Jump to content

Talk:New Mexico

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.68.207.59 (talk) at 09:29, 15 November 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeNew Mexico was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 13, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Differing Information

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 – These statements have been replaced by more nuanced ones: lede diff, Culture diff.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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Mexico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • The article is fairly well written. If I were you though, I'd take one more look over it to check any spelling and grammar mistakes.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a few bits that are oddly worded for example, "The United States Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2008, estimated New Mexico's population at 1,984,356" How about "As of July 1, 2008, the United States Census Bureau estimated New Mexico's population at 1,984,356.":* Done NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sections that are way too small to deserve it's own section. For example, the "Flora and fauna" secion should be merged with perhaps the Geography section or enlarged. It does'nt make since haveing a secion talk aobut flowers if it is entitled "geography" so you may also want to rename that section an appropriate new name if you take my advice. Not a deal breaker but it does seem a bit odd.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Offline source accepted in good faith. No issues here. You just need more of them! (See above)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Well, overall, the article is broad in coverage and is on topic. The only exeptions are that you'll need to expand the Sports, Art and Literature adn Education secions a bit. (Along with the others listed above)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No POV in existance.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No issue in this category.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Good to go.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall: Well, this is almost there. You'll need to properly adress those issues and then I'll pass it. And as for the deadline, as long as you keep working on it, I'll make the deadline indef. You'll need the extra time. Perhaps you can get Spongefrog and a few other people to help you out. I'd help out but seeing as I am the reviewer, I can't really work on it without a COI!--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

I'm not the reviewer, but I'd say that the Race and ancestry section needs more sources, especially with the percentage of which cultures live there (hopefully you know what I mean). --Hadger 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer, I'll have to argee with what he's saying here. You need a citatin for every culture.--White Shadows you're breaking up 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There already citiations that cite this. It's after "According to the US Census" or something like that. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

  1. The Transportation section still needs some more citations.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Political section needs more citations.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The education system still needs major expanding and citations as well.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Expansion needed tags still need to be addressed.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. some links are have names but nothing else. You need access dates for evey online source as well as an author if possible.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article should not be passed in its current state. Many sections need expansion and lots more refs are required. Aaroncrick TALK 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) He's right. I'm going to have to fail this one since nothing much is happening. I'm sorry NSD, maybe you can keep on working on it and nominate it later.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius

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

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [failed verification] for now until someone can find a better source. Dolenath (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See here Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IPA

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Or 14% of New Mexicans are bilingual. Huon (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Mexico&oldid=581746329"