Talk:National Autonomous University of Mexico/Archive 1

older entries

According to the official UNAM website, [1], the University was founded on September 21, 1551, and opened on January 25, 1553. However, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (National University of San Marcos) in Lima, Peru, was founded on May 12, 1551, and opened on January 2, 1553, according to its official webpage [2], which would mean that the statement in this article that UNAM was the first university in America is not true. The same applies for the statement that UNAM is the oldest university in the Western Hemisphere, in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation.

And, if you go over to check the article at Santo Domingo, you'll see that: The Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo (UASD) is the oldest university in the new world 1538. If we were to say, "in the New World," (Santo Domingo), "in America" (Lima), and "in North America" (Mexico), all three could have their slice of glory. –Hajor

Agree, except that Hispaniola is also in the Americas. Better South America for San Carlos. --Rbraunwa 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the dates don't make it. Besides, it seems there is another mexican university claiming it's oldest by 10 years. The official site makes no claims about that. So I am removing that claim. Asereje 08:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After all the opinions, UNAM is the Oldest university in North America. Please see the maps, Santo Domingo and Perú are no in North America. Pedron 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Santo Domingo is in the Caribean and Peru in South America.

According to UNAM historians experts the Pope never gave the title of "Pontificia", so it should remain as "Real Universidad de Mexico" as official former name. Which is even more remarkable and which separates it to the other eclesiastic university of Mexico that claims being the older and had in his name "Pontificia". By the way, in France the name "Cité Universitaire" is used for a Student dorms place which is like a small city just as in Mexico is the "Ciudad Universitaria" (in the sense that it is a small city, not in the sense that it is a student dorms place). However the term "city" in french comes from the late latin which means "village", therefore "city" in French is "ville", for example Mexico City is translated as "Ville de Mexico". Anyway, I think the best translation for "Ciudad Universitaria" is effectively "University City".

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the football team. Also, I concur with the statement that there is controversy about the title of being "oldest university in the Americas". San Marcos in Lima and the university in Santo Domingo also claim this honor. glasperlenspiel 18:15, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I would like suggestions about how to translate "Ciudad Universitaria". Currently I use University City but I am unsure if Universitary City would be better. Is there a similar term in english-speaking countries? Thanks. Asereje 08:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by university city? If you mean a place where students live, then try "Student dorms", note this is a very american (as in USA) phrase, and is not used outside the US, however it will be understood. by the way, tomorrow when i have time i will come back and fix up the english on this page, i saw no mistakes as such, just lots of constructions that weren't natural (an example is the second sentence which frogot that in english unlike spanish you cant just use the verb "to be" with out a pronoun (spcefically it). And using reflexive pronouns where they would be needed in spanish but not in english. Great article though, thanks all for the translation work. The bellman 13:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On reading the article more i think university city means university campus. The bellman 13:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is like this: The University used to be located in the downtown area of Mexico City, scatered in several buildings. In the 1940s (or was it 1950s?) a vast campus was built in the outskirts of the city and was christened Ciudad Universitaria, the City (Ciudad) in the name refers to the fact that it was something of a city in itself at the time, it was somewhat isolated from the rest of the city (that has since changed quite a bit), and thus had several public services of its own, such as a postal office, bank branches (although that's not a public service, but you get my meaning), etc. Today UNAM has several campi around Mexico City and elswhere, but Ciudad Universitaria remains the main and largest campus. I'm inclined to use University City as a translation, but it would require an explanation if that term is not really understood in english speaking countries. Suggestions? --Jsf 01:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to editing etc. so please bear with me. The article is generally informative. I've just copyedited the strike section as a native English speaker, but please let me know if you feel I've changed the meaning. As far as Ciudad Universitaria goes, and as far as I understand it, it is not just a "normal" university campus as understood in the US or the UK, for example. The main difference is the autonomy referred to in the name, and mentioned (although without enough emphasis, in my opinion) in the article: it is almost a separate region within Mexico City, with its own regulations, councils, police (to some extent) etc., in a more fundamental way than most universities around the world. Law enforcement officials from outside the University are not welcome, and are not allowed to enter, although there would not be very much to stop them if they tried to do so -- it is just understood that they must not do so. I agree with Jsf that it's difficult to translate this idea -- it took me a while to get used to it. University City does not sound very idiomatic, but I agree that it is difficult to improve on. How about University Village, which is somewhat like olympic village. Not brilliant either. --Pruple 18:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we would do better leaving it as is and adding a (literally: University City) after the name, if you really want to know wat is it, you are just going to have to read the paragraph and get used to the idea :-) --Jsf 01:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jsf and Pruple's comments above about the autonomy are correct. I tried to give in the article the idea that the campus is a lot more than that. I insist on the term because it is the official name: Ciudad Universitaria. Main campus would probably give the idea but miss a lot on the facilities (like the soccer stadium) that are targeted not only to students but to the rest of the population. According to [[3]], Ciudad Universitaria has a surface of six million square meters (a meter being a bit more than three feet). I wanted most of all a term as natural as possible to a native english speaker. If there´s no natural sounding way of translating the official name I would go for "main campus", but again, the name itself is widely used. It seems spanish-speaking countries use "Ciudad Universitaria" as "main campus", but I still believe is worth translating because the campus is a landmark in Mexico City and its size, as has been said above. Asereje 06:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

National University of Saint Mark oppinion

However the spanish name for university its national university of san marcos the most accurate translation to english it is National University of Saint Mark in honor from evangelist from the 1st century, although university in santo domingo indeed is the oldest, has been disrupted in many occations from operation, specially during tough years of independence during early 19th century. Saint Mark National University may not be the oldest in newly spanish conquered territories during the 16 th century, but it has been the only university on this continent (america) to have been since its stablishment in continuously operation without any kind of interrumption since the 16th century until nowadays.

What about the CGH strike?

There's no mention of it in the article. Perhaps it doesn't belong there, but it was a nationally covered event that deserves to appear somewhere in the Wikipedia. I think it was there in the first versions of the article. Asereje 01:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the political implications of the whole thing (e.g. different political parties supporting different groups behind the scenes) I think it deserves to go in a new article, with a brief mention of it in the political climate section. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 07:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well I definitly think is worth od mention. Although, if the article mention the CGH strike, it should also mentioned the 1968 CNH strike, which was larger and WAY more importante --Legion fi 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

"Por mi raza hablará el espiritu" had been translated as "Through my race will the spirit speak"... I have my doubts on this; It's not only the syntax but also "Por"'s actual sense... It's not like the race is a medium of communication, but that the spirit will speak on behalf of our race. In my opinion the proper translation is "For my race, will the spirit speak"... --Agurza 18:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you go through a window in Spanish, you go "Por la ventana". In this context, and in my discussion with UNAM students while I was a student there, the "through" meaning was the most commonly understood. However, some students agreed with the "for" meaning. Maybe we can list both translations, as it is a little ambiguous in the Spanish language. What do you think?

--Richardmtl 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the official interpretation by the man who actually coined the motto (Vasconcelos) I'm inclined to think the "for" meaning is what is implied here. See [4] (In Spanish). -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I´m from Mexico City, I'm a student of "La UNAM" and it is meant to say "Through my race...." --Revolver42 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem any one face when attempting to translate poetry is the intrinsic difficulty of the original language. I graduated from the UNAM and the idea of this short piece of poetry is that the SPIRIT will speak ON BEHALF of my race. The preposition "POR" in the motto is used in the sense of "in favor or on behalf of someone or something." "On behalf of my race the spirit will speak" would be the closest translation. Tomas Hernandez

Okey, another UNAM student here. Two things. First to Revolver42, YOU ARE WRONG. It is a shame that our beloved university has or had students like you. Second, as Run and "Tomas Hernandez" (btw, please sign your posts) mentioned, the meaning is "for". There is no doubt that is the way that Vasconcelos intended it. I support the "For my race, the spirit will speak" although I think it also could be "For my race shall the spirit speak". And another thing. That is not poetry. It is a methaphor. --Legion fi 07:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of bachelor degrees

Source: [5] at the bottom. Note that "carreras" is the stat that matters. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to reflect that undergraduate is not quite the term that describes the level of the academic content that is acquire at UNAM. The academic rigor presented in the study plans is comparable to the MD of the US. Alejandra

The oldest?

I do not understand what is the matter of the discussion: Lima was founded in 1548, Mexico in 1551. Lima is in South America, Mexico is in North America. So, what is the point? Pedron 19:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Someone deleted the Undergraduate Studies part of the article?

UNAM is now in the wikiproject Universities

I have incorporated the UNAM to the wikiproject "Universities" please respect the basic structure of it. You are free to improve / make changes within each section. The basic structure contain this sections:

History -- Describe the history of the college/university, including noteworthy milestones in its development.
Campus -- Describe the overall shape and size of the campus. Mention any famous buildings and their architects. This section could be expanded to include satellite campuses:
Organization -- Mention the administration, including leading officials. If this college/university has a special organizational structure, such as a residential college system, then it should be mentioned here. Then, in bullet point form, list the schools, colleges, etc. of this university. If appropriate, also list the faculties and departments at the university. If there is a special course system or requisites for enrollment, mention them here, too. If the university is part of a larger system (as in University of California), mention this connection and provide requisite links.
Students and faculty -- State the number (and any other useful statistics) of the students. Distinguish between undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students; also state the number of faculty members. Distinguish between tenure/nontenured, full- and part-time (if possible).
Sports, clubs, and traditions -- Mention the sports team(s) of the college/university and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of the college/university, like students' union activities, a student newspaper, fraternities, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities.
Noted alumni -- Bullet list of Alumni that are notable/famous. Mention the graduation date and degree and give a short description why they are famous.
Noted faculty -- Bullet list of active and former members of faculty that are notable. If they are alumni/alumnae, mention them here in parenthesis, including the degree and graduation date. For all give a short description why they are famous.
External links -- Give a link to the website of the college/university, preferable in the English language.

We look forward for your contribution with this article. Just remember to keep the standard as much as possible. --Hdpercar 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endowment

Is there a source for the endowment number? I am not an expert but, I thought that most of the school’s budget came from a yearly transfer of public money, I was not aware that UNAM had an endowment. If it has a 2 billion dollar endowment and it is invested at a conservative 5% real rate it receives at least 100 million a year from its investment. An important question is who made this endowment? 2 billion would put it in the league of several private US universities. For example UC Berkeley (a public university) one of the crown jewels of UC has an endowmwnt of 3.3 billion, only a bit more that what this article claims for UNAM endowment. --LS1010 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNAM doesnt have an endowment. Each year UNAM receives money from the goverment, each year ca 2 billion dollars. The guy didn't undestand the difference between endowment and budget. This university has more money that some of the ministeries of the goverment or some states in Mexico, like Tlaxcala. Fabrizzio 15 April 2008 12:48 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.127.1 (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campi vs. Campuses

While campi is the plural of the Latin word campus, the standard English plural for this word is campuses. I have changed headings and instances of this word in the article accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumas Dorados de la UNAM Merger proposal

Pumas Dorados de la UNAM is small and, if it is to stand on its own, needs a rewrite. It's far easier to merge what little verifiable, encyclopedic content there is into National Autonomous University of Mexico#Professional football team. Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No!!! you should merge it with this article: "PUMAS CU" that's the football team not the soccer one!!!

Strong keep. Although short, the article has encyclopedic significance and verifiable sources. It just needs an extensive rewrite. --Dabackgammonator (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep These are DIFFERENT TEAMS -- the team described in this article is NOT the professional football team it is proposed to be merged with. They play DIFFERENT SPORTS. Dorados play collegiate American football; Pumas play professional soccer. 24.19.56.18 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNAM foundation date

http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-9052390/National-Autonomous-University-of-Mexico#186155.hook Britannica names 1551 as foundation date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.224.2 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.unam.mx/acercaunam/unam_tiempo/unam/antecedentes.html The Spanish version of the page "UNAM Through Time" lists an "antecedents" section prior to 1910 that is omitted on the English version of the page, at www.unam.mx, the university's own website. The spanish version claims legacy back to 1551. This date is supported also by Britannica http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-9052390/National-Autonomous-University-of-Mexico#186155.hook

Omission of history prior to 1910 on the current wikipedia page seems dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.224.2 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. The section that you are referring to is an historical background, and historical backgrounds are expected to give some insight on the past, but nowhere in the document a single link between the UNAM and the colonial university is to be found. The University is rather explicit: "he [Justo Sierra] set the National University's founding project in motion. The new institution would be comprised of ... The project was approved and the National University of Mexico was solemnly inaugurated on September 22nd. The universities of Salamanca, Paris and Berkeley were its "godmothers." Joaquín Eguía y Lis was the first president..." and so on. In no historical document you will find Justo Sierra or another founding figure linking the creation of the National University of Mexico to a reopening of a colonial university of the New Spain. That myth started many years later. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UNAM's website (spanish version) discusses the antecedents prior to 1910, though not in great detail. I think there is more to be told. Keep in mind Mexico's war of Independence from Spain 1810-1821, and then it's Revolution again in 1910. In between those two wars, Mexico experienced the Invasion from the United States that removed from Mexico half of its territory (1848).

Given the chaotic nature of those 100 years for Mexico it is no surprise that Universities endured a number of disruptions. I believe there is more to be told about links between the modern post-revolutionary UNAM and its historical antecedents dating to the 16th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.224.2 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, the 1910 Revolution started after the UNAM was founded; and certainly Mexico was unstable during the 19th century, but the issue here is whether the UNAM was founded as a brand new institution or whether the founders saw it as a mere reopening of a previous university. The evidence categorically supports the former; it was a brand new university. Here you will find the actual law that created the university (Ley Constitutiva de la Universidad Nacional de México), straight from the office of the "Abogado General" and nowhere in the document you will find a single reference to the Pontifical or any former university. Esteban Zissou (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added conclusive evidence: the inaugural address of Justo Sierra on 22 September 1910 where he leaves no doubts about it: "¿Tenemos una historia? No. La Universidad mexicana que nace hoy no tiene árbol genealógico." You will find it on the 7th page of: Discurso en el acto de la inauguración de la Universidad Nacional de México, el 22 de septiembre de 1910 and is provided by the university. Esteban Zissou (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear the opinion of some Mexican historians about the conclusiveness of that evidence. It is very clear that Justo Sierra intended a definitive break with the past. Where he asks, "Do we have a history? No. The Universidad Mexicana that is born today has no genealogical tree." indicates very clearly that it DOES have genealogy. Otherwise there would no need for any such statement. If there is no past, why state that there is no past? He is intentionally breaking from a past, an extant past, without which there would be no past to break from. And this is certainly in alignment with the general condition of thought at the time concerning the Mexican Revolution, a Revolution like all others which by definition is a desire to break away from the (real) past. One might add, that during those revolutionary times, the audible break from the past would have been precisely the public demonstration necessary for survival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.224.2 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as aynone here seems to be at least familiarized or have read any books on UNAM history, the National High School, which is a part of UNAM as today, goes way back 1910, and in EVERY class in the UNAM, they state the history as far as 1551, is a matter of great proud that I do not think a wikipedian surfing the web can over rule, so, please read a couple of books, and check that EVERY Faculty has a history that goes back beyond 1910, so please do not be stubborn and accept the reality as it is. And please read a little bit on University history. Leonoel (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the foundation date as the actual university is known is in 1911, I think we cannot take out all the fact and hiostory before that, as in Mexico is a great area of Study among scholars this history. And I dont think anyone here has the authority, unleast a Mexican PhD in the area to just take out this information. Leonoel (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you and the anonymous poster tend to make all sorts of wild claims to "support" your arguments. The hard facts, however, are against both of you. It is true that the Escuela Nacional Preparatoria was founded before the National Autonomous University (in 1867 by the way[6], not in 1551), but you have to distinguish between an incorporated school and the university itself. For example, the Escuela de Agricultura y Artes y Oficios was founded in 1843[7] and was later incorporated to the National Polytechnic Institute, yet the Institute recognizes its date of foundation as January 1, 1936 and celebrates ith 70th aniversary,[8] not its 165th. The Autonomous University of Nuevo León incorporated the Colegio Civil (founded on 1858)[9] yet no one in its right mind would claim that the University is 150 years old; they celebrate their 75th anniversary.[10]. Virtually every Mexican autonomous university incorporated a 19th century (even 16th century) colleges. As for the ridiculous "check that EVERY Faculty has a history that goes back beyond 1910, so please do not be stubborn", I would like to remind you that both the Faculty of Chemical Sciences and the faculty of Veterinary were founded in 1913,[11], Economics was founded in 1929[12] and so on. So please try to read WP:V before blindly reverting the page for dubious reasons. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Silva Herzog, in his book, a history on UNAM, starts with the 1551 University, as well as all the University books of history, aside from the fact that all of the history part of the University is referenced from the OFFICIAL web resource from the university itself. I think we should reference it in the history part, because Wikipedia being the Encyclopedia it says it it, cannot afford to have missing information, that is the reason we cannot just take out all the history before 1910 on the University. So please, admit that we cannot take out this from the history section, it is in the Spanish Wikipedia, and in all the other Wikipedia, why should this be any different. And believe me, should we take this out Wikipedia, this web resource would become laughable and unreliable. So please understand this fact and as you can see, I am leaving the official foundation date as 1910, but the background history MUST not be omitted or we are in danger of really transforming this into a very bad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonoel (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I do agree that a reference to previous universities can be included in the History section as long as they are referred to as different institutions that were its precursors, but not as the same university. Because that's what all sources say, including your link to the official page. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you are saying is that somewhat you have more authority and Knowledge than historians, and even, that the UNAM web page is wrong. In the history sections is NEVER implied that is the same University, is telling that all the schools that once where part of the Papal university then became part of the UNAM, And I will be keeping putting the sources over and over until and administrator tells me to do otherwise.Leonoel (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly making things up. The official web page says it was founded on September 22, 1910. Exactly what part of "el 22 de Septiembre tuvo lugar la inauguración solemne de la Universidad Nacional de México"[13] is the one that you don't understand? Exactly why the list of rectors at the official web page starts in 1910 [14] ? And it will never say something as ridiculous as "all the schools that once where part of the Papal university then became part of the UNAM" because it will be an obvious lie. The official web page of the National Preparatory School clearly states that it was created by Benito Juárez: "el 2 de diciembre de 1867, el Presidente Juárez expidió la "Ley Orgánica de Instrucción Pública en el Distrito Federal", en el cual se establecía la fundación de la Escuela Nacional Preparatoria"[15], and it was Benito Juárez himself who closed the Pontifical University six years earlier: a su vez el presidente Benito Juárez dispuso, el 23 de enero de 1861, que quedara extinguida la universidad, y que el local y cuanto le pertenecía fuese entregado a don José Ramírez [16] Your theories about the university are totally groundless.

Do you know Marcos Moshinsky? He is an institution inside the university, with an impressive career of decades inside the school. Well, listen to this: "Tras recibir la medalla, Marcos solicitó al rector que el centenario de la UNAM, el cual tendrá lugar dentro de cinco años, se haga bajo el lema de "Año Nacional de Justo Sierra", en homenaje a uno de sus más ilustres fundadores. Marcos Moshinsky fue reconocido por la UNAM, en el 2003, como uno de sus "Forjadores de la Ciencia".[17] Do you know José Sarukhán? he served as rector for eight years (from 1989 to 1997). Well, here you will find him presenting an official video of the university where he clearly says: "es el producto de la inversión social que este país ha hecho en este siglo. [18]

I can go on forever, but you have shown no respect for this encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not the place to publish "original" ideas (WP:ORIGINAL) and you have clearly shown up that you want to be dealt as a vandal. I have repeated several times on your talk page that you need to bring up references to support your claim and you keep ignoring it while deleting other people's references contradicting you or asking you for a third-party citation. I have also told you that logos in Wikipedia should be rendered in SVG (like the file we already have) and you keep adding your JPG. And finally, there are a bunch of instances in your talk page where you are clearly stealing images from other web pages and make no effort to correct the situation nor you have stopped from doing so. I have brought up so many references to have a civilized discussion with you, but if you want to vandalize this article, we will have to treat you like a vandal. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The modern UNAM began with Justo Sierra, but it functioned in the original buildings of the Real y Pontifica Universidad de Mexico for 40 years until the opening of the Ciudad Universitaria (and some schools continued to function downtown, like the Art School I attended in the 1960s). The idea of continuous functioning doesn't fit in Latin America where government changed hands in more radical ways than in the U.S. Mexico had two "revolutions" and the brief reign of Maximillian (Will get back to this in a few days when I have more time).--Hijasegunda (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely mistaken on the foundation date, this year UNAM celebrates the 100 anniversary of receiving it's new character as National University and evolution from a religious institution(Real y Pontificia Universidad de México) to a secular one, it wasn't an option to the Real y Pontificia Universidad de México as estated on the article simply because IT IS THE SAME INSTITUTION, any student on UNAM knows this, to this date UNAM keeps the original buildings that were once the buildings that housed the Real y Pontificia Universidad in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.190.46 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources UNAM is not a reliable source for this article. Please use reliable sources to proof the foundation date of 1910. Or do it like in other languages articles (like german, spanish etc.) and give the real foundation date. 91.39.108.103 (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

This merge discussion has been open for over three years and there doesn't appear to be consensus for merging, so I am removing the tag. WTF? (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose that Students' resistance movement at Preparatoria 5 and 6 of Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 2005 be merged here. It does not seem to be a significant enough movement for its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Students' resistance movement at Preparatoria 5 and 6 of Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 2005 should be merged here, since National Autonomous University of Mexico barely touches the subject of the Preparatorias. Shouldn't that article be merged into Escuela Nacional Preparatoria? Amgn90 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thank you. I hadn't properly understood the relationship between the university and the Preparatoria(s). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Student Strike Movements of Latin America

The subject of student strike movements in Latin America is a subject in and of itself. Reading through the history of the UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico)you will find mention of 2 or more in the 1800s (after gaining independence from Spain), and they were found throughout Latin America in the 19th and 20th centuries. This probably had more to do with the economic inequalities, that the overwhelming majority of the population lived in extreme poverty, and the isolation due to lack of transportation, information and communication, and so the Universities and their students were natural centers for movements for social justice. While I was at the UNAM during 1963-68 there were 3 student strikes--one mainly of our school.
I don't think the article should be merged into the UNAM article. The UNAM is an institution and student strikes are not. I think the subject of student resistance movements should be mentioned and directed to a separate article. But I wonder how much verifiable information on the nature of student strikes can be found. After all, these weren't official actions, they were very unorganized protests and everyone had a different take on what they were doing and why (and maybe the students didn't have historic insight into what they were doing).--perhaps articles by Elena Poniatowska (not sure of the spelling of her name--a newspaperwoman who reported on the strikes)would be a good source. --Hijasegunda (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Governors

A section is missing about the Board of Governors, where UNAM's Rector or President is elected. Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs, Mexican translator and psychologist.--correogsk (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Jail photo

I think the bicycle jail picture shouldn't be in the "Noted alumni" section, as it is irrelevant to that section. I think it would fit better in "Campuses" section, but there isn't enough space. If there is no other place to put it, I would suggest deleting it, as it isn't as relevant to the article as other photos. Any suggestions? Amgn90 (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNAM's ranking is very wrong

The current wikipedia article states that UNAM was ranked 45th in the world in 2009 according to The Times Higher Education Supplement. According to those very rankings, UNAM was really ranked 190 in 2009. Also, the link that is given in the article for that citation is not actually for a ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.150.13 (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNAM's new ranking

Here's some articles in Spanish about the new rankings of UNAM. It was just ranked as one of the best in Latin America and the world. [19] [20] [21] Best, ComputerJA (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNAM's latin american ranking

Apparently the ranking discussion has been removed, and only the following sentence in the introduction remains "The UNAM is widely regarded by many university world rankings as the leading university of the Spanish-speaking world," which is not the case anymore. I propose modifying that sentence to "one of the leading universities", and providing the following link as reference: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/latam-university-rankings/2015 balkce (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History section seems biased

The history section conveys the false impression that most of UNAM's academic life has been hampered, formed or reformed via riots of some sort. Too much emphasis is put in such facts and therefore its neutrality is questionable.

Luis 201.124.46.178 (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Ranking table

The ranking table only shows the Times' ranking. Please consider adding the latest ARWU's (151-200) and QS' (146) rankings.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/Institution.jsp?param=National%20Autonomous%20University%20of%20Mexico

http://www.topuniversities.com/institution/universidad-nacional-autonoma-de-mexico-unam

187.185.92.93 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on National Autonomous University of 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 21:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section: main campus

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "many [people] only read the lead [section]". If I were one of those people, I would come away with the impression that "the old buildings located in downtown Mexico City that once belonged to the old Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico" were the university's main location, since it's the only location mentioned. I suggest some reference to the main campus to avoid confusion about the university's main presence. For example, the first paragraph"s third sentence could be changed to: 'To date, (in àddition to its "Ciudad Universitaria" [University City] main campus within the southern part of Mexico City,) National Autonomous University of Mexico owns and uses for academic activities the old buildings located in downtown Mexico City that once belonged to the old Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico." Please note that I have changed 'to this date' to the more common English phrase 'to date', and added a period missing at the end of the sentence's current version.

I didn't do the edit myself because my clunky phrasing is probably not the best way to clarify the location of the university's primary presence, and because I realize the sentence's current version expands on UNAM's link to RPUM as established in the previous sentence more than just giving UNAM's location. But I think, in the lead section, if location is mentioned, it is as important to avoid a location misimpression as it is to illustrate the historical link. 71.163.228.217 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Slinky Manatee[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Autonomous University of 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/20110325063913/http://www.eleccionesenmexico.com:80/archivos/noticias/el_licendiado_lopez_obrador.php to http://www.eleccionesenmexico.com/archivos/noticias/el_licendiado_lopez_obrador.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: 5 June 2024).

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} 23:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Autonomous University of 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Women in Tech

I noticed images of women in tech were removed. Given the current gender biases that exist on WIkipedia I think it is important to cover women in tech, especially universities that are empowering women. What is the reasoning for removing information about women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumitasUNAM (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PumitasUNAM, I think that stating "Given the current gender biases that exist on Wikipedia..." is a little too much, specially (and without any support) for the scope of this discussion. Wikipedia encourages more participation and more participation by women. Now, the reason I thought of removing that picture[22], is -as I explained on your talk page[23]- that it is a Facebook picture (MoniGarcia) and it appears to be promotional and commercial, and it does not reflect the University; after all, the article is about the university, and it is not about the Google-UNAM hackathon, etc... I would also remove it from the article "UNAM Faculty of Engineering" and it has nothing to do with any biases. Tortillovsky (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I see your point that how I presented it originally looked more promotional. I removed the watermark, and also changed the image caption to cover in reality what was important: UNAM throughout its history has aimed to include minorities. This has been a main point of the university, it currently even has a program in all of its campuses to fight gender inequality. Including minorities has been an important part of the university. Please let me know how I could improve. I tried to follow your suggestions. Also the other images I changed the captions following your style (clearly stating what the images show etc) Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it greatly. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumitasUNAM (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biases on WIkipedia toward women I believe have been mainly to cover them and as you mention also having women editors. That is why the women in red project exists. Given that the university is making an effort in all of its campuses to include women I think it is important to mention it and include images showing its importance. It is a key issue the unviversity has been fighting for. Look at all the news coverage here: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=he+for+she+UNAM&tbm=nws How do you think would be the best way to include this? Thank you again very much for your time. PumitasUNAM (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to write relevant articles; as I suggested before, perhaps an article titled “All Latina Hackathon”?. As I mentioned before: the removal of the picture had to do with the fact that it appeared to be promotional, and that the picture did not reflect what the article was about. Now, you have uploaded the image once again (the first was deleted), but now with the watermarks removed (and now with a different caption); I still think that the picture may be construed as an ad favoring Google. I understand that the university promotes equality, and it is my opinion that the National Autonomous University of Mexico, UNAM, is the best university in Latin America, and that it is strong in innovation, and promoting social justice. A question for you: why do you think that the same picture (with a different caption) is needed for the article School of Engineering, UNAM? Tortillovsky (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The original image has not been deleted it is still in wikicommons. But I added new one without watermark following your feedback. I tried to add a caption that better captured the diversity aspect of the university. However, I really like the caption you added. I think it captures the point perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumitasUNAM (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; though I still think that the picture is unnecessary for the article.Tortillovsky (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Autonomous University of 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Autonomous University of 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]