Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.

The article seems to be missing

shouldn't there be more of an article? Cryo921 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some New Mexico - Chihuahua MOUs

MOUs between New Mexico and Chihuahua. --Una Smith (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to reformat the style for this article

A lot of sections of this article (i.e. globalization) sound more appropriate for a textbook than an encyclopedia article. For example, the term globalization doesn't need to be defined in the body of the text; the article on globalization itself is sufficient for that purpose.

If I had to guess, I would say that most of the text for this article was copied from a chapter in a college or high school text book. While this is a good start, the wiki community can clearly do better.

Unless I hear some feedback, I will try to start cleaning up this article over the next few weeks. 155.98.5.243 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias/One faceted

Here is the "Economic" paragraph of the article.

"In 1985 the world’s total number of sovereign states had reached 180; by the year 1994, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the number had grown to 220. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) represents the latest attempt to tear down barriers to capital mobility even as territorial demarcations were tightened for workers. The purpose of NAFTA was not merely to facilitate trade and open markets but to expand opportunities for capital investment. The treaty did not pay attention to worker mobility, in striking contrast to the EU, which made labor central to the broader process of market integration. The consolidation of European markets was effected by multilateral polices designed to harmonize social policies, equalize economic infrastructures, and guarantee worker rights and mobility within the trade zone. In contrast, NAFTA omitted these provisions and its American backers instead insisted on the unilateral right to prevent Mexican workers from migrating through restrictive border policies."

The first sentence is irrelevant, and the paragraph itself is slanted against NAFTA and pro EU. The EU shouldn't even have a place in US-Mexico relations and the paragraph makes NAFTA look like a failed version of the EU. The entire article also has no citations, including this paragraph.

The article itself focuses entirely economic ties (and doesn't even go into enough depth with that) and not enough on military, humanitarian, political, sceintific or cultural collaborations between the two nations.

I think there needs to be a "lack of citations" tag on this article, and the other facets of the Mexico-USA relationship need to be expanded. 205.56.210.194 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with 2017 Mexico–United States diplomatic crisis

Calling this a "diplomatic crisis" is a little over the top. I don't think it deserves a standalone article, especially since it has only been discussed in the context of other things and not really alone; here are some options:

Either way, I don't think that this "diplomatic crisis" deserves its own article. ansh666 05:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support merging it with Mexico–United States relations. The "diplomatic crisis" described in the article might include aspects that a article with a narrower subject such as the one on Executive Order 13767 might not be able to fully cover if the info is transferred there. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media calls it a crisis.[1] Also this article is more than 70,000 bytes and the other is getting close to 10,000. Combining them would burden this article's length. This is also a current event, and deserves a high level of detail and special focus. Keeping these as separate articles will help get them to be (or maintain them as) good-quality articles.—OhioOakTree (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge – There is no particular "diplomatic crisis", sensationalist headlines notwithstanding. Note that virtually nothing new has been reported since the late-January back-and-forth over the wall payment. Diplomats are at work behind the scenes, and these activities can be reported in the usual Mexico–United States relations article. — JFG talk 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Reuters (January 26, 2017). "Trump seeks 20 percent tax on Mexico goods to pay for wall, crisis deepens". Reuters. Retrieved January 26, 2017. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico–United States relations. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico–United States relations. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Former New Hispanic / Mexican territory map

I thought that one of these maps could represent the territorial evolution of the United States at the expense of what once was New Spain. But upon further investigation didn't know if this article would be the best fit for one (1) of them or another article. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_relations