Talk:New Mexico/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archived 2002–2008

I archived all the discussions from 2002 through 2008 here. All discussions appear to be closed, and the last edit to the page was on 18 November 2008.

The issue of an official language comes up frequently, and I have summarized the discussion in a separate item below. If there are other topics that need to be carried forward, please also summarize those below. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Mexico has no official language

The current consensus, backed up by some correspondence with the Reference Desk at the New Mexico State Library, is that New Mexico has no official language. It's true that Spanish is widely spoken in New Mexico, and many official documents are published in both Spanish and English, but it's not true that English and Spanish are the official languages, or even than English is the official language.

Please do not change the article to say that New Mexico has an official language unless you have discussed it on this talk page and developed a new consensus. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced section

Hi, I authored most of the Passenger section. Is the whole of the section objectionable or are there some specific claims made there that need to be addressed? It can be fully referenced, but I don't think exhaustive citations should be necessary for basic information. The section is barebones, with most elaboration centered on recent events.Synchronism (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the tag, prompted by this IP edit that says Rail Runner began operation in July 2008 instead of the correct July 2006. I think this was an honest mistake, but numbers in Wikipedia are very susceptible to vandalism and so I like to see all numbers sourced. Most readers would not know whether 2006 or 2008 was the correct date, and such an error could go undetected for a long time.

It's also true that this section contains a great deal of detailed information about the Rail Runner and about the Southwest Chief, both of which have their own articles and where the interested reader can (or should be able to) find this info. This is not really a sourcing issue, but I figure if there is a lot of info there should be some overall source given - the info came from somewhere, right? It's not common knowledge what the Southwest Chief schedule is, or how often it stops in Lordsburg. The simple solution is to leave that detailed info in the detailed article and just summarize here.

Finally the first paragraph, about the past and future of rail travel, seems a bit WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL unless there is a WP:RS. Is "demise" an accurate description of intercity rail service? Probably, but some person had to make that judgment. --Uncia (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree about citing numbers. It really helps in the fight against the form of vandalism that seeks to discredit wikipedia as an unreliable source. Often edits are made simply to change a number, quite often without explanation and when there are references 'attached' to the value it's easier to distinguish between factual error introducing vandalism and constructive edits.

Referencing the SuperChief and the Southwest Chief's timetable won't be too difficult, I know of several preserved copies at special library collection, hopefully I can find something online (this is no trouble at all for the Southwest Chief actually). I wonder if there is a preferable way to cite a transportation timetable? "Decline" would be more accurate and less opinionated. The description of the history and future will probably morph some with referencing, perhaps replacing that sentence.

Thanks Uncia, Synchronism (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2009 (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)

I would also like to see this article brought up to at least GA status if there is still interest. As far as expansion of the sports section goes, what more should be included? perhaps winter sports and stadiums? Notably, I think the language section could be improved by including more information about the many indigenous languages in NM.Synchronism (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two FA-class state articles, namely Minnesota and Oklahoma, and we have often used those as a guide to what needs to be improved in the present article. Of course FA is a much higher standard than GA. Wikipedia also has a peer review process where any article can be submitted as often as desired to get feedback and ideas. --Uncia (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Differing Information

Resolved

 – These statements have been replaced by more nuanced ones: lede diff, Culture diff. --Uncia (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, new to Wikipedia so don't know how this is usually handled, but I found a contradiction in the article: the intro says that the Hispanic population in the state is mostly due to recent immigration, but the "Culture" section states that the vast majority of Hispanics are descended from the original Spanish columnists. On its face, the second one seems correct, but I didn't think my best guess was enough to delete one and copy the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajgutie2 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted table of New Mexico Metropolitan Areas

I have boldly deleted (diff) a table labelled "New Mexico Metropolitan Areas (MSA)" under "Important cities and counties", on several grounds:

• The items listed are not MSAs (they appear to be CSAs)
• The whole table is unsourced
• The numbers seem to have been subject to some vandalism (diff)
• The reason for the selection of these four items is not clear (presumably they are the biggest ones of whatever they are, but what are they? And why only four instead of five or ten?)
• Whatever these things are, they are not "Important cities and counties"

I won't object if someone wants to put a sourced and carefully labelled table here, but please don't simply revert to the old table. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that table was cluttering up that section. Junhalestone (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted census-designated places from city rankings

I have boldly deleted (diff) the use of CDPs in the table of most populous cities under Important cities and counties. We do not have comparable figures for the two types of entities, so it doesn't make sense to rank them together: city populations are estimated by the Population Estimates Program, and CDPs by the American Community Survey; cities and CDPs are estimated using different methodologies; and cities are estimated each year and CDPs irregularly. So for example we have 2008 estimates for cities (which are in the current table) but only three-year 2005–2007 estimates for South Valley, the one CDP that was in the old table. --Uncia (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I support this removal. CDPs are not really comparable to municipalities.Synchronism (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Politics" section

I have boldly removed (diff) the "Politics" section under Law and government, which appears to be intended to give information on party strength. The removed material had several faults, including:

• completely unsourced
• time-dependent material without dates given
• often unclear and vague, for example, what does "Democrats hold majorities in 21 of the 33 counties of New Mexico" mean? (Probably it means the majority of the registered voters are registered as Democrats, but in fact this is true in only 19 counties.)

I don't object to including this type of material in the encyclopedia, but it is a treacherous area and needs to be written very precisely and carefully, and completely sourced. --Uncia (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Celsius

Could you please add Celsius in this article. In Australia we dont use Fahrenheit.

Done. DBaK (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

State Seal

Those edit waring over the state seal should take a look at [1] which has a nice graphic. It has a blue background and a yellow/gold ring. I love to see some more sources on the subject and even a formal blazon if such a thing exists but they belong at Seal of New Mexico not here, of course. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether File:StateSealofNewMexico.gif or File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png should be used in the infobox to represent the State Seal. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw this at the RFC. I think that either is fine. Sorry I can't settle this, but I don't see much difference. The Great Seal is a little more elaborate. Figureofnine (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Atari video game burial

Weren't unsold copies of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) buried in New Mexico? Shouldn't it mention that in this article somewhere?

82.12.1.173 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sound like a very bizarre method of waste disposal and probably is too trivial for this article. Any reliable sources for the burial? Huon (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Check the Atari video game burial article and the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) article. When I first heard of the Atari video game burial, I thought that the Irate Gamer was making it up. But he wasn't!!! I've never been to New Mexico before. In fact, I've never been to the USA before! I'm from the United Kingdom and the only other places I've been are Spain and the Republic of Ireland!

82.12.1.173 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we're dealing with (disputed) legal waste disposal in a landfill. That's hardly significant enough to be mentioned in an article on the state. A nuclear waste storage site, probably. Plastics trash? Not so much. Huon (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

confusing section on property tax

"Property tax is imposed on real property by the state, by counties, and by school districts. In general, personal-use personal property is not subject to property taxation. On the other hand, property tax is levied on most business-use personalty. The taxable value of property is 1/3 of the assessed value. A tax rate of about 30 mills is applied to the taxable value, resulting in an effective tax rate of about 1%. In the 2005 tax year the average millage was about 26.47 for residential property and 29.80 for non-residential property. Assessed values of residences cannot be increased by more than 3% per year unless the residence is remodeled or sold.[62]"

well in no expect, but this seems very confusing to me , because it says personal use property is not subject to taxation , well isn't a residence used for personal use? It goes on to say that personal private residences are taxed. So what is the article talking about under the personal use property, things like stereoes and tv's? if so it should be omitted, because thats obvious and silly to state something like that. Otherwise maybe it should also state that new mexico does not tax for sunlight and oxygen either use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The property tax article says: "There are three species or types of property: Land, Improvements to Land (immovable manmade objects; i.e., buildings), and Personal (movable manmade objects)." Thus, a TV used by a sports bar might be taxed as "business-use personal property", while a TV used for personal use only would not be subject to property tax. The distinction seems relevant. Huon (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque Metropolitan Area

N salazar renamed New Mexico's largest metropolitan area "Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metropolitan Area". According to the census its name is just Albuquerque Metropolitan Area. Unless there are reliable sources actually mentioning Rio Rancho as part of the area's name, we should not do so either. Huon (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish colonists

76.95.196.87 changed various instances of "Spanish colonists" into "early Mexican settlers of colonial Spanish descent" and the like. While sources on the origin of the early New Mexican settlers could be better, the one we have [2] explicitly mentions Spanish immigration. Thus, I have largely reverted those changes. Huon (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico/Texas Border Reference Issue

The article states "The eastern border of New Mexico lies along 103° W longitude with the state of Oklahoma, and three miles (5 km) west of 103° W longitude with Texas," with the reference given as this webpage, but no information about the NM-TX boundaries are given on that page. I have marked it as for now until someone can find a better source. Dolenath (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A better reference, along with a better description of the state line and with current delineation explained can be found here. The archive is an Associated Press article that was published in the online version of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, so I'll let someone else figure out how to properly cite that. Fortguy (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Related to the event mentioned in the Star-Telegram article is a New Mexico State Land Office press release that includes a time line of the dispute and includes Supreme Court cases involved. Fortguy (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, from the archives of The New York Times is a 1903 article that mentions the inaccuracy of the survey before the resolution of the boundary. Fortguy (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Official languages

I just provided three reasonably reliable sources that say that Spanish and English are the official languages. I was reverted and the unsourced "None" reappeared. I'd love to know why. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably something went wrong with your first edit, but when I looked at the version I reverted, I couldn't see any sources for English or Spanish as official languages, either. I probably should have looked more closely and repaired whatever went wrong there, but there is a discussion in this talk page's archive according to which New Mexico does not actually have any official languages, sourced to the Reference Desk at the New Mexico State Library. Whether the constitutional protections of Spanish make it (and English) an official language seems to be a matter of interpretation. Huon (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I've been around Wikipedia off and on for six years or so--that was inexcusable for me to have incorrectly posted those references. I shouldn't have put you through that! Sorry! I saw in the talk page that the Reference Desk apparently didn't consider the state constitution's recognition of the two languages (as well as, more pressingly, the mandate to use both of them in official government affairs) to be the same as calling them "official". But President Taft certainly agreed with me. [3] I'm open for some verifiable sourcing in either direction, absolutely, and I hope some surfaces to contradict the current state of the article if it's not true. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say too that if secondary sources (newspapers, etc.) interpret the constitution as establishing English and Spanish as official languages, even if the constitution has no provision which explicitly says "English and Spanish are co-official" then we should say that English and Spanish are co-official.

If one wants to argue "New Mexico has no official languages" I think it would be best to find reliable secondary sources which explicitly say "New Mexico has no official languages"

As a reference, some past discussions:

• Talk:New_Mexico#New_Mexico_has_no_official_language
  • I cannot find the Reference Desk pages this person is referring to It meant a different refdesk!
• Talk:New_Mexico/Archive_1#Official_language
  • There User:WikiDon posted what he says is a mail message from the New Mexico State Library which state that there's no official language
  • But this was back in 2005, before many Wikipedia policies we know today really cemented. I think nowadays we would have to consider how secondary sources interpret the constitution.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up again. In order for a language to be official, it has to be designated as such. The constitution of New Mexico does not do so; it merely makes provisions for the rights of speakers in court and for the rights of students in public schools. In fact the constitution is completely silent on the issue of an official language. (There is a clause about the Treaty of Hildago, if anyone cares to know, but said treaty doesn't mention language at all). Finding sources which say that something is not is always close to impossible, and I don't think that's the way it works. Imagine someone wrote that half of New Mexico's inhabitants are descendants of the Roswell space-aliens, and we then ask anyone who doubts it to bring a source which says they aren't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there have been political issues over whether states have or have not adopted English as an official language, there likely are sources which may give breakdowns on particular language statuses and/or say which ones don't have any.

For instance,

Murchison, William. "English is spoken here." Reading Eagle. Thursday May 28, 1987. Page 5. Google Books 5 of 74

...states that Texas has no official language

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

True... tell you what — why don't we just describe the situation the way I just described it? That would be the most uncontroversial, rather than flat-out stating "official language is..." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

...if we find a secondary source that makes that analysis, that would be great. If we just rely on the primary source, though, would there be issues with OR?

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's OR to state that "The constitution does not declare any language as "official", but gives speakers of Spanish equal rights in public schools and in the courts." After all, anyone can access that document, and when it comes to writing about legislation, we always use the primary documents for a summary of provisions. For the infobox, it's more tricky; we could just leave it blank... (for now) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. That solution sounds fine. I think it's fine to leave that field in the infobox blank for now, while I see what I can find on New Mexico's langauge policy WhisperToMe (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Good; I'll be trying to find out more as well. Somewhere... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is one that says that Hawaii is the only officially bilingual state, and that aside from the ones that adopted English only, no states have official languages:

Joseph, John Earl. Language and Politics. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. "63. ISBN 0748624538, 9780748624539.

It touches upon the "English Plus Declaration" passed by NM in 1989 - the declaration saying that English's supremacy is not being threatened and that other languages should be taught in the US

A search of Google Books shows that there are other books which do say "English and Spanish" are co-official. But I'll see if there's anything that talks about the issue in more detail.

Baca, Leonard and Hermes T. Cervantes. The Bilingual Special Education Interface. Merrill, 1998. Page 13. ISBN 0137693737, 9780137693733 says:

"Similarly, the California and New Mexico constitutions were drafted in the context of linguistic equality between Spanish and English."

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Something new:

Cobarrubias, Juan and Joshua A. Fishman. Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives. Walter de Gruyter, 1983. ISBN 9027933588, 9789027933584.

Page 195

Says state adopted a constitution that "designed more for the people than for the survival of the language. Yet there was, at the time, some recognition that both were intimately related."

It required all laws to be published in both languages for a 20 year period, renewed for a 10 year period in 1931, renewed again in 1943 - the final renewal ended in 1949

"Although Spanish was permitted in the legislature, all state officials were required to have good knowledge of English. From 1935 on Spanish was no longer considered official in the legislature."

"New Mexico cannot be classified as a bilingual state, as some have suggested. For Spanish is not an official language in the sense that all laws and work of the legislature are in that language."

Roberts, Calvin A. Our New Mexico: A Twentieth Century History. UNM Press, 2006. ISBN 0826340083, 9780826340085

Page 23

Said that NM became a part of the US while being "the nation's only officially bilingual state" since documents had to be printed in both languages, people sitting on juries did not have to know English, and "in the spirit of the 1891 school law, teachers would need to know Spanish in school districts where Spanish was the dominant language."

"But the mere fact of a bilingual constitution did not ensure the future of Spanish-language instruction. The struggle to retain Spanish in the schools, to legitimize its commercial and cultural value, would continue."

Perea, Juan F.. (1995). Los Olvidados: On the Making of Invisible People. New York University Law Review, 70(4), 965-990

An excerpt from the book said that NM was officially bilingual until 1953

Excerpt posted in Page 198 of:

Glenn, Cheryl. The Harbrace Guide to Writing, Concise. Cengage Learning, 2011. ISBN 0495913995, 9780495913993

My comment: So, then what happened in 1953?

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be the end of the last (1943) ten-year-renewal (question is why the other author says that ended in 1949(?)) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So, Seb, what are your preliminary thoughts so far on what I found? Have you found any additional literature on the subject? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My first though is "good job, kudos to you." I haven't found anything else. All of this should be somehow incorporated into the section; I'd still advocate leaving the infobox-line blank. Esp. the part about the incremental renewal of the requirement for bilingual legislation 1931&1943 should be there (I didn't know that) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See here Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That looks pretty cool! I like what you posted! Even though French isn't (still?) official for Louisiana, the names in French and Louisiana Creole are posted in addition to the English names:

• "Louisiana (i/luːˌiːziˈænə/ or i/ˌluːziˈænə/; French: État de Louisiane, [lwizjan] ( listen); Louisiana Creole: Léta de la Lwizyàn)"

So would you agree that the same should be done with subjects related to New Mexico? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. I wonder why that's done... in any case, I think it wouldn't hurt to do it in non-bold. On the other hand, I could go ahead and write Yootó Hahoodzo under it as well. So...

State of New Mexico
Estado de Nuevo México
Yootó Hahoodzo

??? (I'm gonna move the sandbox thing into the article)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine - I wouldn't mind including Navajo too - I see Navajo on some New Mexico state marker signs that announce that one is leaving the state.

For state agencies (like New Mexico Department of Education) and counties, the Spanish names should be added to those. For counties in Navajo areas, the Navajo could be added too. I don't think any of the state agencies have Navajo names, but I could be wrong.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of them do, there's some pamphlet, but I don't have the time to dig'em up right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If NM has agencies dealing with Native Americans I'm pretty certain they would have Navajo names, and possibly names in other languages too. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IPA

njuː ˈmɛksɨkoʊ/ ? I've never heard that. It should be nuː ˈmɛksɨkoʊ/ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

25/2/12. I felt the lead section needed improving, so I re-drafted it at about the same length. This meant deleting the existing. But I failed to log the reason for the edit. I'm hoping you can see 'where I'm coming from' and that my new draft is felt appropriate. 86.180.157.118 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No mention of flying saucers or Roswell?

I found that a little odd. New Mexico is the UFO state. It's kind of like having an article on Loch Ness and not mentioning the monster. Roswell helped put New Mexico on the map for people not living in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.81.243 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where we would put such information. "Culture"? It's probably not a significant economic factor, and I doubt it's important enough to mention it in the "History" section. Besides, it's more like having an article on Scotland and not mentioning the monster, which is precisely what we have. The article on Roswell itself prominently mentions the UFO incident. Huon (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it certainly deserves a mention under culture, or history. Consider this, when New Mexico is mentioned or depicted in media, how often does the incident come up? The incident has been mentioned and depicted (regardless of accuracy) in countless films, TV series, and best selling books. It is not an obscure event. It's probably the most famous thing to have happened in New Mexico after the Trinity Nuclear test. Also, Scotland is a country, not a state. I don't know the name of the subdivision of Scotland Loch Ness is in, but I wouldn't be surprised if on that page, they mentioned the world famous lake and the creature that supposedly lives there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.81.243 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

National Origin of Hispanic / Latino Population

The article states the following:

  "The majority of Hispanics in New Mexico claim a Spanish ancestry, especially in the northern part of the state."

The 2010 ACS report from the Census does not support this. According to the 2010 ACS 1-year sample, 355,418 of the state's 959,411 residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino are "Other Hispanic or Latino" i.e., not from South/Central America, i.e., Spanish descent. In actuality, the majority (583,132 of 959,411, or about 60%) of Hispanics in NM claim Mexican ancestry.

Is there a source for the above quote? If not, it should be updated to reflect the most recent, accurate information.

207.38.183.204 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)JCS 5.9.12

Well, one thing is perceived ancestry and another thing is real ancestry. Spanish New Mexicans, according to genetic research, are at least 30-40 percent Native American on the maternal side. They probably have a majority Spanish ancestry on the paternal side, but unfortunately this article does not mention anything abou the paternal line. In this case this was discovered in this DNA study that also found 1-5 percent Jewish ancestry in this population group. Interesting.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/28/3089635/new-genetic-evidence-links-spanish-americans-of-southwest-to-jews

Juanito.

Split?

Could we split this article up a bit? It's getting rather long. - Denimadept (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Counties

71.210.200.178 removed the "most populous counties" table for "consistency", which is not a reason on its own. I see nothing wrong with that table; the information is as relevant to the state as the city information. Therefore I have reverted him. If other state articles differ in their coverage, maybe it's the other articles that should be improved. Huon (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

‎Seb az86556 was faster with the reverting. Huon (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything particularly wrong with including the county info, especially if a measurable portion of the state's population lives outside the cities and towns. I do like the tabular presentation. There is, however, a separate article called List of counties in New Mexico, so maybe this is redundant. Regarding the question of "consistency", I just checked North Dakota, which has nothing on counties, and Montana, which has links to List of cities and towns in Montana and List of counties in Montana in it's "Cities and Towns" section. That's not a significant sample, but if I were to check the remaining 47 articles on the States, I'll bet I'd find a little bit of everything across the spectrum. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected the page so that this discussion can proceed, hopefully without any more edit warring. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Elections table

I just reverted ‎GreasedLobo's changes to the coloring scheme of the federal elections table. Firstly I checked the neighbouring states: They all use the same coloring scheme we had, and I see no reason to deviate from that. Secondly, a couple of errors and imprecisions had crept into the numbers in the process. Huon (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Language Percentages Don't Add Up

English - 82% Spanish - 28% Navajo - 4%

That adds up to 114% - meaning that these statistics are undoubtedly incorrect. --82.34.243.21 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Or 14% of New Mexicans are bilingual. Huon (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The source did give the number of English-speakers as 64%, so I've changed the article accordingly. Huon (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Typical Spanish Fantasy Hertiage

Yes New Mexico was not named after the independent state of Mexico, but it was clearly named after the country of Mexico. And most of its colonial residents were settlers from Mexico, including Mexicans who claimed Spanish ancestry. While New Mexico was certainly isolated; to assert that it emerged outside of the larger Mexican nation is - well - a fantasy. 66.68.207.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Racial make-up

Article states:¨according to the United States Census Bureau, 1.5% of the population is Multiracial/Mixed-Race.¨ This sounds like a joke. In the US virtually everyone is of mixed race. The fact that people calle Obama a black presindet does not change the fact that he is of mixed race. When will people in the US come to terms with this fact? Protonazi fantasies are a thing of the past, as influential as they may be in some places. Pipo.

We post what the Census Bureau calls it, regardless of what one's opinion is on the category. Scarlettail (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Spanish influence.

This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. It is amazing the similarities with the cowboys from New Mexico.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111015012701/http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html to http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709084846/http://www.nps.gov/state/NM/ to http://www.nps.gov/state/nm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528175146/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/getextreme.php?forwhat=st&elem=ALL&state=NM to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/getextreme.php?forwhat=st&elem=ALL&state=NM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120524175652/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US35&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US35&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US35&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null:null&_keyword=&_industry= to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US35&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US35&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US35&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null:null&_keyword=&_industry=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081129051906/http://www.sos.state.nm.us//sos-bluebook.html to http://www.sos.state.nm.us/sos-bluebook.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150215220311/http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/Forms-and-Publications/Forms/Gross-Receipts/Pages/Home.aspx to http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/Forms-and-Publications/Forms/Gross-Receipts/Pages/Home.aspx#Rates.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100604094657/https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/chaco.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/chaco.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070903153033/http://www.newmexicohistory.org:80/story2.php?catid=727 to http://www.newmexicohistory.org/story2.php?catid=727
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110305202118/http://www.santafetrail.org:80/index.php to http://www.santafetrail.org/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070903152916/http://www.newmexicohistory.org:80/story2.php?catid=731 to http://www.newmexicohistory.org/story2.php?catid=731
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121208223901/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/14/mass_firm_sues_state_over_railrunner_name/ to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/14/mass_firm_sues_state_over_railrunner_name/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110512020834/http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Delays-mark-first-morning-of-commuter-train-service to http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Delays-mark-first-morning-of-commuter-train-service
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325113040/http://www.nmrailrunner.com/PDF/Weekday%20Schedule%20SF%2012-08.pdf to http://www.nmrailrunner.com/PDF/Weekday%20Schedule%20SF%2012-08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515205505/http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-10/st_spaceport to http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-10/st_spaceport
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418075923/http://www.aapacnm.org/content.asp?CustComKey=351038&CategoryKey=351039&pn=Page&DomName=aapacnm.org to http://www.aapacnm.org/content.asp?CustComKey=351038&CategoryKey=351039&pn=Page&DomName=aapacnm.org
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120307131437/http://www.newmexico.org/hispanic/experience/flamenco.php to http://www.newmexico.org/hispanic/experience/flamenco.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081007123143/http://www.newmexicoculture.org/CuartoCentenario/index.html to http://www.newmexicoculture.org/CuartoCentenario/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081028193342/http://www.newmexico.org/department/research/docs/Economic_Impact_FY2006.pdf to http://www.newmexico.org/department/research/docs/Economic_Impact_FY2006.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509163914/http://www.nmfilm.com/filming/incentives/ to http://www.nmfilm.com/filming/incentives/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080909211106/http://www.tax.state.nm.us/forms/year08/pitrates_2005_2008.pdf to http://www.tax.state.nm.us/forms/year08/pitrates_2005_2008.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081028193344/http://www.tax.state.nm.us/oos/GrossReceiptsTaxFAQ.pdf to http://www.tax.state.nm.us/oos/GrossReceiptsTaxFAQ.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081028193343/http://www.tax.state.nm.us/oos/PropertyTaxFAQ.pdf to http://www.tax.state.nm.us/oos/PropertyTaxFAQ.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100604094657/https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/chaco.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/chaco.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100604094657/https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/chaco.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/chaco.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Language data

I can confirm that [4] is accurate with regards to the changes it makes but the reference should be updates. However, I am not sure how to do that since the database no longer shows the queries in the url. I.e. the link given in the reference no longer leads to the New Mexico results but loads the menu page from which you can select a state or region to view statistics on. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211133530/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35000.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmpartnership.com/press-releases/article.php?id=1022&title=Governor%20Signs%20Film%20Production%20Tax%20Incentives
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/14/mass_firm_sues_state_over_railrunner_name/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701131905/http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/news.php to http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/news.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817235410/http://www.ago.state.nm.us/ to http://www.ago.state.nm.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming New Mexico

Someone deleted the paragraph on the naming of New Mexico, calling it “nonsense.” It is documented, and is hardly nonsense. The paragraph on the naming of New Mexico correctly observes that the area contained by the present state of New Mexico has had that name for much longer than the current nation of Mexico has had its name. So New Mexico could not have been named after the current nation of Mexico. Rather, both the state of New Mexico and the nation of Mexico took their names from the Valley of Mexico. The early explorers, seeing the Pueblo Indian towns, optimistically thought that they had found another culture worth looting for its gold, like that in the Valley of Mexico, so they named the area Nuevo Mexico. Plazak (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph should be deleted for the two reasons I gave in my edit summary: It contradicts, rather than summarizes, the text, and a source cited refutes it: "In 1563 he went far to the north ... when he returned south, Ibarra boasted that he had discovered a New Mexico."

1. The lead is supposed to summarize what is in the main body of the article. Thankfully, the article says nothing about this nonsense. See WP:LEAD.

2. The sources cited don't support the assertion.

• I'll partially quote from and also give brief summaries of Weber, p. 79:

By the mid-1560s, Mexico's mining frontier had pushed north of Zacatecas into what is today the state of Chihuahua. . . Inevitably, Spaniards . . . heard rumors of rich lands and important peoples just beyond the northern horizons.

They got royal approval to explore north from Mexico.

The Rodriquez expedition named the area San Felipe del Nuevo Mexico.

There you have the named based on [old] Mexico.

• I couldn't access Sanchez. Can you?
• Stewart, 23-24:

There was Francisco de Ibarra, a great seeker after gold mines. In 1563 he went far to the north ... when he returned south, Ibarra boasted that he had discovered a New Mexico. Doubtless, like others, he stretched the tale, and certainly the land of which he told was well south of the one now so called. Yet men remembered the name Nuevo México, though not at first as that of the region which Coronado had once conquered.

Obviously, then, explorers from Mexico found a new land and named in New Mexico.

The little detail is that the paragraph in the lead disingenuously says the nation of Mexico, making the assertion partially true, while ignoring the larger fact that modern Mexico was called "Mexico" long before it won independence from Spain. The phrase, "even though the area had no connection to Mexico," is utterly false, since the explorers, though Spaniards, traveled from Mexico. YoPienso (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Since New Mexico was named for the geographical and cultural region long known as Mexico and officially named Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States) after independence, the factlet that it was named before Mexico was an independent nation is trivial and doesn't belong in the lead. Nor, imo, does it belong anywhere in the article. YoPienso (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good source to support removing the paragraph: Simmons, Marc. The Last Conquistador: Juan de Oñate and the Settling of the Far Southwest, U. of Oklahoma Press, 1991, p. xiii.

"But by Oñate's day it was referred to as Nuevo México, New Mexico, reflecting the hope that it would somehow yield riches rivaling those Fernando Cortés had plundered from the Aztecs in the original Mexico far to the south." YoPienso (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazingly, that addition has stood for over four years since being added by a WP:SPA. Because it was uncited, it was deleted a couple of times, and then restored with the present sources--two of which I've demonstrated don't support the assertion. The edit summary was: There are a thousand references to Mexico going from New Spain to "Mexico" in 1821, and New Mexico being named in the 16th century. A popularly historical misnomer is that New Mexico came to be through immigration from the modern nation Mexico. The editor was mistaken that Mexico and New Spain were synonymous; New Spain also included other regions as distant as Florida and some Pacific islands.

His point that New Mexico wasn't named by or for immigrants coming to the US for a better life in the 19th- and 20th-centuries. True enough. That point could be made in the article, but I suggest that instead of telling how NM wasn't named, we tell how it was named--by 16th-century conquistadors, who named it for Mexico, as they commonly called the Viceroyalty of New Spain. YoPienso (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I need to tread carefully here, as I have no expertise in this subject. Here's my take. The current paragraph:

New Mexico, or Nuevo México in Spanish, is often incorrectly believed to have taken its name from the nation of Mexico. However, Spanish explorers recorded this region as New Mexico in 1563, and again in 1581, when they incorrectly believed it contained wealthy Mexican Indian cultures similar to those of the Aztec Empire of the Valley of Mexico. The name stuck, even though the area had no connection to Mexico or the Mexica Indian tribes.[9][10][11] Modern Mexico adopted its name centuries later in 1821, after winning independence from Spanish rule.

appears to me to be perfectly accurate. New Mexico was certainly called by that name long before the nation of "Mexico" was established, though they both clearly were named for the same place. So I don't see what the problem is. Except this--someone noted that WP:LEAD states that the lead needs to be a synopsis of the article. That seems to me to be a valid point, but I question the objectivity of someone who writes, "The lead is supposed to summarize what is in the main body of the article. Thankfully, the article says nothing about this nonsense.". (boldface emphasis added) Nonsense? Really? I'm willing to respect the insistence that WP:LEAD be adhered to, but I think the way to do this would be to place the information in the article as well. Not only is this not "nonsense", it addresses a ubiquitous misconception. I think it belongs in the lead simply because, as WP:LEAD points out, the lead is the only part of the article many people will read. I would guess that about 99% of Americans presume that first came (the United States of) Mexico, and that New Mexico took its name therefrom, just as New England is named for England and New Hampshire is named for the English county. Clearing that up in the lead serves a valuable service. So perhaps the long version of the explanation should go in the article, with a simple sentence left in the lead to allay the common misunderstanding. Unschool 01:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

During Spanish rule, there were three places formally named Mexico: 1) Mexico City, 2) Valley of Mexico, and 3) Mexico, an administrative division within New Spain, which after independence became the State of Mexico. In addition, Yopienso proposes, but does not document, that all of New Spain was informally called Mexico. To support this, Yopienso inaccurately cites Weber:

“I'll partially quote from and also give brief summaries of Weber, p. 79:

…

They got royal approval to explore north from Mexico.”

Please, Yopienso, clearly distinguish quotes from your own summary. In my copy of Weber, the section on pages 78 and 79 between the two actual quotes does not refer to Mexico at all. Where did you get the phrase “from Mexico”? Further, Weber often uses modern place names as casual shorthand for “the area of present-day XXX.” As an example, on page 49 we see: “… Coronado himself planned to reenter the plains the next spring to explore beyond central Kansas.”

So during Spanish rule there were three smaller areas formally called Mexico, and (according to Yopienso) the entirety of New Spain was also informally called Mexico. So when Francisco de Ibarra bragged that he had found a “New Mexico,” he could be using any of these usages of Mexico. Yopienso asserts that de Ibarra meant Mexico in the usage meaning the entirety of New Spain, but this knowledge would appear to require some sort of mind-reading ability on the part of Yopienso.

Fortunately, we need not depend on Yopienso’s mind-reading. Hubert Howe Bancroft (History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1889, p.91 [5]) wrote the following concerning the naming of New Mexico:

“It was obviously natural that such a name should have suggested itself as appropriate for any newly discovered province whose people and buildings resembled in a general way – that is, in comparison to the wild tribes and their huts – those of the valley of Mexico.”

There we have it. It could hardly be expressed more explicitly as to which usage of Mexico he refers to. Your turn, Yopienso. Plazak (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's back up a bit.

1. First, I'm sorry for my choice of the undiplomatic word "nonsense." I think we can work together collegially, assuming good faith, to improve the article.
2. User Unschool agrees the lead paragraph violates WP:LEAD. Do you?
3. I did (or *did*) clearly distinguish my quotes from my summaries--the quotes are in italics. From Mexico is in italics, too, but for emphasis. Maybe I should have typed *from Mexico*.
4. Weber, p. 79: "If what they tell me is true,' the archbishop of Mexico wrote, "they [Rodriguez's expedition] have indeed discovered . . . another new world." I concede there is ambiguity in the term "Mexico," and now realize Weber may have meant "present-day Mexico" in many instances. Still, I think "Mexico" was a synecdoche for all of New Spain, and so does Robert Julyan, Chair of the Geographic Names Committee of the New Mexico Geographic information Council, writing, "Mexico was the term the Spanish used to refer to the former Aztec empire."
5. Common sense says that if an explorer names a land he discovers New [Anything], there was already an existing, or old, [Anything], whether Hampshire, Jersey, England, Mexico, or whatever. Therefore, centuries before the immigration of citizens of modern-day (post-1821) E.U. de México, there was an existing Mexico. There were several, in fact, as you noted above. Ergo, there existed a Mexico for which New Mexico was named.
6. So, as I suggested above, why not tell what New Mexico *was* named for instead of what it *wasn't* named for? An editor who has not joined the discussion sent me a like on that suggestion.
7. That lead paragraph currently asserts, "The name [New Mexico] stuck, even though the area had no connection to Mexico or the Mexica Indian tribes." Clearly it had a connection to Mexico! Else why was the word "New" used? I guess the argument hinges on how one defines "Mexico" in that sentence, but our readers shouldn't have to parse a lead paragraph so closely.
8. Thank you for the Bancroft quote. New Mexico, he said, was named with the valley of Mexico in mind. I call that a connection to Mexico. Please see on footnote 11 what Stewart says on page 23. (He, by the way, not Weber, seems to be the source of my "from Mexico." I can't know exactly what he meant by "Mexico.")
9. Do you think the sources cited in the paragraph (footnotes 9, 10, 11) support the assertions made? YoPienso (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

9) To answer your last question first: I don't have ready access to Sanchez. If your assertion is true that Mexico was an informal name for New Spain, then Weber and the quote from Stewart would be too ambiguous to clearly support the paragraph. The best unambiguous source I have seen is the above quote from Bancroft.

2) One way to handle a "violation" of the lead guideline would be to summarize here and provide more detail in the body. Another way would be to move the paragraph into the body. A third way would be to recognize that guidelines are not ironclad, and the most important thing is to produce an informative, accurate and readable article. The absolute worst way to handle the matter would be to just eliminate the paragraph from the article.

4) Your quote from Robert Julyan falls far short of supporting your thesis that Mexico = New Spain, In fact, it flat-out contradicts your assertion. The Aztec Empire at its very peak included a large chunk of what is now central Mexico, but was far short of being co-extensive with either New Spain or the independent nation of Mexico. If anything, Julyan comes closer to supporting the current paragraph.

5) Your item 5 is a straw-man argument. No one, I think, has argued that there was no Mexico for New Mexico to be named after. The question is only one of which usage of the term Mexico was the model for New Mexico.

7) The term "connection" is perhaps too ambiguous the way it is used here. What the sentence tries to express is that the Pueblo Tribes were not part of the culture of Aztec or Mexica peoples. Reword it if you like.

In summary, what we have so far is a quote from Bancroft, certainly a WP:RS, explicitly saying that New Mexico was named after the Valley of Mexico. Unless someone comes up with a good source explicitly saying otherwise, the only defensible outcome is to go with Bancroft. Regards. Plazak (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am pressed for time, and cannot make any intricate arguments right now. The only point that concerns me at the moment is the stance of User:Yopienso regarding the belief that I and others have that the article needs to make clear that the US State of New Mexico, which came into the Union only in 1912, was not named for the nation-state of Mexico, which came into existence in the first half of the 19th century. Arguments about the exact reason that New Mexico was named as it was concern me less than clearing up the historical confusion on this matter. As an American and a former history teacher, I am very conscious of the fact that nearly every living person in the United States who is not a historian or a New Mexican assumes that, because Mexico was a country before New Mexico was a state, that the latter was named in honor of the former, and it just isn't so. And that' what I want the article to make clear. Encyclopedias, after all, are intended to be educational. So, Yopienso, do you have any objection to the article clearing up this nearly-universal misunderstanding? Unschool 06:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No I don't, Unschool. I've done some work on the article. What do you think? YoPienso (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm largely good with your work; thank you for your efforts. I did add a few words to the sentence in the Opener. I felt that, as written, it was a bit stark sitting there. And yet, I confess I'm not entirely happy with my addition. While I think it smooths over the slightly jarring feel of your sentence, with my addition, it's not very encyclopedic in tone. What would be better would be, "Contrary to popular opinion . . . ", but even though I'm 110% certain that that would be an accurate indictment of popular opinion, I haven't taken the time to source that claim. Perhaps later. Unschool 03:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and changed it to "popular belief," although I'm not sure that belief exists and if it does that we need to refute it. I'm also an American and a former history teacher. I have a Mexican son-in-law and lived in NM for a little over a year as a teenager. The erroneous popular belief I found back then was that some people on the East Coast where we moved from didn't realize NM was one of the 50 states! YoPienso (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Unschool: I object to your edit summary, As written, this was not bad at all. However, a careful discussion arrived at the conclusion that the independence of New Mexico's etymology from that of the nation of Mexico needs to be in the lead section. Where did the careful discussion conclude that your pet claim should be in the lead? YoPienso (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion we had in August. It was your edit (here: [6] ) after that discussion that brought it all together. I'm sorry if you think I mischaracterized what happened. Unschool 12:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I was making concessions to you in order to keep the peace. By "I went ahead and changed it to 'popular belief,' although I'm not sure that belief exists and if it does that we need to refute it," I meant I disagreed with having that factoid in the lead but if you insisted, at least it could be written carefully.

New Mexico was named for some previously existing Mexico, most likely Mexico City and its surrounds as rebuilt by Cortes after he destroyed Tenochtitlan. If we say what New Mexico isn't named for, we should certainly also say what it is named for. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand, and again, apologize for the misunderstanding. I simply didn't recognize that you found yourself making a concession; I thought you were actually on board with it. Unschool 20:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I say it is good as currently written within the lead as a single sentence, because it hits the point, is more visible to all those "etymology-skippers", and frees-up the Etymology section to talk about what New Mexico is named after. Kehkou (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, Kehkou, but I want to hear what YoPienso has to say, too. Unschool 20:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sign off on this discussion. I'm adamant only on text that is wrong or misleading; imo this is only misplaced. Imo the disclaimer isn't important enough to be in the lead, and it seems to me to fit the description of WP:RGW. Nonetheless, it's not worth arguing about.

I do think the last sentence of the etymology section should be cited. Somehow I think I wrote that myself, and I'm pretty fussy about citing, but there it sits without any ref. Best to you, YoPienso (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305045437/http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html to http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304021219/http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/oct08/P03.pdf to http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/oct08/P03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3