Talk:New Mexico/Archive 2

791:"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." 3422:, 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, 2159: 3891: 31: 2160:

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=

2163: 2869:

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.

2164:

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=

1744:

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.

3305: 349: 1278: 1423: 1393: 3215: 1356: 173:

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.

3374:

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

3334:

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

2868:

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

1727:

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

794:

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,

166:

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 Knowledge 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

3511:

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

3194:

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

1797:

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

1743:

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

1500:

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

1030:

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.

214:

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

144:

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

2706:

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

2013:

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

1045:

No, I've been around Knowledge 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

3366:

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

3330:

That lead paragraph currently asserts, "The name 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

3161:

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

281:

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

1776:

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

513:

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;

204:

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

172:

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

3539:

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

3100:

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

2965:

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

2942:

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

2040:

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

1077:

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

821:

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

383:

Sorry, new to Knowledge 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

3633:

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

1133:

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

3204:

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

3129:

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

3370:

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

1398:

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

3512:

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.

1942:'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. 3228:“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.” 1684:

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.

3107:

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

1138:

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.

118:. 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. 3101:

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. Modern Mexico adopted its name centuries later in 1821, after winning independence from Spanish rule.

1840:. 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. 514:

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

573:

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

3321:, 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, 3060:

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

2065:

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.

1221:

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)

1148:

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

3739:

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

3124:

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

3070:

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

3130:

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.

795:

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.

1134:

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

2908:

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

3693:

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

770:

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.

1402:"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." 874:

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

1704:

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.

3382:

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

1897:

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! --

1876:

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

3390:, 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. 3378:

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

3582:

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.

2992:(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. 3295:

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

1615:) 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. 897:

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

215:

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.

1370:"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." 1367:"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." 1046:

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.

2886:

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."

1291:

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

250:

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

1535:

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:

3747:

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,

629:

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

1192:

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..."

3327:

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.

1361:

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."

95:

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. --

3058:. 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: 996:

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.

254:

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

3205:

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.

2269: 1294:

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.

2229: 453:

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?)

1113:

But this was back in 2005, before many Knowledge policies we know today really cemented. I think nowadays we would have to consider how secondary sources interpret the constitution.

1081:

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"

1026:, 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 578:

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. --

3662:

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.

3640:

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

1798:

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.

2239: 563:) 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: 3029:

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."

1364:

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

1156: 121:

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. --

852:

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.

2756: 2149: 1266:

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:

1231:

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

3833: 3829: 3815: 2810: 2806: 2792: 2647: 2643: 2629: 2507: 2503: 2489: 2319: 2315: 2301: 2179: 653: 1049:

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.

3195:

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.”

1201:...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? 1564:

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

3266:

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.

3112:

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,

2417: 670:

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.

1801: 384:

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.

2270:

https://web.archive.org/20120418075923/http://www.aapacnm.org/content.asp?CustComKey=351038&CategoryKey=351039&pn=Page&DomName=aapacnm.org

611: 2230:

https://web.archive.org/20121208223901/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/14/mass_firm_sues_state_over_railrunner_name/

1608:

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.

2595: 2467: 246:

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

3371:

informative, accurate and readable article. The absolute worst way to handle the matter would be to just eliminate the paragraph from the article.

2273: 730: 690: 1650:

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.

1047: 2762: 2233: 2189: 2041:

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.

1219:"The constitution does not declare any language as "official", but gives speakers of Spanish equal rights in public schools and in the courts." 460:

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. --

2249: 901:, 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. 2890:

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

2437: 1833: 1783: 1751: 1712: 1686: 607: 114:

The current consensus, backed up by some correspondence with the Reference Desk at the New Mexico State Library, is that New Mexico has no

3404:

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

2407: 2259: 2240:

https://web.archive.org/20110512020834/http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Delays-mark-first-morning-of-commuter-train-service

2078: 1890: 1315:"Similarly, the California and New Mexico constitutions were drafted in the context of linguistic equality between Spanish and English." 802: 2129: 917: 2183: 2015: 1965: 1612: 871: 710:

Sound like a very bizarre method of waste disposal and probably is too trivial for this article. Any reliable sources for the burial?

3811:

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

2788:

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

2243: 1939: 756: 696: 2447: 2279: 2757:

http://www.nmpartnership.com/press-releases/article.php?id=1022&title=Governor%20Signs%20Film%20Production%20Tax%20Incentives

2219: 2199: 2150:

https://web.archive.org/20100528175146/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/getextreme.php?forwhat=st&elem=ALL&state=NM

3540:

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!

3214:

Fortunately, we need not depend on Yopienso’s mind-reading. Hubert Howe Bancroft (History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1889, p.91

2746: 3345: 2180:

https://web.archive.org/20150215220311/http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/Forms-and-Publications/Forms/Gross-Receipts/Pages/Home.aspx

876: 431: 3239:

There we have it. It could hardly be expressed more explicitly as to which usage of Mexico he refers to. Your turn, Yopienso.

2943:

called. Yet men remembered the name Nuevo México, though not at first as that of the region which Coronado had once conquered.

2457: 275: 3791: 3727: 3677: 3621: 3527: 3441: 3145: 2768: 2153: 1878: 1486:

So, Seb, what are your preliminary thoughts so far on what I found? Have you found any additional literature on the subject?

1441: 1411: 1387: 1350: 1309: 1285: 973: 400: 3801: 1539:"Louisiana (i/luːˌiːziˈænə/ or i/ˌluːziˈænə/; French: État de Louisiane, ( listen); Louisiana Creole: Léta de la Lwizyàn)" 916:

A better reference, along with a better description of the state line and with current delineation explained can be found

649: 85: 3876: 2853: 190:. Is "demise" an accurate description of intercity rail service? Probably, but some person had to make that judgment. -- 3293:"If what they tell me is true,' the archbishop of Mexico wrote, "they have indeed discovered . . . another new world." 2169: 1780:

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

2427: 2418:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081028193342/http://www.newmexico.org/department/research/docs/Economic_Impact_FY2006.pdf

1894: 1471:

Seems to be the end of the last (1943) ten-year-renewal (question is why the other author says that ended in 1949(?))

3079:

named--by 16th-century conquistadors, who named it for Mexico, as they commonly called the Viceroyalty of New Spain.

1110:

posted what he says is a mail message from the New Mexico State Library which state that there's no official language

898: 1802:

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

426:) a table labelled "New Mexico Metropolitan Areas (MSA)" under "Important cities and counties", on several grounds: 3898: 1837: 1274: 592: 38: 2209: 1773:"The majority of Hispanics in New Mexico claim a Spanish ancestry, especially in the northern part of the state." 3931: 3919: 1101: 1027: 435: 71: 59: 3832:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3094:

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

2809:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2646:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2596:

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

2506:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2468:

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

2318:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3606:) after that discussion that brought it all together. I'm sorry if you think I mischaracterized what happened. 2421: 2274:

http://www.aapacnm.org/content.asp?CustComKey=351038&CategoryKey=351039&pn=Page&DomName=aapacnm.org

1690: 515: 1787: 1755: 1716: 2763:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/14/mass_firm_sues_state_over_railrunner_name/

2234:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/14/mass_firm_sues_state_over_railrunner_name/

2190:

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

3867: 3783: 2844: 2738: 2082: 2019: 806: 726: 510: 3779: 3015: 2250:

https://web.archive.org/20090325113040/http://www.nmrailrunner.com/PDF/Weekday%20Schedule%20SF%2012-08.pdf

1969: 675: 482: 2778: 737:

was making it up. But he wasn't!!! I've never been to New Mexico before. In fact, I've never been to the

312:, and we have often used those as a guide to what needs to be improved in the present article. Of course 3851:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3839: 2828:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2816: 2685: 2665:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2653: 2599: 2545: 2525:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2513: 2471: 2438:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080909211106/http://www.tax.state.nm.us/forms/year08/pitrates_2005_2008.pdf

2357: 2337:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2325: 2193: 2050: 1655: 1622: 1548: 1491: 1458: 1324: 1236: 1208: 1183: 1123: 1064: 1011: 760: 700: 538: 396: 287: 229: 150: 3782:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3375:

the independent nation of Mexico. If anything, Julyan comes closer to supporting the current paragraph.

3067:

were synonymous; New Spain also included other regions as distant as Florida and some Pacific islands.

2737:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3408:

regarding the belief that I and others have that the article needs to make clear that the US State of

2253: 2139: 947: 2712: 2620: 2408:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081007123143/http://www.newmexicoculture.org/CuartoCentenario/index.html

2260:

https://web.archive.org/20080515205505/http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-10/st_spaceport

2074: 2025: 1924: 1819: 1747: 1708: 849: 798: 661: 638: 388: 2130:

https://web.archive.org/20111015012701/http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html

1993:

The source did give the number of English-speakers as 64%, so I've changed the article accordingly.

848:

New Mexico's largest metropolitan area "Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metropolitan Area". According to the

2184:

http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/Forms-and-Publications/Forms/Gross-Receipts/Pages/Home.aspx#Rates.aspx

750: 392: 3339:

Do you think the sources cited in the paragraph (footnotes 9, 10, 11) support the assertions made?

3752: 3720: 3670: 3653: 3614: 3589: 3545: 3520: 3478: 3434: 3426:, do you have any objection to the article clearing up this nearly-universal misunderstanding? 3138: 3084: 3034: 2997: 2971: 2441: 2263: 2244:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Delays-mark-first-morning-of-commuter-train-service

2133: 1903: 906: 734: 630: 3836: