Talk:Michoacán

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)

Here is an example of MyGosh789’s edits: User talk:MyGosh789#h-I certainly hope my recent edits aren't deemed "antisemitic," which they were no-20260322002600 ChicagoGirlD (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Left a request for the archiving of this content on Tbhotch’s talk page. Following reasons include: Discussion has been dealt with, the user MyGosh789 is a confirmed sockpuppet account and far-right troll with history of antisemetic, Hispanic, and replacement theory edits, and vulgar language used in discussion. Thanks. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Largoplazo and @OneReaction5890, can we archive this discussion concerning the demographics edits? The discussion has already been solved and dealt with. After reading @MyGosh789’s history, yeah the guy is a confirmed sockpuppet troll who has made some serious edits involving far-right nazi content such as antisemitism and the Hispanic replacement theory. I feel that if we leave the talk page as is, MyGosh789 or some other vandal account is just going to continue. Tbhotch reverted my edit, but he didn’t explain why. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I explained why. Content is not removed simply because you dislike it or is opened by a sockpuppet and people join that discussion. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, you said "Archiving content". Talk:Michoacán/Archive 1 doesn't exist so I don't know exactly where you supposedly archived it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

At the request of @ChicagoGirlD: I'll say the following. First and foremost, thanks to you I found User talk:Largoplazo#Need help: Americans are making edits to the Michoacan Mexican state claiming that it is a place of inbreeding. That thread violates WP:Casting aspersions multiple times. The participants are making baseless accusations against me about things that never happened and attributing roles to me that I do not have. It is not my responsibility—nor anyone else's—to monitor, verify, or correct other editors' contributions, especially ehen an editor that had made more than 10,000 edits and was not blocked from editing at the time the contribution was made. Seriously, do you expect anyone to know about the past in the present? Neither I nor anyone else is the editor-in-chief. Contributors are volunteers and "are not obligated to devote more time and effort than they wish to."

Now ChicagoGirl claims that they were doing their "monthly clean up edits"—whatever that means. According to ChicagoGirl, this thread has to be "archived" because "I’m worried that if it stays, MyGosh789 or some other troll is just going to remember and keep at it again". This edit doesn't constitutes "archiving". That edit constitutes deletion, and the summary goes further with "vulgar language" (Wikipedia is not censored) and "MyGosh789 (confirmed sockpuppet of user JoeScarce with neo Nazi Wikipedia edit tendencies)", which is not a legitimate reason to remove a section involving a discussion made by several other people.

I don't expect you to know about how Wikipedia works, so it is natural that you assume your edit was acceptable or that a bot "has" to archive this page "after some time". If you go to the top of this page, you will see that there are threads from 2006. That alone would give you a hint that there is no bot archiving threads here because, until now, there hasn't been required to ask the bot to do it (which would be located at Talk:Michoacán/Archive 1. And even if that occurred now, the bot would still archive older discussions (before 2024), not discussions that happened last month. If the discussion has to be archived, then it means archived, not deleted because you find it objectionable. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 09:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

First, the IP user who created the discussion is not me. When I mean monthly clean up edits, I go around Wiki and Simple Wiki and make edits to various projects that I’m interested in, such as the generation birth years such as Gen X. With Michoacán, I made edits the past couple of years detailing the animal and floura and archaeology stuff. The last time I made an edit here was in October detailing whales, dolphins and the Patzcuaro axolotl salamander. You can check the edit history. I was reading the Michoacán article today , for the first time8 months after I made those edits and saw the talk page discussion. I went to check the edit history, saw MyGosh789 and I went to talk to him about his edits, but I saw that he was banned. I started reading his talk page and saw that he was controversial and read the edits that he made, which I realized was the reason that the edits were poorly written, since he was a troll. Usually, most articles that I edit have the bot archiving the discussions such as the Gen X wiki page, so I didn’t know you had to create a brand new one here. I though that deleting the discussion while explaining the edit archives it automatically, so I’m sorry. That was my bad. I don’t know how to manually archive discussions. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@ChicagoGirlD The thread you're asking to have archived was begun by someone other than MyGosh789 to complain about MyGosh789's addition to the article, just as you're doing now, and to ask to have it removed, on precisely the grounds that MyGosh789 is currently blocked for being a sockpuppet account [and] a troll. MyGosh789 didn't participate in the talk page discussion at all. I don't understand why you want to have a thread, which agrees with you, removed.

That the person who reported the problem then began to behave terribly regarding Tbhotch is a separate issue and immaterial.

Just for your information, eeven if MyGosh789 had participated in the discussion:

• Re I feel that if we leave the talk page as is, MyGosh789 or some other vandal account is just going to continue: that doesn't make any sense to me. If someone else does restore their content, it isn't going to be because this discussion exists.
• Once people other than the block-evading user have contributed to a discussion, you can't remove the discussion because you can't remove the contributions of legitimate users. At most, you can wrap the discussion into a collapsing box. Even if you archive it, that isn't a matter of simply deleting it, as Tbhotch has explained to you.

Largoplazo (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry LargoPlazo. My bad. I think that Tbhotch thought that I was the same IP user who started the discussion, which I’m not. When I was reading MyGosh798’s talk page and edits, I saw that he was making awful edits about the Jewish people and stuff like that, which made sense why his edits were poorly written here dealing with the demographics of Michoacán, since the guy was a racist troll. If you go far enough reading his edits, he makes a joke about not condoning inbreeding or something like that. I didn’t know about the rule with the legitimate users, or about how to manually archive stuff. That’s my mistake and I will not do it again. The reason I wanted to archive the discussion is so that casual readers don’t read that stuff, such the words incest, but I assume most readers won’t notice it since it’s tucked in the talk page section. I could create the archive bot for the page, however I’m not good with the coding for that. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You're mostly just repeating yourself here, and you've already received all due responses. And, as Tbhotch and I both already said, archiving is irrelevant here, and, as Tbhotch said, we don't censor legitimate discussions out of concern that readers will see words that upset them. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 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)