Talk:Guadalajara

Better

It would be better Guadalajara (Mexico) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 March 2003 (UTC)

No. I just standardized it by moving to "Guadalajara, Jalisco". -- Infrogmation 13:40, 23 January 2004 (UTC)

Well done! – Hajor 14:19, 23 January 2004 (UTC)

Population figures

Population figures are way off! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbeto~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The population figures were insanely WRONG. (2 to 3 times above the real ones) I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.161.98 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

6.3 million was indeed incorrect, as it is the population of the entire state of Jalisco. Be that as it may, I'm not sure about your numbers, I've found more than one estimate over 4mil. I'll hold off on making changes until the [INEGI] releases de 2005 census information. SalvadorRodriguez 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We could use past census numbers AND stating the date they were taken (actually that should we doing anyway with all numeric data (reference + date) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just went to INEGI page and got 1 646 183 from 2000 Census. INEGI site puzzles me, they have a lot of info but couldn't find a simple page listing population of cities. so I had to register for SIMBAD system. This is the url for the search query after login: http://sc.inegi.gob.mx/simbad/servlet/Ptab2?c=x174096,17100201c82,17100201c83,17100201c84,n14039,&nt=1# but that won't work if you're not registered on the system. Can anyone get a simpler non-register only url that works and put it on the reference? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ejem the city is really with the metro area abut 4,2 million but just the city the original city has 1,6 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.91.158 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

I fixed a few misspellings and grammatical errors. There may be a few still lurking in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Map

It needs a map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.12.127 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Social Question

Are there any activites that the youth of Guadalajara do that are unique to their metropolis? Are any of the cultural opportunities really seized upon by the teenagers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArrowmanCoder (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit about the Tianguis cultural, quite the cultural phenomenon if I may say so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coven 36 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia-like?

Parts of the article sound like they came from a brochure.

"Becomes a hotspot...when the team scores a "key" victory" "Where "diversity" is the keyword." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitan Obvio (talk • contribs) 08:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I beleive the cultural centers chunk was taken from [1] (maybe it was the other hand, but the brochuer style makes me think it was copied TO wikipedia from there), so I removed it per copyright concerns -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, could someone please make this more like an encyclopedia article and less like a tourist guide??--Bfraga 04:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A glaring example of this:

The publicized 'Roundhouse of the Jaliscienses Ilustres' includes no lesser a personage than Marcelino García Barragán. In quite what way killing thousands of students and marshalling a dirty war 'heightens the name of his city' I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.87.206 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

Can anyone explain what happened to the "Transport" and "Megaproyects" topics? Please don't delete withothiut giving a valid reason first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coven 36 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If the title was "Megaproyects" (sic, or any other way, come to that) I'm surprised you have to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.87.206 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

info

• Well, do we have an article about Hospicio Cabañas? Need the link if it exists to fix some other entry. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ah ye,s and about "the second oldest title. I commented that out since it needs rewording. The most straighforward reading is confusing. There are several mexican cities older than Feb 14 1542 (maybe they weren't founded as "cities", and this is what is confusing) but definitively it's not the second oldest mexican city (for instance, Morelia was founded on 1541, Merida on Jan 6 1542) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan area population

GUADALAJARA METROPOLITAN AREA POPULATION.

The info related with the entire population of the metropolitane area of Guadalajara is quite wrong. The overall number must slightly excede the 4 million, no more than than. Please, also specify Guadalajara is the second largest city in Mexico ONLY by population, owe Monterrey Metropolitane AREA is far larger.

Here is the data refered in sq km.

Guadalajara Metropolitan Area 2700 km 2 Monterrey Metropolitan Area 4050 km 2.

Ing. Eduardo Guerra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.39.128 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a documented number, by INEGI. There is not a hesitation about Monterrey area is far larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.212.213.40 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

as beautiful as the images of Plaza Tapatia by night are, they can't be allowed for wikipedia, due to their noncommercial/with-permission-only nature. They will be removed, I think it's the second time I remove them, please do not reupload them. -- Drini 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag

There is no such thing as a flag of Guadalajara. (Mexican municipalities do not have flags). This particular flag is a creation of the Wiki Common's user Alejandro24 and is merely a proposal (he designed it). I don't think it is encyclopedic to include this flag on the article. --Alonso 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Alonsito: You are everywhere, the worst thing is that you feel so envy for Guadalajara Mexico probably be cuase you come from de poor Guadalajara Espana, for a shining to your ignorance the flight of the Guadalajara City it does exist and is not a proposal model, stop following the Guadalajara Mexico article and go an write catalan. The flight was designed 437 years ago when the towers of the cathedral where built following the same colors and adding the sign that the kingdom gave t the city more than 500 years ago. Just stop following the article. Raveonpragha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.63.236 (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I not sure about the flag, but I believe Guadalajara has a symbolic image of two lions on its hind legs scratching a tree. A nice metal image of it is in the center of the Plaza Tapatia. garyhori@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.11.240 (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NOT DELETING

Once again, you guys can not delete contribution without a valid reason and explanation in the discussion page, if this keep happening all person who delet a contribution in the article would be reported as vandalism, Nethency has deleted all my contributions arguing my text is promotional, when all is based in true and its just a clear and very good transalation based in he spanish version wich is about to become in an important article "articulo destacado" in he spanish page. Please before deleting or make contribution come to the discussion page, if not, the user will be blocked as well. Thank you Raveonpragha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.63.236 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I used the word 'promotional' because the contributions in question clearly stress the achievements (in past, present and possible future) of the city, to make it look attractive - in terms of 'one of the best, if not the best'. On this discussion page that was compared with brochure information and perhaps that's a good way to describe it. Wp articles are not meant to make cities, countries or people look attractive, but to describe them neutrally. I'm not doubting the correctness of the figures mentioned, but lines like "makes it very strategic for the comerce with the rest of the country, wich attracts investors and commerce worldwide", "a very important center of universities and educative centers with national and world-wide prestige" and "Its cultural wealth has taken an important front sight in the tourist sector" in my view express "Hey everybody, this is the place to be". Apart from that, info was brought in that was already on the page (like the universities mentioned). Nethency 19:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nethency

The article of projects are ment to show the actual projects of the city, there is nothing promotional in the information that says "the localization makes it very strategic for the comerce" and either "a very important center of universities" and less either that: "the cultural wealth has taken an important fron sight in the tousrist sector" (wich is one of the principal economical sector in that city.) This is about information based in real facts , very neutral, and not promotional. You can discuss and/or correct the contributions of the memebers with a pre-discussion arguing, but never delete. If you have some questions, if you need a translation in spanish, french, portuguese or italian you can request it to me, also we can exchange information about articles that we have some doubts, we can share information and help each other to found it. The text about the century XXI is a transaltion to the English elocuence, and it refers to the main projects, the presnt infraestructure, and the future developments. You can discuss any doubt here in the discussion page. Thank you anything you wanna ask me go to my user page. Greetings from Barcelona.

Raveonpragha — Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Added

I added information about sports, culture, demography, history, projects, and general culture if you want to colaborate with the expansion of the article or discuse the current please discuss with our memebers about it. Cheers everybody! Raveonpragha — Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism is when you erase information that is sourced and supplant it with unsourced information. Hari Seldon 01:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations & other illustrate persons

Quote: Personages Illustrate

Guadalajara, in a matter of modern and old culture honors those illustrate citizens that during history they made heighten the name of his state and its city. Some personages are carved, in the seat of the roundhouse of the illustrious men, located in the historical center of the city of Guadalajara. Roundhouse of the Jaliscienses Ilustres... - I vaguely get what this is about, but I'm not sure that "personages illustrate" is good English, lest to say it's encyclopedic English. And "in a matter of modern and old culture" sounds probably like something the author wasn't trying to say. Could someone give this a quick revamp? Grácias! FreshBreeze 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs a revamp. It should also conform to encyclopedic standards. I think, like Nethency once pointed out, that some sections sound more like a tourist brochure and not like an encyclopedia. --Alonso 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Translated?

A few people have commented about the poor English in sections of the article (e.g. Personages Illustrate). I think that what has happened here is that someone has translated the Spanish version of this article, using something like Babelfish, then pasted the translation here without bothering to amend the grammar etc. This needs to be sorted out so it makes more sense. Ygoloxelfer 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree, there is much evidence of Babelfishing. The article has quite a few of these "hiccups". I have cleaned up the first paragraph somewhat and I hope to proceed through the article to correct these issues. Radishes 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable statement

This statement (in the History section of the article) needs clarification: "Thanks to the governor of the city, Cristóbal de Oñate, they could be saved of the furious attacks of the natives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radishes (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

el coffer

el coffer, one of the greatest up-and-coming footballers in the world was born in Guadalajara in 1990 and currently lives in Ireland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.75.106 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I've never heard of him, but then again, who outside of Mexico has heard of Oswaldo Sánchez? There is clearly some Chivas bias in this article, as mention is also made of the new 'stadium', of which no visual evidence exists whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.87.206 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guadalajara: river of stones or sewage?

Haris seledonio, it is a fact you have nothing else to do but be really alert about Guadalajara city, thank you for that, but at the same time you're vandalizing the article. Claiming that the translation of the name of Guadalajara is "river of sewage" how can you think that could be posible? I was talking with the wikiprojects in guadalajara Mexico and guadalajara Spain on the spanish wikipedia, all of them were really dissapointed about the thing you are doing in the article , this is so unmature and dumb. Just stop checking the Guadalajara article, this is not your bussines at all, and not even claim again, that is the translation name of Guadalajara with "sourced material" cause you just show how ignorant people form your city could be. And don't even answer to me, cuz im not able to talk to you anymore, maybe with some other person but not with you. Raveonpraghga — Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Raveonpraghga:

I don't appreciate the petty accusations that your very small and defective mind throws at me unjustifiedly. You are the one with a history of vandalism, neglect in discussion, and a case of sockpuppetry. Not me.

About your issue and the "river of sewage" sentence, let me tell you that the statement is:

a) Sourced and Referenced

b) Verifiable

I double-checked the source, and turns out that the statement is valid. So, unless you can come up with a better source, I see no reason at all to eliminate the sentence.

Remember, wikipedia is not about what we like or dislike. It isn't about our personal feelings or our perceptions of the "truth", or about what other editors in other wikiprojects think or feel. It is about what is verifiable. In this case, the translation of the name is verifiable. I am sorry, but deleting it is vandalism, per wikipedia guidelines.

By the way, as a wikipedian, maintaining top quality for the article, any article, is my business. In any case, I have the freedom to do so. I check over 40 articles on a regular basis. Granted, I don't edit all of them, but because of your history, I am treating any edit of yours as vandalism. You have shown absolutely no maturity, or sense of fair play. It is a wonder you haven't been blocked yet.

Hari Seldon 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan: Don't ever put that "source" again, you know why? be cause that is called vandalism, you know why? be cause the "source" you are based on is not a real source im going to tell you why: 1. It has lacks of fundaments and is a highly weak source due to the fact it is not a serious source. PLUS there si not another reference about this defamation, DOES NOT EXIST a serious source to base this claims but the one you're providing. 2.(This is very funny) but the article was created this year 2007 and it has an ilegal copyright violation of a wikipedia picture work created 1 year and a half ago by a colaborator of the Guadalajara article, the picture is under the right by an own work author, so that page could be in real troubles for publicating a licensed copyright picture... 3. And one of the most potential reason that page could be in real trouble, is for the claims that the translation of Guadalajara from the arabic means "river of sewage" or "river of shit"' he better has a really good lawyer be cause: 1 < that is the google translation page so you can confirm by yourself before claim "sourced" material, you can make shure by translating the arabic article, enter the words form the english or the spanish wikipedia or type the words u want to translate from the arabic to english or vice versa. I'm going to tell you a little bit of the thing you're about to learn, 1*Guadalajara means river of stones, there's even a city in the Republic of Yemen (wich is a country located on the Arabian Peninsula in Southwest Asia) that is named "Al-hajarah" just the arabic words you're "verifiable claiming" and "sourcing" as the translation of SEWAGE and/or SHIT, the translation means; stones 1, if it's not clear for you yet, i recomend you to; translate here the words you have doubts about, and you will enter into a whole new dimension of learning, when you discover the "source" you're defending claiming it's true and verifiable is not true at all. You will notice how sweet it feels when ignorance dissapears, good luck with your new learning! and don't forget to make shure your searches to defame guadalajara are formal and seriously enciclopedic before mention that your sources are "verifiable" and "referenced". Take care. Raveonpraghga — Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is adding a source "vandalism"?

Actually, quite the other way around... Removing a source is vandalism.

Weak source is better than no source. I would suggest that you stop your vandalic deletions and look for a stronger source. If you are serious, then do things seriously, not emotionally.

"He better have a good lawyer"...Did you know that making threats is against Wikipedia policy? So is, by the way, sockpuppetry, and many of things you do around here as normal behavior. I repeat, it is a wonder you have not been blocked yet!

You "cite" google, but of course, you neglected to menction that said "translator" is in its Beta version. I actually did what you described and the translation I got was "the room". Does that mean that Guadalajara's name origin is "the room"? Of course not!

In essence, you criticize the existing source as "weak" but you provide an even weaker source. Worse yet, you do not provide any alternative better source, and you do not include it in the article. Instead of being constructive, you attack people, make threats, and engage in childish behavior, as you usually do. And you want people to take you seriously? Come on!

Additionally, I would recommend you learn a little bit more english before you continue editing in this wikiproject. Your grammar is incredibly poor.

Hari Seldon 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I will ask any other user but hari seldon who is trying to vandalize this page since a litle while ago, and ignoring all the statements i've gaven before, he must be blocked if he continues vandalizing this and other pages. I will ask any other user, to confirm the translation of the words form the Arabic wikipedia, as long as this is not confirmed by other user, not duanadan not hariseldon, the dofamatory "sources" will be skipped.

Raveonparghga — Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, reinstating sourced material and looking for the quality of an article is not vandalism. But, be my guest, I have nothing to hide, ask other users to check on me.

I ignore all your statements? I just responded to you! You are the one who ignores my statements! You are beyond reasonablity, and are an emotional user with an agenda. This is simply unacceptable.

Reverting your edits is not vandalism when you have proven to be a vandal. I treat your edits as vandalism because you have not contributed anything of value ever since I know you. You cannot take discussion, you cannot look for sources, and you don't even know how to write in proper English!

Finally, just because a source says something that you don't like, it doesn't mean it is any less valid, or any less verifiable. We went through this with AlexCovarrubias and Supaman in article Mexico. As you can see there, after a month of fighting, and arguing, consensus was finally reached. If you changed your attitude I would have no problem with discussing things with you in a grown-up manner, but you have shown to be incapable of such a thing.

It would really not surprise me if you now started vandalizing some other article that you thought would hurt me as retaliation for reverting your vandalism in this article page... You have done that in the past. So childish of you! So, yes, go ahead, tell other users about me. I have nothing to hide.

Hari Seldon 09:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

fisrt of alli see you have a high trend to defame, "It would really not surprise me if you now started vandalizing some other article that you thought would hurt me as retaliation for reverting your vandalism in this article page... You have done that in the past. So childish of you!" Tell me please when and where i have vandalize an article, think before write! And i'm sorry but i'm definitly not able to talk with somebody that is on a non-eloquent posture, claiming something i already gave reasons why it should'nt be claimed, im sorry, but i'll wait until later to discuss this with another person in another level, to reach this like the wikipedia rules stipulate.

Im going to give my clear reasons again, why this shouldnt be claimed again in this article:

1. It has lacks of fundaments and is a highly weak source due to the fact it is not a serious source. PLUS there si not another reference about this defamation, DOES NOT EXIST a serious source to base this claims but the one you're providing. 2.(This is very funny) but the article was created this year 2007 and it has an ilegal copyright violation of a wikipedia picture work created 1 year and a half ago by a colaborator of the Guadalajara article, the picture is under the right by an own work author, so that page could be in real troubles for publicating a licensed copyright picture... 3. And one of the most potential reason that page could be in real trouble, is for the claims that the translation of Guadalajara from the arabic means "river of sewage" or "river of shit"' he better has a really good lawyer be cause: 1 < that is the google translation page so you can confirm by yourself before claim "sourced" material, you can make shure by translating the arabic article, enter the words form the english or the spanish wikipedia or type the words u want to translate from the arabic to english or vice versa. I'm going to tell you a little bit of the thing you're about to learn, 1*Guadalajara means river of stones, there's even a city in the Republic of Yemen (wich is a country located on the Arabian Peninsula in Southwest Asia) that is named "Al-hajarah" just the arabic words you're "verifiable claiming" and "sourcing" as the translation of SEWAGE and/or SHIT, the translation means; stones 1, if it's not clear for you yet, i recomend you to; translate here the words you have doubts about. i'm able to discuss with somebody with the intentions of reach and help the article gets better not to vandalize like hariseldon. Cheers everybody! Raveonparghga — Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When and Where, when we were arguing about the article "Second City"... Remember?

As I said before, a weak source is better than no source at all. You are not providing any other source.

The website might have been updated. After all, the link exists since before 2007...

What does a lawyer has to do with anything? i thought we were assuming good faith. Of course, with you, it is impossible...

Hari Seldon 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I was a little surprised myself about this translation of hajarah (sewage), and I have been trying either to confirm or reject it, but I haven't found anything and none of Raveonpargha's links work (translator doesn't work unless you have an Arabic keyboard). Like Hari said, a weak source is better than nothing, but I will keep on looking and asking some friends that speak Arabic about it. Now, Raveonpraghga I don't understand what you mean by copyright violation. When you write something on wikipedia and when you post a picture on Commons you automatically waive all your rights to it. That means that anyone can take your picture and your data and use it in whatever way the like. That's the whole purpose of this project: FREE. So, if you take a picture and put it on commons, it becomes, by policy of wikipedia, public domain. I can use your picture and create a book myself, and I will not violate any copyrights, because you uploaded it in commons and put it in the public domain. If you want to retain copyrights of your contributions, then you are in the wrong place, and you should be contributing somewhere else. --theDúnadan 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

OK. I did my homework. I went directly to the Arabic-English dictionary and the words hajara, hajari and hijara (all reported as the origin of the word Guadalajara) are "stone", "stony" and "stones" respectively. All written and online sources claim that Guadalajara means "river of stone" or "stony river" or, using the literally meaning of wad-, "valley of stones", which in turn suggests "valley of the fortress" [in fact, the city of Al-Hajarah is a "typical fortified mountain village"]. This definition seems not to be "recent" for "tourist promotion" but has been widely accepted for centuries. The one and only source that claims that hajara means "shit" (sic) or "sewage", and that we have victims of a ploy, is this one by Canadian writer Bill Casselman. (Of course if you google it you will find that Wikipedia and its mirrors are, now, also claiming this "fact").

In other words, the great consensus amongst scholars is that Guadalajara means, in fact, "river of stones". Therefore, if we are willing to accept Casselman's opinion, we must edit the phrase. As it is written right now, we are automatically accepting Casselman's theory of a "ploy" that changed the "real" meaning. If we truly want to be NPOV, we should cite is as an alternative claim or a challenge to what has been accepted for centuries amongst scholars, but we must not directly endorse his opinion.

Now, I have always been careful when it comes to sources. The fact that it is online doesn't make it necessarily a valid reputable source. So, should we consider Casselman's opinion as an valid alternative definition for hajara? Well, in spite of being a renown (?) writer, he happens to be... a writer, not an etymologist, and as far as I can read from his biography, he didn't study Arabic. Therefore, he should have, like the very reputable writer Isaac Asimov, in his "Book of Facts", cited an expert who engaged in original research or a reputable source. But, unlike Asimov, Casselman didn't do this. And, unlike Asimov's facts, we cannot corroborate Casselman's assumption [so far] in any reputable scholarly work. I haven't yet asked a Lebanese friend if hajara has an alternative meaning that could also mean "dung" (at least it is not in the dictionary). If, surprisingly, it happens to be, that still wouldn't corroborate anything, since modern Arabic is different from Maedieval Arabic and, of course, of the Spaniard-Arabic Moorish dialect spoken in Al-Andalus. The only reputable opinion would have to come from an etymologist specialized in this dialect.

Dunadan, I knew I could count on you for working and bringing sources instead of just wining... =)

My proposal would be to cite this source (the dictionary) and say in the article that indeed, Guadalajara means "valley of stones", or "valley of the fortress". The dictionary is a much better source than either the current one, or an electronic translator.

Because of the current source's reputability, I see no reason to keep it if a better one has been found. However, I would always prefer a bad source, than no source at all.

Thank you again! Hari Seldon 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above, I suggest we eliminate this reference, and simply write the universally accepted etymology for this word. --theDúnadan 04:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Hari Seldon 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Eight years ago my guide on a Moroccan trip told me that "Guadalajara" meant "river of shit". He said "jara" (not hajara) meant 'caca'. I never found any corroboration and had long since abandoned the notion before I stumbled upon this page. The idea of a modern translation of an ancient etymology sounds likely, but I feel that there must be some kernel of truth or coincidence behind the legend. Not necessarily a topic for these pages, however, I admit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.87.206 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm agree with you Dúnada i knew there was on-earth users in this project and not only vandals disguised of contributors to hide their intimate intentions, i'm not trying to start a battle, but what should we think about somebody that is trying to claim in this Wikipedia project a thing such as Guadalajara means river of sewage??? and is not able to discuss, not even to clarify and confirm by translating from the arabic wikipedia or any other source. And what is worth vandalizing my user page and claiming things such as: About your issue and the "river of sewage" sentence, let me tell you that the statement is: a) Sourced and Referenced b) Verifiable I double-checked the source, and turns out that the statement is valid. So, unless you can come up with a better source, I see no reason at all to eliminate the sentence. and then writing things such as: You have shown absolutely no maturity, or sense of fair play. It is a wonder you haven't been blocked yet. I'm agree the Wikipedia is a free project for contributors able to discuss and reach something, but what a person from monterrey is doing in the article of Guadalajara trying to refute the ancient meaning of the name, is like somebody from the PSOE in the PP article. Anyway, i'm agree with the dúnadan proposal, i also would recomend you to search on google a good arabic translation considering there are more than 27 arabic sublanguages, and the most predominant language and the one we are talking about is the modern arabic or Modern Standard Arabic wich is considered a derivation from Classical Arabic the only surviving member of the Old North Arabian dialect group, attested epigraphically since the 6th century1, if we are talking about the foundation of the spaniard Guadalajara we are talking about the 8th Century wich means the used language in the foundation of the city was the Classical Arabic wich is one of the most popular language and can be found in any translation system on google, as i said before i invite you to corroborate in any classical arabic or even modern arabic language translator, you can type the words "river" the words "stone" the words or even the words "shit" or "sewage" what you going to found is that the source that Hseldon is trying to defend as valid, is maybe a confusion of the author based posibly in other arabic dialect groups or in own concepts. There's another way to confirm the source is not a potential reference; go to the arabic wikipedia and translate the main information of the article. well a pleasure and i'm glad we can land this matter. If there's something i can help you out with or you need information or favors exchange let me know Dúnadan. Cheers! Raveonparghga — Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your problem, Ravaeonpragha, is that you make judgements based on the subjective qualities of the contributions. Wikipedia should not be about subjective qualities. Imagine if we had another editor, equally stubborn as you, who wanted to claim Guadalajara was a village of five thousand people. Of course I would not allow that to happen because it is not accurate, verifiable, or referenced.

I must admit that I am ignorant to the etymology of "Guadalajara". Precisely this ignorance, and the acceptance that we are not perfect is what drives us to ensure our own quality by providing safety nets, such as references and sources. Because of this, and only because of this, a bad reference is better than no reference at all.

The bad reference was the one that claimed that "Guadalajara" means "river of sewage". I had no other reference but that one. The translator you offered did not seem to work appropriately and could not be accepted as a reference because of that. Dunadan did the best next thing: find a dictionary.

The dictionary is obviously a better source, and as you can see, I agreed to have it be the source to be referenced in the article. Why? Because my intentions are only to have this article, and others, in better quality than I found them. Bad references are better than no references, but good and authoritative references are much much better than bad references.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. However, you have shown to have a personal issue with me. You continously insult me, and try to override my edits based ONLY on your subjective perceptions. You have never discussed reasonably with me, you do not read my arguments, you erase the comments I leave in your talk page, and have edited other people's comments to make it look like they are in your favor. You have done so many things that are both unprofessional and unworthy of a wikipedian that you often times have left me with no other choice but to treat you as a vandal. I understand that you don't like this, but if you continue with your attitude, I will continue with my behavior. However, if you change, grow up, learn a little bit of better grammar, and start working like a true wikipedian, then I am willing to treat you differently. But for now, you have much to earn.

Hari Seldon 09:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the political affiliations, or the place of birth of a person should not be reason to discriminate against him or his right to edit any article he chooses. I work in both Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Felipe Calderón and find both PANistas and PRDistas having a fun time in them (sometimes, too much fun)... Keeping both articles NPOV is a challenge, but it is better than discriminating against anyone a priori.

In my own history, I wonder if people of Monterrey had the same attitude as you a century ago and protested against Bernardo Reyes or José Eleuterio González becuase they were from Guadalajara. We would certainly not have the city we have today. It is illogical to say that someone who is from another city cannot appreciate any other city. Believe me, I live in Arizona and I know how influential Guadalajara is (as influential as Monterrey is in Texas).

So, please stop judging edits and editors based on your own subjective perceptions. Sometimes, there will be edits that we don't like. The challenge of the wikipedian is to let it go when they improve the quality, or worse yet, to reverse the edits we do like when they do not conform to the guidelines. It requires maturity. Can you do that?

BTW, I never defended any source as valid. I simply defended the fact that it is a source, and A source is better than NO source. I am not taking party against or in favor of anything except the usage of wikipedia guidelines.

Hari Seldon 09:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hari seldon: It's ok, but this is the Guadalajara page, and you're talking about me , me and me, and you and me, you can try that on my discussion page, if this time you promise don't vandalize it and then come to the Guadalajara discussion page to try to make it seems like if i'm immature and the one with the bad attitude, forget about wikipedia, the things like that do not work for me. I'm a very down to earth person, and i have colaborated with thousands of important and emphasized articles more in the spanish wikipedia than in the english one be cause the rules and diferences between both are huge. I gave you reasons since the begining why that sentence should'nt be on the article, you answered with a negative, i wont write it down again cause you know you had a really negative attitude, maybe be cause since the begining i was not able to talk to you cause i know you from before, thanks god dunadan appeared. Anyway, i think the maturity issue doesn't goes for me, i've never been contributor of an article at least i have something positive to reach or contribute if i found a very bad source as the one you found saying Puerto Rico means valley of flatulences trust me i would never go to the Puerto Rico article and claim with a "source" such as the one you gave, and then defend it saying the source is confidential, valid and verifiable, so let's no talk about maturity, of course i have things to learn but you have a long way to go to become a good wikipedian as well. So do your work and if u have something to contribute you can do it, just as you say "A source is better than NO source" i will tell you; found good sources to contribute correctly in the wikipedia and help to expand the article and contribute with some good information for clean this article, not to do the opposite. My pleasure, and for you don't think i have something personal against you, i offer you my friendly colaborations in any of my special matters in the spanish wikipedia. PD. I'm not the only one who should learn some more better grammar. Cheers! PD2 By the way, if u have something else personal matters, go to my discussion page. Raveonpragha — Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Raveonpraghga, I find it very hypocritical for you to demand that personal matters be treated elsewhere, when every single edit that you dislike you take as a personal matter and end up insulting and attacking other users in this discussion page and other similar pages. Your lack of etiquette and ethics were evident not only in that, but in putting sources that do not corroborate your point (in Mexico) and first and foremost in the creation of a sockpuppet in another discussion, of which you were graciously forgiven. If you insist on your attacks under the disguise of "I am a good Wikipedian", I will personally report you to an administrator of disrupting Wikipedia.

--theDúnadan 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan: yor're free to do what you want, so if u think report me is a good option, do it! you don't need to warn me, just go ahead and do it.Raveonpragha — Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the source wasn't mine. It was already there. Additionally, Raveonpragha, your talk page isn't of much use if you delete everything that you don't like. I am not "vandalizing" your page. I am simply making sure that everything other people has said to you can be easily consulted by other people that may have issues wit you in the future so that they can easily assess your character. I am sorry if this bothers you, but it has to be done for the benefit of others. Hari Seldon 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan, I changed the wording of the introduction of this article a couple of days ago as a sign of good will. The wording I used was based on your comments on what you found in your dictionary. Could you please provide the reference so that the introduction does not remain uncited? Hari Seldon 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed a misconception, Guadalajara is the name of the metropolitan area of the 8 municipalities wich are: Guadalajara, Zapopan, Tlaquepaque, Tonalá, Tlajomulco de Zúñiga, El Salto, Juanacatlán e Ixtlahuacán de los Membrillos. These municipalities includes as well a municipalitie with the same name: Guadalajara, the metropolitan area was named after this municipalitie due to the fact the city extended its territory being annexed to the other minucipalities territory, so there you go. Raveonpragha — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yours is the misconception. Guadalajara is a city and a municipality. The metro area is properly called "Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara", but neither the municipality nor the city have ceased to exist. Please do not revert, or it will be considered vandalism. --theDúnadan 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding the point, dunadan, you should discuss about it and then reach a right conception, maybe the municipalities and the metropolitan areas in spain are conceived in a diferent way, that's why you should discuss that and then you can come to the article and show your results, meanwhile it is not considered vandalism erase information specifying the reasons in the discussion page. So if you have a source wich claims your concepts, come and tell me vandal.

Ok, the Ayuntamiento de Guadalajara and the City of Guadalajara has two diferent meanings, the Ayuntamiento is the Guadalajara area wich is the second largest municipality in the Guadalajara city(Guadalajara City conceives 4 official municipalities 1) after Zapopan wich is the largest municipality in Guadalajara city. The metro area (Guadalajara City) has a population of more than 3 million inhabitants, if you want to to specify each area you're free to do so, but it is already specified in the article of Guadalajara Metropolitan Area (wich spanish version is even more updated). The other 4 municipalities are included "De facto". In this case we are talking about the City of Guadalajara Not the municipality of Guadalajara wich is not the same, if you want to specify the inhabitants of the municipality of Guadalajara, then you have to create another article in the desambiguation page specifying the article is about exclusively the municipality of Guadalajara. So if you have more information or another source wich specify the opposite let us know. cheers!Raveonpragha — Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unlike you who provide opinions, I provide sources: Delimitación de Zonas Metropolitanas, and most importantly Ayuntamiento de Guadalajara, which is the government of the muncipality, not the metropolitan area. Moreover, your "sources" are the Spanish wiki articles that you are changing to impose your wrong version of what a city is vis-à-vis a metropolitan area. This is the second time you try to provide "sources" that do not back up your claims (or the third time if we include the presumptuous claims in Second city). Please stop. --theDúnadan 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are having a similar discussion in Monterrey. I want to point out, though, that the name of this article is "Guadalajara, Jalisco", which may only have one official meaning: the municipality/city/ayuntamiento, and not the Metropolitan area... While "Monterrey" is a little more ambiguous.

Due to the sources and arguments presented, I lean towards following what has been the tradition in wikipedia, and talk about legal entities, and not of metro areas except in articles about metro areas... For the article Monterrey I have proposed a radical solution. Lets see how the editors of that article respond...

Hari Seldon 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hari Seldon is known for vandalising and posting his known hate towards the second most important city in Mexico, Monterrey. We need to ignore him and just keep an eye on his edits, it's obvious they envy us and they have to throw garbage on our name to try to get some attention. -Joey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.131.131.253 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This was all quite interesting; however, the name of the City comes from Arabic, and it is "Valley of Stones." BUT, those wanting to translate it to "Valley or River (it's valley, by the way) of Shit" have something to hang their hat on, even if the translation is not literal. Here's the story: when the Arabs conquered parts of Spain they encountered the sewer systems that were created by the earlier Romans. These sewer systems ran underground and were made of stone. See this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Romanization_of_Hispania#Sewers

These valleys (rivers) of stone, still in use during the Arab conquest of Spain, carried waste to the rivers or sea. Thus, the Roman rivers/valleys of stone got caught up in the translation mire, with the Arab/Spanish mixing and matching. Ironically, everyone's right here, and everyone's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.128.166 (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arabic name

I would like to confirm, as a native Arabic speaking Wikipedian that the name "Wadi Al Hajara" literally translates into "Valley of the Stone". - Omernos 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from your word-of-mouth confirmation... Can you offer any reliable source? Hari Seldon 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what I found, that the literal translation of Wad' is not "river" but "valley" (see above). --theDúnadan 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary with two Arabic-script versions of whatever the original name is? One of them says "wad", the other says "wadi". Felix ahlner (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Second most populated city/municipality

Guadalajara is actually the second most populated municipality after Ecatepec de Morelos (Mexico City is not a municipality, but a federal district). Now, since both are almost coextensive with their respective municipalities (some other localidades of a couple of hundred inhabitants exist inside Ecatepec's municipality), then Guadalajara is the third largest city (after Mexico City and Ecatepec de Morelos). You can download the population figures for each localidad in each state (and a city is defined to be a localidad of more than 2500 inhabitants by INEGI), here: [2]. --theDúnadan 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, lets post it to the article!

Hari Seldon 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tequila

I know Jalisco is the world's biggest producer of tequila, but isn't most of it outside Guadalajara, near Tequila? Rees11 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tequila has to be produced in Tequila not in Guadalajara. --theDúnadan 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Dúnadan: to be classed as tequila the licor must be produced within Jalisco. In fact, many of the most reknowned brands among locals come from Los Altos, near the border with Guanajuato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.87.206 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Both incorrect. One of the best tasting Tequilas is from a wild harvested agave from Chihuahua. 76.79.9.129 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All wrong, Sirs. Not all the tequila has to be produced in Jalisco, but in certain municipalities of the states of Jalisco, Guanajuato, Tamaulipas and some others. And no municipalities of Chihuahua are among these, so no tequila is produced in Chihuahua. Sotol is what comes from Chihuahua. Any tequila-style spirit produced outside the official municipalities is called with the generic name of "destilado de agave" ("agave spirit"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.142.143 (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tequila is a form of Mescal but because most people use "mescal" to refer to the smokey agave spirit, "destilado de agave" is used to show that the beverage is not smokey. -- Azemocram (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Weather

Compared to California, GDL weather is quite unique. It rains in the summers and is hot. In the winters it rarely rains and is cool. For traveler, etc, I think this is important information. I like the way month to month average temperature and rainfall are illustrated in the Wikipedia of California counties. If I had that info, I would add it. Can someone do that?76.197.11.240 09:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)garyhori@hotmail.com

Nonconformities

The Guadalajara article is riddled with outright lies, pretentious assertions, misleading comments, personal opinions, and weasel phrases. There are basically no quotes or facts to support most of the claims made in the article.

It seems to me as if most of the article was written by a group of hardcore tapatios, much more interested in showing off their city via their personal perception of it than actually creating an encyclopedia-like entry.

Indeed, Guadalajara, is a beautiful city. Will someone please fix this article and honor such a great city by writing a FACTUAL account of it and grasping what ENCYCLOPEDIA means? Guadalajara certainly deserves better than this.

Some examples:

"Guadalajara is one of the principal centers of culture, economy, history, industry and religion in the country and exerts significant influence on the rest of Mexico."

According to whom? How and where is this supported? Who's opinion is this?

"Guadalajara grew quickly until it became the industrial, tourist and commerce headquarter of the country, and the second most important city in Mexico after the national capital (Mexico City)"

So Guadalajara became the industrial, tourist, and commerce headquarter of the country??? Says who, again? Proof, please?

Oh, and it seemingly also become the second "most important" city in Mexico after Mexico City. What does "most important" mean? According to whom? Where does that leave Monterrey?

"Jalisco, including its capital city Guadalajara, is one of the regions of Mexico where the population is mainly of European descent"

Proof, quote, or reference again, please?

"... the city is the national leader in development and investment in shopping malls. Many shopping centers have been built, such as Plaza Galerias, one of the largest shopping centers in Latin America."

The "national leader" part is a blatant lie; again, there's no reference to support such a claim and whoever wrote that line has never visited Mexico City. CC Santa Fe, CC Perisur, Plaza Loreto, Plaza Satelite, Plaza Universidad, Centro Coyacán, Mundo E, Galerias Insurgentes, Galerias Coapa, Plaza Cuicuilco, Pabellon Polanco, Antara, and Plaza Moliere are just some of the larger malls located in Mexico City's Metropolitan Area. Guadalajara isn't even in the same league.

As for the Plaza Galerias comment, it is a very average-sized shopping mall, easily surpassed in scale by several of the aforementioned malls in Mexico City, let alone Latin America as a whole.

Some additional nonconformities:

-The entire Education section is biased, based on personal opinion, and unsubstantiated. -The Culture section is almost entirely based on personal opinion as well, especially with unsupported claims such as "Guadalajara produces the most important cultural magazine in the country".

Please fix this article.

--Fherrp80 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

In the architecture section, one of the captions for a photograph reads: "galardoned by architecture." Galardoned is neither a verb nor a word in the English language. I assume that the person who wrote that attempted to convert "galardoneado" (meaning that it won an award) to English. It should be corrected. Thank you.--190.0.147.20 (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

To respond to the revert of recent edits with the comment:

Removed sister cities, identified as "Nuetral Point Of Views". There are no other cities beside Guadalajara, Spain. I'm born and breed from Guadalajara and I know my country

You are mistaken, see: [[3]]. Also, please do not revert the entire edits if you only disagree with one portion of them. I am posting this here instead of reverting right away, but the sister city fact has a valid source and should be included, as well as the other edits that improved the language of a section that reads quite poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrac (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Hi there User:Vrac. You might have the references to back up your statements, but in my opinion Guadalajara, Spain is the main choice for the main sister city to Guadalajara, Jalisco, because it is named after Spain who colonize the country. Most of the countries and locations listed on the citations are not even part of the Spanish Empire. I' am simply keeping the article simple and giving out a straight forward information. --Ramírez 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reading: WP:NPOV, neutral point of view refers to inserting bias into articles, putting innocuous and easily verifiable facts such as sister cities in an article is in no way a violation of the NPOV policy. Vrac (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not arbitrarily remove sourced information without consensus. Vrac (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Silicon Valley?

I don't think, HP itself has assembly lines in mexico since they outsourced the actual production. Rather Flextronics and the likes! Have a look at the CAFOD Reports (Clean up your Computer):

"The relationship between the US brands and the electronics workers of Guadalajara is indirect and complex. Most electronics firms operating in Guadalajara are contract manufacturers, for example SCI, Flextronics, Jabil and Solectron.The big brands hire contract manufacturers to assemble electronics goods. For example, Dell contracted manufacturing to Jabil for several years until 2001; and SCI manufactured Hewlett Packard products.The contract manufacturers, however, do not usually employ many workers directly: they outsource recruitment to employment agencies. IBM is an exception to the general rule." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.129.229.1 (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

"The word Guadalajara comes from the greek word Guadalaxas that means 'home of kind and beautiful people'." Then, later on: "The city is named after the Spanish city of Guadalajara, whose name originates from the Arabic word (وادي الحجرة) 'wadii al-Hajara', which means 'valley of stones' or 'valley of the fortress'.[3]" It would seem that these two sentences are contradictory to one another. In that case, the correct statement should be posted and the incorrect one removed. However, if the problem is a little more complex (as I suspect it may be,) the (needless to say, correct) information needs to be presented in a less confusing, more thorough, and more encyclopedic manner.

Also, "greek" should be capitalized. Also, does anyone think that the Introduction is a bit long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.28.203 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Education

All the education part seems a little biased in my opinion, and there are no sources that the Universities in GDL are that good, IPN of Mexico is by far regarded as the best public education institute after UNAM, not GDL University, and why does it states that some of the best in the world are in GDL, there are no sources for this information, so unless any sources are provided, I suggest to just put the facts, which are that it has good universities and that is all. Leonoel (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in population figures. Education section should be revised.

In the first paragraph we find "The Guadalajara Metropolitan Area includes other adjacent municipalities and has a population of 4,112,332 inhabitants" and further into the article under "Population" we find "the Guadalajara Metropolitan Area also includes the municipalities of Zapopan, Tlaquepaque, Tonalá, Tlajomulco de Zúñiga, and El Salto, which together totaled 3,967,252 inhabitants in 2005". This seems a bit inconsistent and should be revised. I'll check out official figures and make the appropriate changes if deemed necessary. On a different note, part of the content under "Education" (specifically the information related to ASFG) seems to be copy-pasted directly from http://www.asfg.mx/school_sections.php .--adeiln 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeiln (talk • contribs)

How childish!

It's funny how I checked the article a couple of days ago and everything was normal, I check it today and there are the two following "additions" with no sources to back them up. 1."The metropolitan area is the third largest after Mexico city and Monterrey's metropolitan areas"... WRONG! 2.The whole addition about Guadalajara being the San Francisco of Mexico for having Mexico's biggest gay community.

Both additions happened around or at the same time, it doesn't take much to figure this one out. Please, I know you are obsessed with your city (MTY) but leave Guadalajara's article alone!!! --70.251.19.89 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of any gay community in Guadalajara but it is the second or third largest metropolitan area in Mexico. I am from Seattle so I would never contribute to any articles about Seattle unless I can find sufficient information. You, sir, must be biased for some other city. -- Azemocram (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Correction: POP CULTURE SECTION

I don't want to create a disturbance about edits, but I DID want to make a tiny correction to the name of a song listed under the Pop Culture section. It says that Ted Kennedy sang "No Te Rajes Jalisco" on the Piolín radio show; the name of the song is actually "Jalisco, No te Rajes," or "Hay, Jalisco, no te rajes." This is a popular song perfomed by several important and recognized Mexican artists throughout Mexican culture. By the way, it's not just sung in Jalisco...before anyone says anything. Thanks! --162.80.36.13 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Guadalajara, Jalisco

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Guadalajara, Jalisco's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "INEGI":

• From Greater Mexico City: Producto Interno Bruto por entidad federativa, INEGI
• From Morelia: "INEGI Census 2005" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2009 November 23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• From Mexico City: "Producto interno bruto por entidad federativa. Participación sectorial por entidad federative" (in Spanish).
• From Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl: "Principales resultados por localidad 2005 (ITER)". Retrieved 2008-03-11.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

get rid of pop culture

Id like to propose getting rid of the entire pop culture section as it just a list of trivia. I would just go ahead and do it, but I know it would just get reverted. Would rather have a consenus here first.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

gross domestic product

I will remove this phrase : " It is also ranked in the top ten in Latin America in terms of gross domestic product and the highest ranking in Mexico", becoue there is not any reference and also beouse it is fale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex gnpi (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Profile picture

The profile picture is a little weird. It's too many pictures of individual modern buildings. It's like the creator is trying to create this perception that it's an exceedingly modern city. The picture is over-the-top and tacky. We should consider replacing it. 209.163.243.99 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also disagree with the profile picture, as long as it is not reflecting the true spirit of the city and most of the buildings shown in the picture are located in the city of Zapopan that is near of the city. We must show places like the Cathedral, Plaza Tapatia, Teatro Degollado and another turistics points of the city instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.166.84 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of Guadalajara

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guadalajara

The art scene in Guadalajara? Pebblessss (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tapatío into Guadalajara

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Unless significant expansion with additional sources can be accomplished, this would be better served in combination with the larger article its directly associated with. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Coat of arms of Guadalajara into Guadalajara. I think the content in the coat of arms page can easily be explained in the context of this page, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tlamichin: -- I'd love your input. Can you explain why you believe the coat of arms should have its own page separate from the city page? Significa liberdade (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with merge proposal - the coat of arms doesn't seem to have particular notability of itself. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Support the merge; this doesn't meet the notability criteria for having its own article, and I don't see any significant issues arising from merging this into Guadalajara. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support the merge. A redirect could be kept and its contents could come back to the article if/when it becomes too large to remain in Guadalajara. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge. Obviously keep the redirect and the categories. Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Outdated, opinionated

This is an outdated opinion essay. The section supposedly validated by reference 35 is highly debatable, and is from 2002. Even if you accept the economic assertions — and why would you? — much has changed since 2002.

Another example without even a reference: "Parks and forests are important in Guadalajara; while many of the oldest neighborhoods of the municipality of Guadalajara do not have sufficient green spaces..." It's nice that the writer believes that, but this is not a forum for that person's opinion about the right amount of green spaces. "Sufficient green spaces" would always be a contestable opinion. Nicmart (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)