Talk:Anti-Mexican sentiment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Mexican sentiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Anti-Mexican sentiment. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Anti-Mexican sentiment at the Reference desk.

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

I would like to improve this article, but the issue is so large and contriversial, I'm not even sure where to start. I think the first step might be to distinguish between self-identified ethnicity and notional(?) nationality status. One is an aspect of an individual's cultural self-identification, the other is fundamentally a legal having no direct correlation to the status of the individual it is applied to. Furthermore, this article distinguishes poorly between people of "mexican" identity living in mexico, people of "mexican" identity or origin living in the USA, people of "mexican" identity BORN in the united states, and the political entity (nation-state) informally referred to as "Mexico", offically the "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (translated as: United Mexican States). These are all important and separate groups or entities, and must be distinguished between in the context of the article. (quotation marks are used only to denote terms, not as an editorial statement). What is the correct terminology for describing or defining these different groups/entities? I don't want to invent nomenclature, but have absolutely not idea where to start. Before I start criticizing the article, I want to be sure we are all talking about the same things! Thanks. -- Prophet121 01:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article needs a LOT of work. It shows partiality to anti-anti-mexican viewpoints, and doesn't begin to talk about -why- people have these anti-mexican feelings. It doesn't mention the things immigrants do to affect the country, bilingual product packaging, illegal drivers with no insurance, or any of that stuff like that there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize 200 million Spanish-speakers live immediately south of the United States. Any manufacturer would be an idiot to package goods separately according to language in North America...its cost effective. 72.191.191.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Mind that user Spotfixer is blocked out of wikipedia. You might want to re-consider the points up given.

Off-focus in present section

A large portion of the section is about anti-illegal immigration, not anti-Mexican sentiment. It's racist to treat the two terms as synonymous. "Mexican" does NOT mean "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" does NOT mean "Mexican". -65.189.247.6 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's racist for neo-Nazis to ally with border-watching militias to keep Mexicans out of America. I'm sorry, but you don't get to delete large, relevant parts of the article based on an arbitrarily narrow reading of the citations. If you disagree, go file an RFM or something. Spotfixer (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've got a source which says that they are targetting Mexicans specifically rather than illegal immigrants specifically? Because you use the two terms interchangeably and that's racist. Not everyone illegally immigrating across the southern border is Mexican.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if each and every illegal immigrant is Mexican, just that they immigrate through Mexico and a large number of them are, in fact, Mexican. You're artificially raising the bar, and that's just ridiculous. Spotfixer (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind that user Spotfixer is blocked out of wikipedia. You might want to re-consider the points up given.

Lynching numbers

"Statistics of reported lynching in the United States indicate that, between 1882 and 1951, 4,730 persons were lynched...Mexicans were lynched at a rate of 27.4 per 100,000 of population between 1880 and 1930."

If this were true then the ethno-mexican population would have averaged 17 million in the US at the turn of the last century at a time where there wasn't enough life in the South West to fill a space cruiser.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/california.pdf

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/arizona.pdf

That exponential population increase is mostly whites; irregardless, for this to be true most of the lynching should have occurred very close to 1930 assuming the population increase was entirely ethno-mexican which we all know is not true.98.165.15.98 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

forced to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

"Mexico was forced to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty required Mexico to cede over half its land to the United States in exchange for 15 million dollars"

It appears some brainwashed or clueless Anti-American typed this nonsense and should be changed to reflect the truth. First of all, "forced to sign" and "sold for 15 million dollars" is like night and day. Water and oil. It dont mix. Isnt gonna happen no way no how. Victors dont pay for conquered land. And if they were going to take the land by force, they wouldnt have needed something written down on paper. They would have just taken it, period.

And just for the record, Mexicans slowly migrating north, stoled the land from native Americans long before this war or treaty. So get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahoss (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly credible given the high amount of Native American blood in the great majority of Mexicans, ie they are/were native to the Americas themselves♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

I propose we move this to Anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States. Do ppl object, pelase let me know here as if so I will make a WP:RM request♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1900-1920's Violence in South Texas & Evaluation

I am adding a section to the 1900's-1920's section about anti-Mexican violence and sentiment in South Texas. I hope it will provide a more comprehensive account of anti-Mexican sentiment in the US, as this period in S. Texas saw hundreds to thousands of Mexicans and Tejanos killed by Texas Rangers.^[1] Wdkelly (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An evaluation of this article as of 3/19/17; This article presents many claims unsubstantiated by citation. This is particularly evident in the 1840's- 1890's subsection. However, this section's claim about the underreporting of lynchings of Mexicans is a point that has been underemphasized in other articles about violence against minorities and the history of Texas, Texas Rangers, etc. This is an important addition to the article and should be expanded, with sources cited. I have added a citation needed tag to the subsection about the Chandler Roundup. The tone of this article is neutral. When evidence is presented and cited, it is done so in a manner both appropriate for Wikipedia and with consideration of the delicate nature of the topic of discrimination. Perhaps the section under the 'Present' tab about Mexican prejudice against the black community is better served in an article about discrimination in Mexico or discrimination against Afro-Mexicans. However, this article, while struggling to cite all of its claims, does reach an acceptable level of neutrality and objectivity. Among sources actually cited, there is a high prevalence of news articles. This article would be more complete and comprehensive with greater inclusion of secondary sources about the historical events, as well as academic sources. Wdkelly (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Carrigan, William D.; Webb, Clive (2013). Forgotten Dead. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 65, 86–87.

Revision Proposal

Hello! My name is Elizabeth Gamez. I am interested in possibly working on this project with you. I will have a plan on my page. Please go check it out and let me know your thoughts. EliGamez (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Mexican Racism...

...is a much better and more precise nomer for the acts of ethnic cleansing Mexican-Americans and Mexicans have experienced in the US. 174.18.67.80 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Carrigan, William D.; Webb, Clive (2013). Forgotten Dead. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 65, 86–87.

[1]