Talk:Michoacán

Untitled

How do you pronounce it?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.240.203 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the state has experienced a recent abundance of violence related to the drug trade should be mentioned. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6113878 and hear a report in Real Audio from National Public Radio that aired 09/21/06 on this subject.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.238.175 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Michoacan also has a Small minority of people with mainly Spanish descent.

How would anyone know this when Mexico doesn't keep track of such details? -LoserTalent 07:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)k

Etymology of Michoacán

Sorry i cam't speak englis very well, but Michoacan isn't Nahuatl, it's Purepecha a languaje speaking in this State

It's true that P'urhépecha is spoken in Michoacan, but the name Michoacan itself comes from Nahuatl. --Ptcamn 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The Michoacán's name comes from the purépecha,Michmacuan which it means " Near The Water ", is not náhuatl, besides that them in the etymological composition not aparace the word "atl", that in náhuatl means water. I am of Michoacán because of it I affirm this

Actually they are two the versions. The word Michoacán can come from the voice náhualt "michihuacán", that wants to say, " fishermen's place ". Other authors there makes derive the same word of the voice purépecha "Michmacuán", which it means, " place near to the water ". The meaning of the word assumes to the fact of which, the first pre-Hispanic populations, were constructed around the lakes of Pátzcuaro, Zacapu, Cuitzeo and Zirahuen.

For the geographical and historical characteristics of the State I´partial to the version Purépecha, nevertheless the version Náhuatl is the ofucial

Regards from Huixquilucan Méx.

I don't know the etymology of Michoacán, but if this is Nahuatl I don't think its composition is as transparent as the statement at the beginning of the article suggests. It is true that mich- is a stem meaning 'fish'. Given people's imaginations, and the general precedence given to Nahuatl among Mexico's many indigenous languages (and there are Nahuatl speakers in the territory too), it would not be surprising that some people should try to find a Nahuatl "meaning" for the name whether or not it originally had one. But I don't think you can say, without stretching things quite a bit, that "Michoacán means fishermen's place" in Nahuatl. First of all, I don't think the word "fisherman" is to be found anywhere in the word. Secondly, the statement in the article that "hua" means 'make' in Nahuatl is pure invention. 'Make' in Nahuatl is chihua. So it would have to be (by that theory) mich-chihua-can. However, as far as I know a fisherman is not someone who "makes fish" and I don't know if there is any precedent for a fisherman being called a "fishmaker" (in Nahuatl or any other language), but on the face of it this is merely another flight of fantasy. So to sum up: 1) scientific and folk etymologies should be distinguished in an encyclopedia, and if we insist on mentioning this scientifically doubtful etymology at all, it should be labelled as a folk etymology at best; 2) unsound linguistic statements (such as saying that "hua" means "make" in Nahuatl, which it doesn't) should certainly be avoided; 3) since I am not convinced by the information given that Michoacán means anything at all in Nahuatl, that would seem to leave the door open to examine other suggestions such as the one that would derive it from Tarascan. On this last point I have nothing to say because I know no Tarascan. --A R King (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not to make fish it is to own fish. The -huah and -eh suffixes in classical nahuatl denotes someone "who has x" michhuah is someone who has fish. Michhuahcān then is the "place of those who have fish" the etymology is completely transparent and documented to be a nahuatl word from the very earliest colonial period, it is even spelled phonetically in aztec pictographic manuscripts - the notion that it might have a p'urhépecha origin is unfounded. The P'urhépecha called their realm Iréchecua Tzintzuntzáni. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements about the P'urhépecha language

What is said in this article about P'urhépecha/Tarascan disagrees with the statements in the Wikipedia article on the P'urhépecha language, and should be corrected accordingly. According to the language article, which cites scientific sources (as opposed to this one, which cites none), P'urhépecha is either a language isolate (the majority view among specialists) or a member of the Chibchan language family (a proposal by Joseph Greenberg that enjoys little support). By either account, it is not a member of any of the recognised Mesoamerican language families. In contrast, the Michoacán article states that P'urhépecha is 1) a "hybrid language" (???), 2) a "hybrid Mesoamerican language" (???), 3) "the product of a wide-ranging process of linguistic borrowing and fusion" (???), 4) according to "some prestigious [but unnamed!] researchers... distantly related to Quecha" (???!!!), and 5) that "for this reason... the P'urhépecha may have arrived in Mexico from Peru and may be distantly related to the Incas" (?????!!!!!). This misinformation should be scrapped completely and rewritten in line with the more rigorous content of the language article. --A R King (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Major communities section

I think the section is becoming too large and I don't think it's adding anything to the article; in any case, there is the list of municipalities of Michoacán article. I think the section should be removed. --Odiseo79 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Gunfight

I just read a Police One article speaking of 42 gunmen and 1 police officer killed in a battle near Michoacan. I typed into Wikipedia to learn how much of the area is controlled by cartels and the history of occupation by them. Not a single reference is contained within the Wikipedia topic. I do appreciate finding out that this is the Winter home of Monarch butterflies, but not the information that I was seeking.165.189.255.34 (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)6/08/15 Jim

Infobox flag RFC

Should this article have a flag inside the infobox? There is a discussion about it at WikiProject Mexico, where you can join and discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Overcite

Am I WP:CITEKILLing ==Crime==? _TheKuygerian^contribs
_userpage 18:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Violence

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kdhartt (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Almondmatcha.

— Assignment last updated by Ruby2017 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 TR Both Classes

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nene2209 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nene2209 (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Demographics detailing inbreeding, how is this helping the article?

@Tbhotch, how is the sentence about inbreeding relevant to the state? The article is mostly about cartels and is based of what the current United States justice system says. The article does not give evidence, or come from genetic studies. Especially with the current political climate with the United States and Mexico, this is just trash and irrelevant. Any other editors who read this, how is this relevant? ~2026-30090-16 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tbhotch, how the hell can you allow this? The cartel citation is not good enough to include such a serious and disgusting claim. Do you have genetic studies to provide better secondary sourcing? You can even check the edit history. The person who added this is currently blocked from Wikipedia for crying out loud! ~2026-30090-16 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

To @Tbhotch: The clown who added this trash is @MyGosh789, who is currently blocked for being a sockpuppet account. I read his edit history, and he is a troll. If you disagree with this (which I am absolutey puzzled by) then please tell me where I need to go to make the request to remove this garbage. I have read articles about states and provinces from all over the world, such as Quebec, Alabama, etc., and this is the first time I have ever seen this. Even Conservepedia has standards compared to this. ~2026-30090-16 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said to you when you complained about this on my talk page, you need to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. This isn't a battleground for rants and name-calling like certain corners of Twitter or Reddit.

Regarding the substance of your complaint: I agree. The content is removable solely by virtue of having been added by a block-evading sockpuppet. In addition, the cited source says nothing about inbreeding. The quoted material is “four out of every five or six people have the last name Valencia, and they also marry among themselves.”. That is, the Valencias marry among themselves. This is unremarkable. It has nothing to do with consanguinity or inbreeding. If five out of every six people are Valencias, then the odds are 5 to 1 that the person a Valencia marries, if from within the state, will be another Valencia. Are they likely to be related? There may be a million Johnsons or more in the United States; given any two of them, the odds that they're related is small, right? The only point being made by the source is that the lack of diversity in surnames creates confusion for law enforcement.

The text that is being removed and re-added doesn't say anything about inbreeding either. However, the words "marry among themselves" are linked to the article on Consanguine marriage. That link is inappropriate, because that's not what the words are describing.

Now that we've dispensed with the matter of inbreeding, I wonder whether the sentence even if the person who'd added it wasn't evading a block would be worth having at all. It seems like trivia—interesting trivia, but trivia. At the least, it should be reduced to a simple statement without the US Department of Justice being invoked in the text as though it were relevant: "Out of every six people in the state, four or five have the surname Valencia." Cited to the source. But, unless someone else is going to stand on this hill and request that this factoid be included and take responsibility for it, the block evasion matter calls for it to be removed anyway.

Finally, unrelated to this but in the same part of the article, the "largest cities" section needs to be moved below the general information covered in the following several paragraphs. Largoplazo (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've actually moved "largest cities" into the Municipalities section above "major communities". Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to @Largoplazo. I apologize soley to you for my rant, however the problem I had with the previous edit was that the user who added it purposely made it so that it heavily appears to be connected with inbreeding, hence with the link with the consanguine marriage. I have to disagree with the quote about the Valencias being trivial, I am in a high school setting and when we read this for our Latin American projects, the general consensus with the students is that it sounds that almost every Michoacan citizen has the last name Valencia BECAUSE of marrying with each other, hence the quote "US Judicial systems describes 4 out every citizen having the last name Valencia". We have students making prejudice comments such as calling Michoacanas as "inbred subhumans". As to user Tbhotch, I will not apologize because this gross oversight was added to the project over a month ago, which you didn't bother to fix or check up on until I had to request from LargoPlazo. ~2026-30416-42 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I was arguing that the info about Valencias doesn't belong in the article because it seems trivial. Now you're arguing that it isn't trivial? So you think it should be in the article—despite the fact that you removed it twice? Can you clarify?

I can't help what a group of high school students reads into something based on a prejudice they already have. It doesn't make sense anyway. If Michoacán used to be as diverse as any place, and if inbreeding were common, sure, Valencias would be marrying Valencias, but Gonzáleses would be marrying Gonzáleses, Riveras would be marrying Riveras, etc., and the balance would be maintained. In any event, my reasoning doesn't matter: we aren't going to say they're inbred without reliable sources saying that that's true. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Largoplazo No. What I meant to say is that the Valencia stuff is bad, as in it is something that should not be seen as harmless. I perfectly understand what you are saying with your above comments explaining the situation, however when people read it, such as my students, most reach the consensus that it is something bad, not something trivial like if the sky is blue, rather like mammals being diseased carrying vermin because the rodents are included. I'm trying to say that the way it's worded is something serious, and that it was needed to be deleted. ~2026-30416-42 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you need to ping me three times in a row when it is evident that I'm watching this page. Regarding your comments, as Largoplazo said above, Wikipedia is not Twitter, nor any other type of forum to come here and speak to people demanding stuff: "how the hell can you allow this", "tell me where I need to go to make the request to remove this garbage" "Even Conservepedia has standards compared to this" (who cares about that website, BTW). Attacking people, even if blocked, whether vandals or sockpuppets, is still not allowed and goes against Wikipedia's Code of Conduct.

Regarding your concern, this is what you first said: "This is nonsense. The citation posted does not say any of this or even mention the United States Judicial." An inaccurate edit summary providing an incorrect concern, which I found in the source within a single minute after clicking the page and therefore was reverted. Instead of coming here to rant about an error caused by your own mistakes, it would be better if you worked collaboratively in the future. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point to be that the implication that was being made was no trivial matter. That's correct, but it's separate from my point that a sentence saying only, to paraphrase, "Fun fact: 4 or 5 out of 6 people in the state have the same last name", without reading anything into that, is a piece of trivia similar to putting in the Maine article "Maine is the only state whose name has only one syllable". Largoplazo (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but the editor who originally put it in worded it differently on purpose and included the Consanguine marriage link, which leads me to believe that the intention was bad and toxic. Why would they include the consanguine link? It is not a fun fact because it dehumanizes Michoacan. I'm mad because the edit was left here over a month or two ago, and if I didn't say something about it, it would have been left. If Tbhotch is watching the page, why didn't he check it month's ago? ~2026-30416-42 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@OneReaction5890 re-added the text with the edit summary Your edit summaries tell me you didn't bother to read through the citation provided, which, in fact, makes the claims it is used as a source for. I suggest you read said citation, in full. I counter that perhaps OneReaction5890 hasn't read or hasn't consolidated this discussion in full. I'm not going to read the entire source that carefully to try to figure out what part of it supports whatever OneReaction5890 believes makes the added content relevant to the Demographics section of this article and of sufficient significance to be included. (One Reaction5890 is welcome to be specific about both what part of the source they believe to be relevant and in what way they believe it to be relevant rather than vaguely waving at the entirety of the source.) For that reason, I've again removed it, agreeing with the earlier proponent of removal (despite having taken great issue with their approach) that the purpose of its presence in the article is murky and that it look like innuendo rather than relevant information. Largoplazo (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

oops!

and I really mean this oops, though the cited source does in fact have the information it is referenced for.

also, I think i've seen you before...

 Self-trout | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)