony in mainland America (the continent), back then (in the 1500's) it was named "La Nueva España" and at that time the Spanish spelling was a bit different from today, for example the 'X' letter was pronounced like a 'SH' therefore Mexico City (The capital of La Nueva España) was pronounced 'Meshico' with the time the 'X' letter changed it's pronunciation to a 'H' sound ('J' sound in Spanish), therefore Mexico was pronounced Mehico (which is still the pronunciation until today) and then latter the 'X' letter finally adopted a 'KS' sound but Mexico (now with its formal name: United Mexican States) wasn't going to change again its pronunciation for the third time, so it is pronounced 'Mehico' but keeps the old spelling 'Mexico' and since Mexico is the most important Spanish-speaking country everyone respects that spelling, except for some Spaniards who refuse to spell it that way and spell it 'Mejico' which is quite offensive for most Mexicans because they're deliberately spelling it against the country's official form. I hope that helped you, saludos. Supaman89 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I just realized that my question was misleading. I wasn't talking asking the actual pronunciation of "Mexico", which I heard as ['meçiko] or something similar before. My question was about the apparent misspelling in IPA with a voiceless velar fricative. Therefore, I propose to change the IPA spelling from [ˈmexiko] to ['meçiko]. However, I'd prefer to have some input on somebody more knowledgeable in IPA before going ahead. --134.130.57.186 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Middle America (again)

I'm opening a new discussion regarding this issue, the term Middle America exists and is used in some publications to describe Mexico's location however compared with the term North America is definitely not as widely used, not to mention that more than half the links about MA refer to the middle class in the United States, therefore I think that the undue weight of the term has to be made clear in the paragraph, because the way it is currently implies that both terms are equally used which are not, here there is a list of how some publications describe Mexico and North America, please notice the lack of the use of the term MA, [1] [2][3][4][5]. Supaman89 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course that in a carefully picked list the term MA will not show. This is a very long discussion, and we, including yourself Supaman, had agreed on a consensus. Regardless of the fact that Corticopia seems to be gone, we should abide by the consensus reached by a poll in which you voted as well, instead of reopening a Pandora box. --the Dúnadan 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe that we do have an undue weight issue, since the very first introduction of the term Middle America. If you try to find information about the continent North America, you will find its proper description without the use of this term, which indicates its rare usage. Of course we could also search and carefully pick a list of links that use the term, and then say MA and NA are equally used terms, but the real situation requiere the commitment and willingness of all of us. I also think that this is something we can easily fix, by adding two words: "rarely described". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This all sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. How can it be that 'Middle America' is given undue weight to describe Mexico's location in the Americas, let alone North America, when it is only mentioned once in this article, and appropriately in the lead of the Geography article? Is it inequitable to make this assertion? No. Any number of reputable sources indicate this quite plainly (either that the country is in the region, or that the region is a component of North America: [6] [7]. [8] [9] (further on) [10] (also consult relevant articles.) That is not to say it is included in North America when appropriate. But to exclude the term is to give undue weight to a notion that is just as contestable: for example, North America - which in English is often used to refer to just the U.S. and Canada - as compared to Latin America, etc. NAFTA and arrogance are not carte blanche reasons to suppress other considerations in any encyclopedia. Shall we change the article to read that Mexico is a North American-has been if the U.S. Democrats take the White House (and make good on their promise to renegotiate NAFTA)? Pu-lease ... Ixtapl (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read carefully every comment. Nobody is talking about excluding the term. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read 'every comment', at least the ones that matter, and also the ones above in this section: it would appear that a few editors are engaged in a long, drawn-out point-of-view edit war about what is in North America or not. Also, it is curious that you would direct me to read every comment (and fixate on one idea), when it seems apparent that you and Supaman89 (given Dúnadan's comment above) are either unwilling or unable to conciliate. (This Corticopia may also be similar.) Really, what is wrong with the text as it is or was? Anyhow, can you provide a reliable citation that 'Middle America' is "rarely used"? As well, can this be sourced explicitly: "Geopolitically, however, Mexico is considered part of North America." This seems to focus on a specific sense and ignore senses when Mexico may not be included - see above. You haven't convinced me. Ixtapl (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The term Middle America is in deed rarely used compared to the term North America, you can do a quick search to check the number of results for each, the way the paragraph is right now, implies that both terms are equally used which is incorrect, it'd be like saying that the term Northern America is just as frequently used as the term Anglo America, all that needs to be done is to fix the current undue weight of both terms by clarifying that one term is rarely used. Supaman89 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yhat may be the case but, web hits aside, you will have to provide a reliable source which explicitly says it is "rarely" used, in addition to one about its geopolitical status. Your analogy is not necessarily accurate: after all, Mexico is commonly included in Latin America, in which case everything north is included in North America (read: Anglo-America). Ixtapl (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I waited a couple of days to answer it’s interesting to see that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been done precisely in this section (and quite fast by the way, almost like you were waiting)… anyway, if one argues that there needs to be a text explicitly stating the word “rarely” for it to be true, then one could also argue that there needs to be a text also stating that it is “not rarely” used, in other words common facts (like that whales can’t fly) are obvious to be true (I wouldn’t ask for a text stating “whales can’t fly” to know it’s true) in the same way it’s a fact that North America is the common term and that Middle America (which is mostly used for the middle class in the United States) is not that widely used, all that needs to be done is to clarify the undue weight in the proper section, Corticopia. Supaman89 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I am just observing and may edit, but stumbled upon this section and thought to comment. I am not this Corticopia, and have no intention of getting wrapped up in anything, so get it our of your head.

As for your response, I believe the burden of proof is on you to substantiate including "rarely", not on me to say "not rarely" (which is not exactly the case): you don't see any usage notes in the entry for 'Middle America' here, for instance. If references for either exist, please provide.

Anyhow, it is clear that, given your commentary, this discussion is better had with someone else. Ixtapl (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Airforce Picture

The Mexican Air Force does not employ the russian made su-30/27 in its military. The picture is of a Indian Marked SU-30/27 Fighter plane. i will erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homan05 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why don't you just change the caption if what you're saying is correct. Supaman89 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Homan05 -- the picture doesn't belong: if Mexico doesn't use a certain plane in its air force, why is it pictured? Picture an F-5E/F instead. Duh.

As far as I'm concerned, all that needs to be done is change the picture's caption, why would we delete the picture when it can be easily fixed? Supaman89 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No: change the picture AND caption, or remove it. Why exhibit a picture of a Flanker if Mexico doesn't have it? 69.158.150.249 (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert regarding the military of Mexico, so I don't know if the airplane shown in the picture is part of the Mexican Air Fore or not, therefore if Homan05 is completely sure that the MAF doesn't use the type of airplane shown in the picture, I would like him to put some references to back it up. Supaman89 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the article linked to in the article (Mexican Air Force) about Mexican air power, and you will see that Mexico doesn't own or operate the plane pictured (Su-27/30). It has 10 F-5E/F fighters. 2+2=4. You are definitely not one of God's brighter creatures, are you? 69.158.150.249 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all watch the language, second of all just by using the word "God" I don't think you're the smartest one either, anyways, if the Mexican Airforce doesn't use Su-27/30 airplaces then why does the airplace in the picture have the MAF logo on it? . Supaman89 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The image of the plane, and the roundel and fin flash (the identifying mark), is not that of the MAF but of a Flanker from the Indian Air Force. Are you blind: the roundel is round, not triangular. I will not 'watch my language', since you seem as dumb as a stump anyway. Why would you challenge, revert, and then argue about a moot point if you didn't know anything about the topic, and didn't seem to investigate or pay attention, wasting our collective time in the process? And, despite whatever God or gods or not you may or may not believe, there appears little hope for you. Next time, STFU. 69.158.150.249 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the colours are green, white and RED not ORANGE and at the back of the plane it has the Mexican flag, not the Indian one. Anyways I've no intention to keep discussing with an anonymous IP, thanks to the "smart" comments you made above it's gonna be pretty easy for me to tell an administrator to block your IP, adios. Supaman89 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you even consult the link I provided? You obviously know nothing about military aviation, not to mention simple geometry or comprehension, so please shut your Hispanic holes. With your witless commentary, you are merely furthering our already stellar impression of you. And, by the time you report anything, my IP would have changed. Keep up the good work, twit. 69.158.150.249 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me see... IP from Toronto, Canada, very uncivil behaviour, use of profanity, personal attacks...use of edit summaries [11] (including the use of profanity and threats on them)... Where have we all seen this before? RIGHT! He's back. I'm not surprised since we tried to change the geography paragraph that gives MA undue weight. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Weather of Mexico

The weather of Mexico it's:

Baja California: mediterranean at the north of the pacific coast rains in winter dry summer with maritim influence.frome the border with U.S.A. to the paralel 30N. Last snow fall in cities: Mexicali dec. 1932 Tecate feb. 2008 Baja California sur it's a desert with maritim influence.

Mexican Plateau (altiplanicie mexicana)

1-Altiplanicie Norte (norther high plains) High desert (much like New Mexico alburquerque,Santa fe weather) very hot in summer cold in winter with ocacional snow Last snow fall in cities: C.d. Juarez jan.2007 Chihuahua jan 2007 Parral dic 2004 torreon dic 2004 Durango dic 2004 Zacatecas dic. 2004 Aguas calientes dic 1997 San Luis Potosi dic 1997.

2-altiplanicie Sur (souther high plains) Temperate weather bicose the altitud rains in summer dry winter snow it's rare Last snow fall in cities: Guadalajara dec. 13 1997. Leon dec. 13 1997. Toluca jan. 12 1967. Mexico City jan. 12 1967 Tulancingo jan. 3 2008.

Notheast of Mexico. Very hot in summer winter it's warm ocacional cold front bring the temperatures very low, in Mexico (nortes) the snow it's rare. last snow fall in cities: Monclova dec. 1997 Monterrey dec. 2004 Matamoros dec.2004 reynosa dec. 2004 Nuevo Laredo dec. 2004 Ciudad Victoria dec. 1997. Tampico feb. 1895.

Gulf coast south of Tampico it's tropical hot and humid ocacional cold fronts bing the temperatures down with wind from the north and rains.

Yucatan peninsula it's very similar too.(huraacains hit)

Pacific cost dry and warm winters hot and humid summers tropical and the most uniform weather of Mexico.

Norh west mexico by the gulf of California it's a desert warm winters, very hot summers.

The mountians in Mexico Sierra de San Pedro Martir BajaCalifornia. and the sierra madre occidental west mexico, as well the sierra volcanica south of Mexico city are Temperate conifer forest and havy snows in winter.

Highest temperature in Mexico was: Mexicali Baja California 52 (Celcius) Lowest temperature in Mexico was: Temosachic Chihuahua -27 (Celcius) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilberto lopez (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)