Talk:Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

message: To what extent does the treaty grant linguistic legal rights to residents of the relevent territories? (e.g. the express right to use Spanish on U.S. territory) --Dpr 07:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It says nothing about it. It says that the inhabitants of the surrendered territory get to choose between the two nationalities, and that the religious freedom of those who say will be respected, but nothing about language. –Hajor 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic rights 

message: The text states that parts of Texas were included in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo but the map seems to indicate that only lands west of the Rio Grande were included
: From Mexican Cession talk page:
:I adjusted the edit regarding Texas. Although that area was specified as part of the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, it is not regarded as part of the "Mexican Cession" per se (at least by the U.S.), since the U.S. already had claimed it since December 1845, after the Texas Annexation. It's definitely worth mentioning, but not as part of the territory of the MC, since the term is a U.S. history term. -- Decumanus 22:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The view that the Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo don't include Texas is strictly POV since Mexico never recognized Texas independence, and the Treaty directly specified the international border along the Rio Grande.  Since those very issues were in dispute in the rationale for war, they must be characterized from the standpoint of both sides if the article is to be fully accurate. Tmangray (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From CalifBobby: In the 1950s I did some plant work for the US Department Of The Interior working off photo copies of the original maps of the Treaty of Hildago. The land that was purchased from Mexico was from the Pacific Ocean to just short of was is now Route 905, and from what is now the border to just short of the Imperial Beach Airport. On a regular Google map you can see the straightness of the top line of the green park area. Extend that line to almost the 905 and go down and follow the border and then back up to the top of the green area along the Pacific Ocean. As I spread seeds and buried some seeds for a few bigger plants I could see some evidence of the buildings of the mexicans prior to the Treaty of Hildago. In the photocopy of the treaty(photocopy in bigger book that contained the maps I was working with) that I read all the residents of that area were to be removed to the new mexican side of the border at the expense of Mexico. While I am here the Treaty of Hildago states that Mexico is to cede its claims to all those territories- not the territories themselves. Many now eliminate the part about the claims so that their readers will think that Mexico had possession of those territories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalifBobby (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas part of the Purchase? 

message: The treaty was signed by Nicholas P. Trist on behalf of the United States and three plenipotentiary representatives of Mexico on February 2, 1848, at the Villa of Guadalupe (today Gustavo A. Madero, D.F.), slightly north of Mexico City.
Wait- I thought that Distrito Federal and Mexico City were the same thing?  So if the Villa of Guadalupe is in the Madero delegacíon, then its in the north of Mexico City, not north of Mexico City, right? - Eric 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back then Villa de Guadalupe was north of Mexico City, as the city was far smaller than it is today. As far as I know the Distrito Federal and Mexico City were only equated in the 1917 Constitution, so the distinction is valid for the period. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where was it signed? 

message: Would it be stupid to ask why it was called what it was called. -Jim Bart
:See above, or the article. But perhaps this says it best:
:* On February 2, 1848 the Treaty was signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo, a city north of the capital where the Mexican government had fled as U.S. troops advanced.
:Lemme see if I can describe it better in the article. -Will Beback 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guadalupe Hidalgo?

message: The Channel Islands wasn't part of the treaty, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcmenal (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Islands / Archipielago del Norte 

message: This map depicts the Mesilla Strip dispute as being favorable to Mexico without any doubt.  It must be changed to reflect differing opinions.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Map

message: Hey weren't the Mexican Cession and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago basically the same thing?
Thedrtaylor 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They cover the same topic. -Will Beback · † · 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. These are not the same and should not be merged. Hesperian 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merging with [[Mexican Cession]] article 

message: * Cover the resulting boundary dispute after the signing of the treaty near Mesilla, New Mexico.
* Say how the citizenship question was eventually resolved.
* Say how the land-grant question was eventually resolved.
* Explain whether or not the Mexican government knew about and accepted the modifications made by the U.S. Senate.
-- Beland 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion requests 

message: It would be helpful to have a map showing the three successor entities - California, New Mexico Territory, and Utah Territory. As noted above, the existing map needs to be altered to show the disputed area around Mesilla, New Mexico. -- Beland 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization was very much under dispute within the US until settled by the Compromise of 1850, so they were not successor entities at the time the treaty was signed and ratified. --JWB (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Map request

message: Does anyone think it would be beneficial to put the dollar amounts in more understandable terms?  Using an online inflation calculator, the 15M + 3.25M in 1848 dollars adjusts to 381.4M in 2006 USD.  Worthwhile?  --Gene<FONT COLOR="#ff8c00">b</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff6a00">1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff4700">9</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff2300">5</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000">5</FONT>Talk/CVU 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuation 

message: The following statements should be cited or refactored to ensure that they are accurate and uncontroversial and do not represent only a single point of view amongst many:
1. "... the United States subsequently failed to honor." Linking to honour in that sentence also seems to be pushing a POV.
2. "little choice but to accept the United States demands, or risk total annexation of Mexico."
3. "the huge loss of Mexicos' northern territories"
4. "The amount of money given to Mexico for the territory annexed, half the amount the United States was willing to pay for it before the outbreak of war, was openly seen as a token gesture and a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that the U.S. had used brute force to gain the Mexican land."
5. "the United States's appetite for territory was not satisfied"
Hesperian 02:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The wikipedia article on the Mexican-American War, under the section regarding this treaty, states (again without citation) that Article X to honor Spanish and Mexican land grants was stricken prior to ratification by the Senate.  Consequently, if true, the final version of the treaty as ratified by the Senate did not contain such a provision even if the version *submitted* to the Senate did.  In this light, it would be grossly inaccurate to say that the U.S. "did not honor" Article X of the treaty.  In any case, wikipedia currently has two conflicting articles on the same topic.  One states that the treaty included a provision that was not honored, and the other states that said provision did not exist in the ratified version of the treaty.  Both cannot be true, and neither bear citation. 70.223.35.28 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Its not really about making one country look good or the other, its about making the article present the facts.  Usually when adjectives are heavily used, thats a red flag, such as "significantly","huge", "unwelcome", "desire", etc....  I'm all for keeping anything that is properly cited - such as the first diff here , but the latter part, especiallly under Effects seems to be completely unsourced and pretty POVish.  Its not unlikely that Mexican citizens were unwelcome, and that the treaty put the entire area in dispute, but it needs to be sourced, and the adjectives need to be toned down - the facts are the facts - we're not here to make any determination as to the treaty's impact one way or the other, unless we have a reliable source telling us so.  I think the revert should be reverted, and the first cite from War's End: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo should be added, with any additional sources that appear to bolster the facts in Effects added as they are discovered. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Please don't attack other editors.  Like you, User:Fennessy is editing in good faith.  Like I said above, I generally agree with your more neutral version, but I would encourage you to consider researching and enhancing the section discussing the aftereffects of the treaty on Mexican-US relations, which appear to be real, and do have a place in any reasonable discussion about the treaty (assuming proper sources, of course). - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt so far, but talk about further changes on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo article talk page. You are almost engaging in an activity known as edit warring Fennessy 16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV (Part 2)

message: Does anyone have any information on how the lower border of the land area was determined (the part that borders the Gadsden Purchase)?  It does not appear to follow any natural landmarks (i.e. rivers or mountain ranges).. zimmhead 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on the Lower Border 

message: I am led by  google  to suspect that article twenty-one refers to arbitration.  Please do write about this.
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ arbitrate ]][[ arbitration ]] 

message: The article says 20% of Mexicans lived in the ceded territory, and yet the History of Mexico article says about 7000 Californians and 56000 New Mexicans out of 8,000,000 were there, which is far lower than 20%. Can anyone shed light on this? Jcchat66 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1850 population census schedules and supplementary estimates reveal that more than 80,000 Mexican Americans constituted about twenty percent of the enumerated population of the American Southwest in the mid-nineteenth century. Most were natives of the Southwest, and most lived in areas where they had been born. The greatest concentration was in New Mexico Territory.  --JWB (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That maybe so, but the article puts it as if 20% of the total population of Republic of Mexico had lived in the territories that were ceded to the United States. This is must be incorrect since 80 000 people definitely didn't make up 20% of the population of Mexico. I don't have the data for population of Mexico at the time, but New Spain article states that the population of New Spain, most of which later became Mexico, was 5 to 6.5 million in 1810. Even considering border changes, population of Mexico must have been millions, out which 80 000 people would make only a marginal part. Unless anyone has anything to argue against this, lets move the 20% thing from the article. Or better, find out the pre American-Mexican war population of Mexico and estimate how large percentage of the population of Mexican was then lost U.S. due the treaty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.31.186 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population? 

message: The second and third paragraphs in the introduction are disjointed, and the third may need to go. However, people more knowledgeable than I am seem to care enough about this article that I wouldn't feel comfortable fixing it. How what the war is called in Mexico and the fact that it is culturally sensitive there don't seem to have anything to do with how long it was held or who lived there—or at least there is no explanation for the connection. The third paragraph doesn't seem to relate to either of the paragraphs surrounding it. Perhaps some transitions and explanations of how the concepts relate would make the intro flow better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.156.171 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed part of the second paragraph and an entirely new third paragraph that was apparently added to provide balance.  Undocumented POV comments not covered elsewhere in the article certainly don't belong in the lead and it is doubful whether they belong in this article at all.  I'm sure there are more appropriate articles to discuss 21st Century Mexican-American relationships. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-substantive stuff 

message: I probably read too much WP:ANI, but I wanted to try to head off any edit wars before they started.  The article has a tendency to waver back and forth, and thats understandable due to the strong nationalistic feelings and the overall vagueness of the times.  I tried to reflect a neutral position in my edit - at most, we can say that the treaties were interpreted by both sides without any determination of which was right or wrong.  And even if Polk didn't go looking for a fight, nearly every scholar agrees that he didn't shy away from it.  Thanks. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYOHelp!) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral edits 

message: This passage is questionable: "There were approximately 80,000 Mexicans in the areas of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas during this period and they made up about 20% of the population."  Who made up the other 80%? As a matter of Mexican law, all the indigenous peoples were Mexican citizens.  The point needs to be clarified. Tmangray (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent of Mexicans in 1850?

message: The statement,"Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico...", is somewhat confusing to me. For instance, if Nevada was a part of the country of Mexico, then after a treaty, it suddenly changes to American territory, how can you state that the people who lived in what was known to them as Mexico had a choice to return to Mexico or become a US citizen? How can you return to somewhere where you have never been? The only way these people could return to Mexico would be to return to what they knew as Mexico, which includes the regions which were lost in the treaty. Lastly, "Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico," is a statement that recognizes a gain without recognizing a lost. The annexed territory of the US is also the lost territory of a country, which was not exactly a bargain to the Mexican people. I believe that this article should be worded differently to depict a more accurate view of history. The way that it is written sort of distorts the the reality of what exactly happen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaccooper (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the policy was clear enough to everyone at the time. Mexicans lived in compact small communities and the word reached everyone.  everyone  had one year to decide. If you wanted to be a Mexican citizen you left what had now become US territory and went South. If you wanted to stay in place you would became a  US citizen.  Mexico set up a complex system of grants of land inside Mexico to those who decide to remain Mexicans. see The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict By Richard Griswold del Castillo pp 62ff  Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of returning to Mexico? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719062738/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1819.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1819.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921220950/http://library.uta.edu/usmexicowar/moduleresult.php?module_id=4 to http://library.uta.edu/usmexicowar/moduleresult.php?module_id=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Rather than get into an edit war, I'll post this here. I undid the first posting of an edit by User:2806:2f0:7000:116b:6409:d3d5:e1a3:c38 because it's unsourced personal opinion, includes an unsourced quotation, and looks like original research. The accompanying explanation was "(I added truthful information with no intention of offending anyone). The same user re-posted the same text on "23:56, 5 October 2021". WCCasey (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Truthful" is a matter of opinion. WP editors are not opinion writers 

message: The treatment of Colorado and Wyoming in this article is truly confusing. At the time of writing, the lead states that what would become the states of California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, along with portions of modern New Mexico and Arizona, were given to the United States in the treaty.
The section "Terms" states that the Mexican Cession consisted of "all of present-day California, Nevada and Utah, most of Arizona, and western portions of New Mexico and Colorado."
The section "Results" states that only California, Nevada, Utah and (part of) Arizona were ceded definitively, while parts of Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma and New Mexico were ceded "depending upon interpretation".
The section "Terms" also discusses the importance of the Rio Grande, suggesting that the Mexican Cession was West of the river and Texas was East of the river. A quick look at a map of Colorado (e.g. Map_of_Colorado_NA), shows that the large majority of Colorado is North of the Rio Grande watershed and thus cannot be said to be either East nor West of the river. The article History of Colorado states that "the lower portion" of Colorado was ceded in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I do not know whether this is the "southern portion" or the "lower elevation portion", and the latter makes no sense anyway since Colorado is divided between the Colorado, Mississippi and Rio Grande watersheds, and thus its "lower elevation portions" are spread around the outside of the state. That article also makes no claim that any part of Colorado was at any point part of Texas. It thus seems absolutely clear that at least some of the state of Colorado was ceded by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and that it is thus wrong to include Colorado under the heading of "depending upon interpretation". The "depending upon interpretation" also lacks any reference or any description of what the interpretations are.
Later in the article there is a mention of Wyoming, which was not referenced in any of the sections above. The article Wyoming also claims that part of Wyoming was indeed part of Mexico. Given that the lower border of Wyoming is 41 degrees N, and the upper border of Mexico prior to Guadalupe Hidalgo was 42 degrees N, it appears that a small but significant part of Wyoming between those latitudes was indeed affected by Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I am well aware of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable secondary sources, but I do not have any on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for what it's worth, states in a short article on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the states involved were "Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah". No mention of Wyoming. CMV512 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is to use  reliable SECONDARY sources -- here are some 1) https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28Treaty%20of%20Guadalupe%20Hidalgo%29   2) https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28History%20of%20Wyoming%29  and 3) https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28History%20of%20Colorado%29   Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorado and Wyoming 

message: — Assignment last updated by Moose3291 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adding Immigrants Quantitative Sources for Latino Immigration History

message: This article was recently renamed by @Chemboy510 without discussion or explanation. Unless someone can persuade me that it was appropriate, I'm going to request that it be moved back to its original name. Glendoremus (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this article renamed?