Talk:Languages of Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Languages of Mexico as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.

On the Mexico main article under demographics, there is some mention of several Native American tribes from the US settled in Northern Mexico in the 19th century. According to what I read on the Kickapoo in the July 1985 National Geographic on the US-Mexican border, the writers encountered Kickapoos living on the south bank of the Rio Grande across from Texas. The number of Kickapoo in the northern states of Coahuila and Nuevo Leon are said at under 1,000...and very few manage to preserve their tribal traditions and customs, such as the Kickapoo language no longer heard in the open in their community. Then came the other tribes fleding the US cavalry: Cherokee, Lipan, Apache, Comanche, Choctaw, Shawnee and Muscogee have introduced another part of the indigenous cultures of the Americas that still thrives in generally small villages, mostly found in the states of Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. 63.3.14.2 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this information you are providing could be added to the article Indigenous peoples of Mexico properly referenced. --Alonso 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New figures for 2005

Danielenriquegr14 changed the figures of number of speakers in the table according to those provided by INEGI for the 2005 Census. The previous figures were those reported by CDI for 2000. While the 2005 figures are more "recent", they only include speakers 5 and older [1] while those of CDI included all [2]. Should a 4 year old nahua growing in a home where náhautl is the first language, and who, most probably, is only learning that language during his first years, be included in this list? Variation between CDI 2000 figures and INEGI 2005 is quite large (i.e. 300,000 less speakers of náhuatl). The question, open to debate is, which figures should be reported here the 2000 figures which are greater than 2005 given that the latter do not include 4 and younger? --Dúnadan (formerly Alonso) 02:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to use the newest available. I don't think any of us are am in a position to decide if CDI or INEGI's surveys are more accurate. Normally speaker surveys are notoriously inaccurate. 300,000 more or less isn't only a question about counting children or not but also about counting methods etc. I say we go with 2005.Maunus 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe (based on CDI's webpage) that CDI used INEGI's figures for 2000 (or cooperated with the process of gathering data), so that discrepancies are actually because INEGI did not include children under 5 in their reports, and not a question of accuracy. But I guess keeping the most recent data is OK as long as we specify that only pop. 5 and older is included.--Dúnadan (formerly Alonso) 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If CDI used INEGIS figures then how could they include persons in their census that hadn't been counted by the INEGI? But yes it should be specified. (Interestingly three languages have higher figures than in 2000, Tzeltal, Popoluca and Tepehuán)Maunus 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess it was just a matter of reporting data, they gather it for all, but they report only for 5 and older. They do the same thing when it comes to religion, they only show figures of pop. 5 and older, though this case makes more sense to me since I really doubt that at 4 you really know what you believe in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dúnadan (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC).