Talk:New Mexico/Archive 1

New Mex. Symbolism

I recently saw Bill Richardson being interviewed on CNN and couldn't help noticing a statue that had been superimposed to his left as background. It was a statue of either an Egyptian or Amero-Indian woman holding two objects. One appeared to be either a sceptre or mushroom and in the other a staff or longbow. At first I thought I should check out the NM seal...but no.

Does anyone out there know what the relationship of this statue is to N.Mexico? mangonorth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.76.26 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico Gives Driver's Licenses to Illegal Immigrants

As reported on CNN on May 5, 2008, some of the unknown quantity of people to whom New Mexico has given driver's licenses over the past five years are illegal immigrants from nations on terrorist watch lists. This is just an example of the obvious dangers of New Mexico's extremely misguided policy of handing out driver's licenses to illegal aliens from, well, nobody really knows where. The risks to public safety, and the potential for a national security problem, are all too obvious. New Mexico's tourist personnel sure don't want people to know that New Mexico is now a magnet for people in the U.S. illegally who know that New Mexico is a great place to get a driver's license and begin a chain of documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography section

The site refers one to the Delaware Basin - which to my knowledge is in the Delaware/New Jersey/Pennsylvania area, not New Mexico. I haven't found the original data, so I couldn't change it. Elc3ny 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a link to the Delaware Basin article compiled by a variety of editors (See history) who must know what they are doing...?? And there is also an ext. link to the same thing, so I have to conclude that this is different from the Delaware River basin to which you refer. Viva-Verdi 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One of Our Fifty Is Missing

It's common for New Mexico to have stippers with having a relation to Mexico. Think this warrants a mention? 67.54.145.95 03:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NO. It's nonsense. Viva-Verdi 15:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Clean-Up

The page is becoming slightly messy. Reviewing the standards and revising the page may help. Abqwildcat 04:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC) so i am tell all of ya to do your work so STOP reading this sentence cause it don't have anything to deal with NEW MEXICO!!!!

Didn't help much - just got messier despite efforts. Adding to cleanup. Layout is messy, doesn't follow standards for other state pages, and some images just don't make sense (tierra o muerte gets no blurb and no text introduction, for example). It just looks messy - like a webpage a teenager might make instead of a page about a US State. --ABQCat 05:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a little better, but despire User:68.35.24.246's removal of {{cleanup}}, it's still messy compared to other state pages. If someone has a case for removing the cleanup tag, thinks it's fine, or whatever, post it here. Since the tag was removed without discussion, I'm putting it back up. --ABQCat 00:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The addition of lists and images which are not referenced in the text of the page doesn't help for the cleanup effort. Again, compare to other US States, and you'll be surprised how this state's entry seems to be a mish-mash of random lists, images, and factoids. If and or when I have more time, I plan to try to overhaul this page, probably at New Mexico/Temp.

--ABQCat 23:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Official language

Hi! I did some searching but was unable to find a governmental reference to English and Spanish being the official languages of New Mexico. Does anyone have such a reference? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 01:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) live in New Mexico and can't confirm it either - I'll check around in the printed materials I have. A cursory check online finds only other wikipedia mirrors citing Spanish as an "official language" of New Mexico (About.com also, but rather non-authoratatively). While Spanish is a protected language in NM and discrimination on the basis of language spoken is illegal, that's not the same as "official language." For a short(ish) history on Spanish in New Mexico, see ourwold.compuserve.com. I think the state constitution states that NM is a bilingual state, but I don't have the citation available. It's possible, but I've found no decent citation one way or another. --ABQCat 05:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I live in New Mexico, and in the state Capital! The State Constitution states that New Mexico is a bilingual state, and both Spanish and English are official state languages. However, it should be noted, the State Legislature does almost all of it's actions in English. Hope I could be of help! :) YourNickname 8 Mar 2005

I should note that since the date of my previous posting, I have actually confirmed this to a point. YourNickname is correct in that Spanish is protected by the state constitution. However, that is the limit of the language. The constitution protects the status of the Spanish language in the state and prohibits discrimination on that basis. Nowhere, however, is Spanish cited as an "official language", but NM is certainly an officially bilingual state. One thing that leads me to believe Spanish may not be an official language (as French is in Canada) is that the state homepage is unavailable in Spanish - something which wouldn't fly if Spanish were truly an official language of the state. Anyhow, read the text of the constitution (searchable at state.nm.us) and you'll see that the term "official language" is never used, but that Spanish is protected. --ABQCat 05:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Official language. I searched through the New Mexico Constitution, and I did a quick (but not through) search through the New Mexico statutes. I could find no reference to any official language, neither Spanish or English. I think the myth that New Mexico has two official languages started from the fact that when New Mexico became a state, Spanish was given protection for a period of time (since expired). I can find no evidence that any language is either official or "protected" in New Mexico at present. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if I am correct and edit the page 70.176.142.8 21:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Jack Quinn

English is the predominant language spoken in the state of New Mexico today. The Reference Department has checked the state statutes and confirmed with the Supreme Court Law Library that New Mexico does not have an official language.

The first state constitution, which went into effect in 1912, had several provisions in it which provided for a transition from the formerly prevalent Spanish to the acknowledged adoption of English. The provisions were stated in Article XII, sections 8 and 10, addressing the need for the training of teachers in normal schools to become bi-lingual, and the rights of Spanish-descent children to equality in education; and Article XX, section 12, which provides for the publication of laws in both English and Spanish for the first twenty years of effect, and thereafter as the legislature may provide.

Currently election ballots are published in both English and Spanish, the pledge to the New Mexico flag is available in both English and Spanish, and after allowing the Spanish Drivers Manual to become obsolete a new edition has been published. There is an official state song in English "O Fair New Mexico" and a different official state song in Spanish, "Asi es Nuevo Mejico." In 1995, an official "State Bilingual Song" was adopted by the state legislature, titled "New Mexico - Mi Lindo Nuevo Mexico."

Currently about 42.1 percent of New Mexicans are Hispanic according to the census of 2000. 28.7 percent of New Mexicans over the age of 6 counted in the census speak Spanish at home. You can look at the table with that information and other useful language statistics for the state at:

Census.gov

Does this completely answer your question? Please e-mail us again if we can be of further assistance.

Reference Desk/bjm

1209 Camino Carlos Rey

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507

505-476-9702

refer@state.nm.us

Thanks to the refdesk. WikiDon 17:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would figure kind of the best way to say it would be that New Mexico has two de facto standard languages. Usually, it's difficult in some places of New Mexico to find a job where you would need to interact with a lot of customers unless you speak Spanish. While the state over all has a large number of Spanish speakers, many of them are located in the smaller cities. (Not fact, just what I've kind of noticed.) Also, the state continues to have children enter school where they only speak Spanish, usually in an approach called "Bilingual Education", which receives a ton of criticism everytime the English-only people hear about it. Usually, what it means is teaching the child as much English as possible, and teaching other stuff in Spanish only so that the student doesn't fall behind his/her classmates. Anyways, just trying to weigh in that while New Mexico may not have two de jure official languages, it does have two de facto. --Puellanivis 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My New Mexico birth certificate is in both English and Spanish. bszoka (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

216.138.232.51 just added this link:

-http://www.eachtown.com/state_info.php/stateid/32 New Mexico State Information

I am not seeing much value-added with this one, this person just went through and added a bunch of links to each state, two counties, and one town. Also if you follow the link (s) it has a link that is not correct for New Mexico, and may not be correct for other states as well. WikiDon 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. They've been spam linking every state page. But I've dropped them a note and reverted all the links (a couple of the earlier ones had already been done) . -- Solipsist 16:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like Boris Krylov, User:Bidiot, is doing a commercial plug for his own site. WikiDon 19:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

History of New Mexico / Article Size

It looks like a new article needs to be started: History of New Mexico. Then a summary of history needs to be in this article. A timeline would also be nice. The article is now at 39 k, just slightly over the 36 k limit, so something will need to be done soon. Comments? WikiDon 19:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

US Army

The snippet U.S. Army (Fort Bliss) I think should also mention WSMR.

--70.59.96.25 02:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New Mexico song

When I was growing up in Grants we sang what I thought was the New Mexico state song. It went, in part, "...from the Carlsbad Caverns to Old Santa Fe, from the White Sands to the Rio Grande, I am proud to be New Mexican, New Mexico: the Enchanted Land!" I loved singing this song. I was wondering why it isn't listed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.192.153 (talk • contribs) .

That's not the state song, yo. WereWolf 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

nm

Εi am doing a report on new mexico can you help me

i can help

            -kitcat531  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.191.202 (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 

Reference to "fluent in Spanish"

I have concerns about the sentence, "At least one-third of New Mexicans are also fluent in a unique dialect of Spanish. New Mexican Spanish is rife with vocabulary often unknown to other Spanish speakers."

• Is there a source for this statement?
• I know that there is a unique dialect influenced by medieval and Mexican Spanish as well as indigenous languages, but, as discussion elsewhere states, most people speak English and not Spanish.
• I know many "New Mexicans" who are Hispanic/Spanish/Mexican "culturally" but not "lingustically" (i.e. they don't speak any Spanish).

I think the sentence should be changed to, "There are New Mexicans who speak a unique dialect of Spanish..." with a link to "New Mexico Spanish" (where you can see my recommendations for changes to that article). —This unsigned comment was added by Ron habla hispana (talk • contribs) 3:52, 31 March 2006.

---

Any comments or discussion on the post above? I think it needs some discusson before changes are made.

Ron habla hispana 12:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Several months have passed with no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make the change.

Ron habla hispana 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Races add up to more than 100%?

Is this a mistake or is there a citation or explanation?--Silverback 11:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As of the edit this afternoon, the total is up to 103.9, up from 102.9%. I'm impressed. This is so amateurish, however, that I'm kind of disgusted with the section of the article. I'm searching for either a citation (unlikely to come easily) or a template for the section to point out the factual inaccuracy/impossibility. --ABQCat 03:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

2000 U.S. census numbers often count people who selected two or more races twice. I'll try and find the official cite. Eluchil404 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---I am a political science student doing a research assignment on New Mexico, and I found some figures which contradict some information presented in this article. There is mention that NM has the second largest of native americans/alaskan natives in the country, second to OK. If you go here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and compare NM and OK you'll see that NM actually has a higher percentage. i may be looking at this wrong, and i don't have time to really elaborate. also according to the census site, alaska has the highest overal NA/AN pop. maybe these need to be separated? -m. williams bloodytofu@gmail.com

Article Length

The Article is getting pretty long. I suggest splinning off the history sections into a daughter article. I thought I'd ask here for comments before doing it myself. Eluchil404 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Approve! --Rockero 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Approve --Murcielago 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I have hacked together a basic History of New Mexico article from what was here and Pueblo Revolt which was barely covered in the main section. It could use a look. I also shortened the History section here but welcome further trimming or clarification. Eluchil404 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of Spaniards wrong

I checked the Census Data, the percentage of Spaniards (24%) of total population is probably wrong. See : http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFIteratedFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US35&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US35&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US35&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_2&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=423&qr_name=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1040&reg=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1040%3A423&_keyword=&_industry= However, if Spaniards are not 24%, about 400,000 Hispanics are just missing. See: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFIteratedFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US35&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US35&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US35&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_2&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=424&qr_name=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1040&reg=DEC_2000_SAFF_R1040%3A424&_keyword=&_industry= Somebody please try to resolve that.

According to this document, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf, the top 5 ancestry groups for New Mexico are not as listed. They are instead Mexican (16.3%), American Indian (10.3%), German (9.8%), Hispanic (9.4%) and Spanish (9.3%)

Recent edit in need of citation

As of the 16:42, 4 August 2006 edit by IP:195.117.242.66:

"New Mexico has simultaneously the highest percentage of Hispanic Americans of any state, some recent immigrants and others descendants of Spanish colonists, and the highest percentage of Native Americans, mostly Navajo and Pueblo peoples, of any continental United State"

This information sounds fine, but I think I'd need to see a citation for this as neither individual piece of information was previously "highest" or quantitative. Previous versions of this page simply listed "a large" or "significant" proportion. If either the contributer who made the edit can provide a citation or another contributer can help out, that would be great. I'm adding a citation needed template in the meantime.

--ABQCat 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.censusscope.org/us/s35/chart_race.html

That site should have what you're looking for.

--hyyttaa 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New Law

A new law recently passed in New Mexico makes it a felony to assist illegal aliens, and you MUST prove "you're" a U.S. citizen to even recieve basic services. Martial Law 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got contacts there, mainly to keep a eye on UFO related matters, such as looking for new info. about the Roswell UFO Crash. Martial Law 04:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard nothing about this, and I live there. Let me look into it and we'll get it included in the article in some way or fashion if it's accurate. Do you know the date or name of the piece of legislation? --ABQCat 18:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

One contact I have made these claims. Don't know what the name of it is, nor timepoint. He claimed that the law says that you have to prove that you are a US citizen, and assissting illegal aliens in any way is a felony. Martial Law 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue this as a malicious criticism, but that's almost exactly the definition of original research. If you can find a news story (and I've looked - tho abqjournal.com's archive system is abysmal) I'd be very interested in reading it. For now, lacking substantiation, this needs to stay out of the main article. --ABQCat 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, the fact that New Mexico recently extended in-state tuition for state universities and colleges to certain undocumented immigrants seems to cast some doubt on this "new law" described. Source here for tuition story. --ABQCat 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My contact said that if you que up for any social services, incl. food at a place giving out "commodities", you have to prove that you are a US citizen, and the new law allegedly cut down on people recieving govt. assisstance. Appreciate your assisstance. Maybe some legislator may have more info. I hope this "new law" is not for real. Martial Law 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New Mexico State Guard

New Mexico has a military unit similar to the Texas State Guard. Website is www.newmexicosdf.org . See Also Militia: State Militia and/or State Guard. Martial Law 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can this be placed ? Martial Law 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see State Defense Forces as well. Martial Law 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

State Nicknames

My grandmother tells me that when she was younger one of the state nicknames was "The Spanish State". She even showed me some visitor brochures from the 1930s that say that, so I added that nickname to the list. I'm not sure how long that nickname was used, but I'm guessing it popped up shortly after statehood or in the 1920s when there was the big Hispano literary revival.

Also, I'm not sure as to the official spelling, but it seems to make more sense (grammatically) that the official state nickname in Spanish would be "Tierra del Encanto" rather than "Tierra de Encanto".

Miguel Jose Ernst y Sandoval Moya 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not totally correct. In Spanish from Spain makes more sense "Tierra de Encanto" 68.43.193.30 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Jose San Juan

New Mexico an "ethnic autonomous region"?

New Mexico is listed at Ethnic autonomous regions - according to the talk page an 'ethnic autonomous region' specifically for the "Mexicans". That seems to me to be nonsense.Paul111 12:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE FIX THIS PAGE NOW

someone has put indecent images all over this page please fix immediatley. I would, but I am new and don't know how to change pictures. Bcody 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New Sports section title added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section title, which covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in New Mexico. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with the state of New Mexico at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#New Mexico. Any parties interested in taking part in such a project should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to create it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable New Mexicans: is someone pulling our leg here??

Can anyone confirm that this is all real? It certainly doesn't read that way. Who/what is "Coaches Sports Bar and Grill"??

• Daniel "Slick" Sandoval, avid University of Oregon fan and employee of University of New Mexico Physics and Astronomy Department. Was recently named "2006 Man of the Year" by Coaches Sports Bar and Grill. Also, a childhood friend of NFL quarterback A.J. Feeley. Partnered with local golfer, Noah Trujillo, to win the 11th Annual Two Ball Battle at the Rio Grande, where they defeated Jeff Joerg and Dana Lehner 10 to 8.

Viva-Verdi 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation is given as nju: which is standard in British English but I think that nu: which is an American variant is more common in the state. Or am I just being misled by my own ideolect? I know that I say nu: but I tend to hear the variants as homophones unless I am paying specific attention. Eluchil404 05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Mexican native chiming in here. I would say that the vast majority of New Mexicans would say [nu:], and certainly not [nju:]. Considering American English rules, the statement that it would be [nju:] is entirely unlikely, if not impossible, as American English depalatizes [ju:] before [n]. --Puellanivis (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The Demographics section says: "Descendants of white American settlers, mostly of Irish and English descent, from other parts of United States..." But then a table follows which puts German ancestry as greater than both Irish and English. The 'mostly of Irish and English descent' apostrophe should probably be changed or removed unless someone can explain this apparent contradiction. AnthroGael (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

read it!

new mexico is dry land and a beautiful state. if you are doing a report on it you made a good choce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.136.175 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The current version of the religion section doesn't add up to 100%. Also, it shows Judaism and Protestantism under the Roman Catholic heading. This edit seems to show the religious percentages correctly (and they add up to 100%), based on a RS added. Thoughts? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Replacing religious affiliation section

The religious affiliation section of 4.3 was hopelessly vandalized and/or garbled, so I've given it a fresh start by replacing the whole thing with new data from the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey from February 2008. The previous version seems to suffer from attempting to mix together data from several sources, as well as not being sourced very well. There is probably some vandalism of the numbers as well—a lot of changes have been made to the data without any change to the citation.

There is an older survey,

• Kosmin, Barry A. (2001-12-19). "American Religious Identification Survey 2001" (PDF). Graduate Center, City University of New York. Retrieved 2008-06-25. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

(New Mexico religious affiliations are on p. 40) which is also a very large survey and probably reliable, although the numbers are a lot different from Pew's. The affiliations are broken down differently, and one notable difference is that ARIS estimates New Mexico Catholics at 40% while Pew estimates 26%. I don't have any strong opinions on which survey is "better", and I picked the Pew survey because it is newer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncia (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources for 2008 population figures

On this article (and several others in New Mexico, e.g., Las Cruces, New Mexico) several editors have been supplying population figures described as being for 2008. However they do not give any sources for the data. The US Census Population Estimate Program is only up to 2006, so presumably these 2008 figures are not from the Census Bureau. Please remember to supply sources for your data (WP:V) or your changes may be reverted. The WikiProject Cities guidelines at WP:USCITY specify that only US Census data be used. We might accept other sources of data here, but the source needs to be given. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there are also several editors supplying population figures without dates and without sources; the figures are higher than the 2006 Census Bureau estimates, and so are probably 2007 or 2008 figures. We need both dates and sources for these. --Uncia (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sourced census data should be used over some number someone got from who knows where. I am a bit confused, though - right now, the article puts the population at 2.499 million. This is the inflated, unsourced figure, right? Looking at this, the 2007 Census estimate was more like 1.9 million. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct - the 2007 Census estimate for the state population is 1,969,915, which in my opinion is the best figure available. The 2.499 million is unsourced and seems unlikely to be correct. --Uncia (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone changed the infobox figure to the 2000 one. I'm OK with doing either the 2000 or 2007 figure there, but if you want to update this by using the 2007 estimate, it would probably be a good idea to add a footnote there. I already added a duplicate ref to the estimate in the census table; usually this would probably be overkill, but I've found that population figures have a tendency to balloon if not kept in check by solid referencing. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox U.S. state population figures are specifically for the year 2000 (they are named 2000Pop etc.) so the 2000 figures are the only ones that should be used here.--Uncia (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent originator of the 2008 population figures, Martinez07, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. --Uncia (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the latest edits in the article history. It would seem the blocked editor hasn't stopped, and has begun using false edit summaries. Just something to keep an eye on. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2007 population figures in U. S. state infobox

User:Cchow2 has been going through all the 50 US States (and I think some foreign ones too) putting the 2007 Census Estimate figures in the infobox (see Special:Contributions/Cchow2). The field is called 2000Pop, which I interpret to mean 2000 Population and not any other year. User:Cchow2 apparently also believes this, but he thinks the 2000 figures are "outdated" and since there is no 2007Pop field he is going to use the 2000Pop field for 2007 data. My view is that since we discuss the 2007 figures under Demographics, it's not urgent to put them in the infobox too, and we should stick to using the 2000 figures in the infobox.

Realize that although the 2007 figures from the Population Estimate Program are "newer" than the 2000 figures, they are not "more accurate". The PEP figures are gotten by a crude estimate and extrapolation while the 2000 Census figures are actual counts: they did their best to count every single person. In other words, the 2000 and the 2007 figures are not the same kind of thing, and you cannot just "update" the 2000 figures by sticking in the 2007 estimates.

I am inviting User:Cchow2 to comment here on his views, and I invite anyone else to comment also to see if we can develop a consensus. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have only edited 41 states so far (the 40 most populous states + Alaska). I strongly believe that the 2007 estimates are more accurate than the 2000 actual figures, because we are currently in the year of 2008. Nonetheless, those 2007 estimates figures were officially released by the U.S. Census. If you want the most accurate data as of August 2008, the 2007 estimates are more reliable than the 2000 actual figures. Besides, population figures are never 100% accurate. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

Info boxes of Canada's provinces also have 2008 est. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population --cchow2 (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There being no further discussion, I am dropping my opposition to the use of 2007 population figures in the infobox. --Uncia (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I have updated the density. --cchow2 (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed: active military exempt from personal income tax

An IP editor added the following unsourced statement under Taxes:

Residents serving in the Armed forces are exempt from the state's personal income tax while on active duty.

I believe this is not true, and have been unable to locate a source for this statement. References or corrections would be appreciated. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This source from the Coast Guard would probably work as a reference. I've looked at the state income tax forms, and your military pay is added to this (line 15), which is then deducted from your taxable income here(line 12). AlexiusHoratius 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the Coast Guard thing as a reference. I don't know whether we need to add the other forms to back this up; I guess they would help in some way, but it's probably not crucial that they appear there as well. Up to all of you. AlexiusHoratius 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Using your references as a starting point, I was able to find a source that states the exemption more clearly, and I have substituted this source. Also, the IP editor summarized the exemption incorrectly, so I fixed that too. (The exemption applies to all taxpayers, not just residents, but only applies to active-duty salary, not to all income.) --Uncia (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for splitting article - September 2008

This article is currently 72 kB long, which is probably too long (see WP:SIZE). Several sections have already been split into separate articles, and I propose the following additional splits:

• History - move most of this into existing article History of New Mexico, cut this down to just a couple of paragraphs
• Economy - split into new separate page Economy of New Mexico and cut this down to a couple of paragraphs. See WP:STATE#Economy
• Education - Colleges and universities - move all items into existing list List of colleges and universities in New Mexico (most are already there)
• Miscellaneous topics - State symbols - move this to new page List of New Mexico state symbols. Most states have such a page, and the New Mexico page is a redlink in Template:State symbols. Also delete the redundant collapsible infobox New Mexico State Symbols that is just below the state infobox.
• Culture - Tourism - delete this material. I'm reluctant to delete any material, and obviously a lot of work went into this list. But on the other hand it's redundant with the existing Category:Visitor attractions in New Mexico, and in my opinion bare lists with no narrative don't add much to the encyclopedia. I think no other states have such lists, and tourism is not a topic in WP:STATE. If the consensus is that we should keep the list, I would propose moving it to a new article List of visitor attractions in New Mexico.

These changes would cut the page down to about 50 kB and give it a cleaner look. Comments? --Uncia (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. Go for it, big time. When I finally get Architecture of New Mexico together I'll make it a separate article. Carptrash (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Uncia's proposal, for the most part. The economy section contains a lot of good information, but probably too much of it, so a split to Economy of New Mexico would be in order. The tourist attraction list should probably go, with a paragraph about tourism in the economy section put in its place. The history section also seems a bit large and could be trimmed. My one issue is that cutting the history section down to only a couple of paragraphs might be cutting it a bit too much, looking at the state articles that are currently FAs, Minnesota and Oklahoma, cutting it to five or six paragraphs would probably be enough. AlexiusHoratius 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said below. Sections, should not be lists. And this article ain't that long. Will Architecture in New Mexico really be long enough to stand on its own? Or would it be proper to include it as a subsection of Culture here, and then split a complete Culture section off with it.Synchronism (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do remove all the list material to lists, excet move the tourist attractions to Wikitravel (content can go from Wikipedia to Wikitravel). How about doing that first, then we look at the article again? --Una Smith (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK! I moved the Education and State Symbols lists to other pages. As suggest by Una Smith I added items to Wikitravel for everything in the Tourist Attractions list (most of the items were already there) and deleted that list. And I agree with AlexiusHoratius's suggestion that we retain 5 or 6 paragraphs of information on History and Economy. The page now weighs in at 66 kB (still too big), and I propose to proceed with the two remaining splits, namely:

• History - move most of this into existing article History of New Mexico, cut this down to 5 or 6 paragraphs
• Economy - split into new separate page Economy of New Mexico and cut this down to 5 or 6 paragraphs. See WP:STATE#Economy

More comments? --Uncia (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of this seems a little premature. This article is incomplete in some sections. The removal of superfluous tourist information is acceptable though, so is splitting off lists. Perhaps some sections are complete, but 72k is not considered too long by WP:SIZE. Unnecessary splitting can sometimes cause unforseeable problems in the future. Because there already is a History article it makes sense to have a concise and brief history section. But, I think splitting Economy should be held off for some time to come.

Focus on improving the article, make it not a list of lists but an article. There are sections like Ecology that don't exsist, and Transportation and Culture which are woefully inadequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchronism (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK! I have done the History split. Actually everything in the present article was already in History of New Mexico except for about three sentences, so I copied those over and then condensed and rewrote what was here. History of New Mexico has almost no sources (and is flagged for this), but I gave sources for all statements in the present article's History section. The new History section is eight paragraphs, and I compared it against and modelled it after the History sections in the FAs Minnesota and Oklahoma, as suggested by AlexiusHoratius.

The page is now 64 kB, and the only thing left from my original proposal is to split Economy. In a note just above this, Synchronism objected to splitting Economy but gave no reasons. I still think we should split it now, based on its size and based on precedents in other state articles. I would condense it down to five or six paragraphs as suggested by AlexiusHoratius. What's the consensus: split or keep together? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I gave some cautionary reasons, really just my opinions. But if splitting Economy improves the article and creates a good one, by all means, go for it and split it!

:)Synchronism (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can help reduce the apparent size of the article though. By replacing the list of Federal Highways with a paragraph or two about the state's total road mileage and breakdown, and some other notable things.

Synchronism (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

All done! I've split the Economy section off into Economy of New Mexico. That article has erratic references (some sections have none, some have many) so I've put a generic refimprove at the top. I also wrote a condensed version (modelled somewhat on Minnesota) for this article. The article is now 56 kB, not too big. As Synchronism notes, many further improvements are possible, but that's probably enough splitting for now, so I've removed the split tag from the top of the page. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions on the splits. --Uncia (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring this article up to Good Article status

The article has improved a lot over the past few weeks, and since we now have a number of editors interested in it, shall we try to bring it up to Good Article status? Some areas need expansion (notably Sports), there are still some lists that need to be replaced with narrative, and it needs better sourcing. But I believe we are not that far away from GA status. Once we are happy with the article, it would still have to go through a review by impartial reviewers to reach this status. There are currently no New Mexico-related articles at GA or FA class, and what better place to start that with New Mexico itself? Comments? Interest? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographic information in this article should be clarified. Twice in this article, it states that New Mexico has the highest percentage of Hispanics in its population of any state, but it never states what that percentage is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The table entitled 'Demographics of New Mexico' has 41.74% (as of 2005). Although we should mention this in the text as well, I suppose. AlexiusHoratius 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the percentage inline as well, however my figure is 43% for 2004 from a different Census Bureau report. The 41.74% figure for 2005 in the table seems to be erroneous; at any rate it is not supported by the reference, which gives the 2005 Hispanic population at 837390, total population at 1928384, result 43.42%. The reference gives counts and not percentages. The New Mexico population figures have been the subject of a lot of vandalism and all of these need to be carefully rechecked (and references given). --Uncia (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually AlexiusHoratius and I both misread the table; the 41.74% figure is only for white Hispanics, not all Hispanics. However this still doesn't match the percentages calculated from the reference. --Uncia (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked those demographics tables. (Apparently they were made some time ago to deal with people messing around with the numbers, but still, a person has to spend at least five minutes studying them to figure them out.) Funny thing is, although I've been against those things since I started editing here, it wasn't until today that I realized that a population chart, much of which is focused on the hispanic population of a state...doesn't even clearly say what the total Hispanic percentage is. AlexiusHoratius 03:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The table indicates that 41.74% of the white population (and much smaller percentages of the black, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander populations) of New Mexico identifies as Hispanic. However, the table has no column for "other" race people -- people who don't identify racially as white, black, Asian, AI/AN, or NH/PI. And that is particularly important for New Mexico, because the vast majority (about 97%) of "other" race people in the United States do identify as Hispanic, and they make up about 42% of the Hispanic population of the United States. But they aren't mentioned in this table. See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census#Relation between ethnicity and race in census results. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the above -- I'm not sure whether the table says that 41.74% of the white population of New Mexico identifies as Hispanic, or 41.74% of the Hispanic population of New Mexico identifies as white. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's delete the two Demographics race tables

I propose that we delete the table of "Demographics of New Mexico" and "largest ancestry groups", and clarify the narrative above them and give references. This is the approach used in the two FA state articles Oklahoma and Minnesota. As AlexiusHoratius and Metropolitan90 point out above, they are not very clear, and as I pointed out they may not be accurate. I think these tables are more detailed than we need in an encyclopedia article. If there is interest, we could point to the Census Bureau reports that contain this detailed data, since they are all online.

Any objections to deletion? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There being no objections, I have deleted the two tables and given the race and ancestry information as a narrative, and given references. --Uncia (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of section Notable New Mexicans

Currently there is a short top-level section New Mexico#Notable New Mexicans that refers to List of people from New Mexico, and I propose to remove this section. Rationale:

• Such a section is not in the WP:WikiProject U.S. states#Body of article article outline
• Such a section is not used in our model articles Minnesota and Oklahoma
• List of people from New Mexico is referred to from List of New Mexico-related topics and from Template:New Mexico, which is the usual practice in state articles

Comments? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I support that. – Synchronism (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

All voices being in favor, I have deleted the section. All persons listed in the deleted section are already listed in List of people from New Mexico except Clay Allison, who spent some time in New Mexico but not "a significant period of time", so I am not adding him to the list. --Uncia (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

State symbols

Shouldn't the list of symbols include the official State Question: "Red or green?" It refers to the red or green chilli sauce which covers so many regional dishes. I'd just add it, but I wanted to ask here in case there's a reason it doesn't belong. JDZeff (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you prove a reliable source that shows it to be an official state question?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It is the New Mexico Statutes Chapter 12, Article 3, Section 4, Paragraph L, where it says "'Red or green?' is adopted as the official question of New Mexico."

In the [New Mexico Compilation Commission], there is a table of contents to the current state law. Select "NMSA (Unannotated)" > "Chapter 12 Miscellaneous Public Affairs Matters" > "ARTICLE 3 State Seal, Song and Symbols" > "12-3-4...." Under "L," is the declaration of the official state question. Here is a deep link to 12-3-4. [1]

I'm not sure which of these we would cite, unless it would be both. I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia, but am trying to be a good Wikipedian. Don't hesitate to give me pointers if I could be doing better. Jordan Jones (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Those citations should be good but make sure you format them appropriately (check out Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources). Uto-Aztecan (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@JDZeff: Yes, "Red or green?" is the NM Official State Question, and I think you're right, this should be included. But you need to be sure you spell it right—New Mexicans universally spell these red chile and green chile, not "chilli", though they pronounce "chile" the way you pronounce "chilli". And they don't use the word "sauce". Usually red chile is a sauce (but not always), but they don't use the word sauce. And green chile is (almost) never a sauce, it is usually chopped up pieces of green chiles themselves. Unschool 00:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Condensing Geography

The National Forests and National Parks are listed in the "Protected Areas of New Mexico" section at the bottom of the article. Maybe we should delete this list in the Geography section and just replace it with something like "The U.S. government protects millions of acres of New Mexico as national forests, as well as areas managed by the National Parks Service. See Protected Areas of New Mexico" - Whatsit369 (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I like first 6 geography pictures but they take up a lot of room. Maybe they should be combined into a collage. - Whatsit369 (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

More info on Radioactivity-related topics

It would be good if there was more information about NM's involvement in atomic bombs, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and it currently being considered for the nation's first interim storage facility for waste from nuclear power plants (via Holtec International). I'm not sure where in the article to put them, though. The uranium mines could be mentioned, too. (Information on where PNM gets its electricity from could be included somewhere, too.) - Whatsit369 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:New Mexico for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:New Mexico is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New Mexico until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"New Mexcio" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Mexcio. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

For the country in North America, see Mexico.

I don’t see why this is stated at the top of the page. We don’t recommend York for New York City/New York (state), or Hampshire for New Hampshire, or Jersey for New Jersey. Totally odd and out of place, especially since the naming of New Mexico predates the naming of the country of Mexico, but both were named after the trade-routes to the Aztec Empire and its Capital. Yet I don’t think anyone’s clamoring to add suggestions for the Mexica or Pueblos on either article, because that would be just as absurd. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:5929:BD1A:2E0A:A4AD (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia for the whole world, meaning readers with widely varying pre-existing knowledge of these matters. I'm a non-American, and can remember when I was younger and trying to understand world geography, being quite confused by the existence of both Mexico and New Mexico. It took me quite some time to figure out that one was a country, and the other a state of another country. It's actually quite a confusing situation. I think as much clarity for the reader as possible can only be a good thing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In the disambiguation notice at the top of the page, it is important to read all three sentences on that page with one following the other in sequence rather than ignoring the middle sentence. The statement says, "This article is about the U.S. state of New Mexico. For other uses, see New Mexico (disambiguation). For the country in North America, see Mexico." The statement does not indicate that there are only two places using the name "New Mexico" on Wikipedia with one of those being a state and the other being a country. When clicking on the disambiguation link in the middle sentence, one finds 17 pages on Wikipedia which use the name "New Mexico" to refer to various entities. The disambiguation page links where to find those other options. Five other disambiguation options are also listed on the bottom of the New Mexico disambiguation page. The disambiguation page is a tool provided to help readers of Wikipedia to find the information they are seeking. Taram (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

To correct an erroneous assumption, New Jersey has a disambiguation statement at the top of its article {"This article is about the U.S. state of New Jersey. For other uses, see New Jersey (disambiguation)."NJ" redirects here. For other uses, see NJ (disambiguation)."} New Hampshire and New York City also have disambiguation pages. Interestingly enough, New York state does not have a disambiguation notice at the top of its page. Perhaps anonymous might like to create that statement for that page as part of the Wikipedia Disambiguation project.Taram (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding all Americans understanding that New Mexico the state and Mexico the country are different places, that is still not the case. Some Americans, even in official duties in public office, still think that New Mexico is a foreign country. In 2018, a New Mexico candidate for Secretary of State was denied a marriage license three times by a court clerk and her supervisor in Washington DC, because they do not accept foreign national applications for marriage and they both thought New Mexico is a foreign country. Gavin Clarkson is a citizen of the United States.

See: https://nypost.com/2018/11/30/clerk-who-thought-new-mexico-was-foreign-country-refused-to-give-out-marriage-license/ and https://nypost.com/2018/11/30/clerk-who-thought-new-mexico-was-foreign-country-refused-to-give-out-marriage-license/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taram (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sugarcoat it however you’d like, it is racism. And this only serves to justify that nonsense. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:35B9:C2D3:3EA0:CF48 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Role of women in local politcs

Hi, I was reading this article about the presence of women of color in the political system of the State and I think that maybe something about that could be added in this section. It's not my usual field and this is a page with many visits, so I just leave it as a comment here. Have a nice wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Spanish and Navajo in the lead

Spanish is spoken by over a quarter of the population of New Mexico, at 28.45%. And Navajo is spoken by 65,493 people, at 3.50%, these languages are of extreme importance in the state. Many legal documents are created in English, and in Spanish and Navajo too. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:A929:6074:6A62:36B3 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Information about both these languages is included in the article. I removed them from the first sentence per MOS:FIRST and MOS:FORLANG (which calls for languages in the first sentence to be "closely associated" with the article). A language spoken by 28 percent of the population does not seem a close association. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your information in one of your edits that says that 28.45% of our New Mexico population is a bit skewed out of context Magnolia677 (talk). Approximately 29% of the population over the age of 5 years speaks Spanish solely as their primary language AT HOME. Many, many more in our state speak Spanish conversationally in and out side of the home. Perhaps you wonder why when you vote here in New Mexico why our ballots are so long, because they could be shorter if the Spanish version was left off. We cannot do that to accommodate you, though, Magnolia677 (talk). New Mexico’s election laws are peppered with Spanish-language requirements. Proposed constitutional changes must be printed on the ballot in Spanish and English, for example, as must the samples of the text of each amendment that the secretary of state distributes to county clerks. Sample ballots, official ballots, primary election proclamations, information about registration and voting, voter registration certificates – all must be printed in both Spanish and English. You may think of Spanish as the only language spoken by an individual when we see, say, and show that a person speaks Spanish in New Mexico, but that concept of monolingualism in our state is incorrect. Bilingualism is the character of our state. Those who are outsiders are those who do not learn to communicate in both English and Spanish to some extent in order to get along in our state no matter what one's race or country of origin is. Inserting the Spanish name of the state a well as the associated IPA symbol is perfectly acceptable in this article. Taram (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A quarter of the population is significant, and this region was named Nuevo México in the 1500s, which is significant as well. And as for Navajo, 56.3% speak the language in McKinley County and another 34.8% speak it in San Juan County. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/18/the-languages-we-speak-at-home-mapped-by-county/ 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:A929:6074:6A62:36B3 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The example at MOS:FORLANG is "a location in a non-English-speaking country". Magnolia677 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of MOS:FORLANG needs to be considered, rather than taking the example out of context. The first paragraph says: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent:Chernivtsi Oblast (Ukrainian: Чернівецька область, Chernivets’ka oblast’) is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova." So, since the subject of the article (New Mexico) is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence." MOS:FORLANG does not refer only to "a location in a non-English-speaking country" So, it is appropriate to include the special contribution in the article about New Mexico. Taram (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New Mexico clearly meets the definition of "a subject closely associated with a non-English language." Laws are promulgated in Spanish, government business is often conducted in Spanish, and it is a majority language of several cities in the state, including Las Vegas and Las Cruces (the second-largest city in the state). See here and here. Marnevell (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite the equivocation of our section on the matter, Spanish is an official language in New Mexico (laws and government forms are always printed in Spanish as well as English; that's pretty much the definition of "official language"). Dineh (Navajo) does not have this status (though some government materials are produced in Dineh, though some are also produced in Chinese and German and Vietnamese and Russian, too, especially for the health & human services department, the division of motor vehicles, etc.). Dineh is only one of at least half-a-dozen Native American languages used in the state. I would keep the Spanish name in the lead, both for this reason and because it's historically important in the pre-statehood period. I would not add the Native American renditions, because they'll stack up and get messy, but are of little interest to most readers, and are not intimately bound up with the region's overall history. We can cover them in a section in the body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Land of Entrapment" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Land of Entrapment. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason for military bases

The article says

Due to its large area and economic climate, New Mexico has a large U.S. military presence marked notably with the White Sands Missile Range.

In other words, NM has lots of military because of its large area and its economic climate. The first one makes sense (you can't have lots of military bases in a small place), but I don't understand the second. When the federal government wants a new military base, does it pay attention to the local economy? I would guess that they would care about strategic location (witness lots of Cold War military installations in Alaska) and maybe local real estate prices (so it's cheaper to buy a massive area of land), but I don't understand how the state's economy would be responsible for the large military presence. I couldn't find anything in the rest of the article talking about the military presence being partly due to the economic climate. If any climate is relevant, it's probably the state's arid literal climate, which means that much of the state isn't covered with farms and probably made it a lot less expensive for the federal government to buy massive areas of land. Could this be changed to refer to the effect the military has on the existing economic climate? 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:4807:1190:E7F7:8F2F (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)