Talk:Benito Juárez/Archive 1

Benito Pablo Juárez García
I also think that there is a lot to tell about Juarez, but what I think is the biggest error about this article is that there is not a single attituide form the U.S. that showed a lillte help to Mexico durign the french invasion, of course they didn´t brake relations with Mexico but neither challenged France at all.


 * U.S. support to Juarez, especially in the form of weapons, came after the end of the American Civil War. They also allowed Juarez' government to operate for some time from American soil. That doesn't seem like "little help" to me. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 11:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lincoln administration also put diplomatic pressure on France to withdraw, ultimately sending troops from the Union army to the Mexican border once south Texas had been recaptured from the Confederates. Before 1865, of course, the United States didn't have much ability to influence Mexican affairs because they had their own war to fight -- a war in which France was a potential combatant and secret friend of the Confederacy.

This article also leaves out Juarez rewriting the Constitution in a manner that made it a criminal offense for a priest to serve in any of his pastoral duties.

Early years?
Any articles on how his childhood was like? and how did he get to be a lawyer? did all amerindians in Mexico have that privilege?--F3rn 4nd0  01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Spanish version when Juárez went to Mexico City he was helped by a priest, learned Spanish and received secondary education. Then, when he complete these studies, he decided to became a lawyer instead of another priest.--Menah the Great 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
lately theres been a lot of vandalism regarding, can someone please block this page from newly registered or unregistered users —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.136.31 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i love mario<3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.171.186 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism in the general bio info box on the right (don't know what it's called). 64.134.169.61 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to keep a running list of vandalism here. Doing so simply rewards the vandal with more attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Benito Juarez probably NEVER referred to himself or his parents as an Amerindian
Juárez was born in the small village of San Pablo Guelatao, Oaxaca, located in the mountain range now known as the "Sierra Juárez." His parents, Marcelino Juárez and Brígida García were peasants who died when he was three years old. He described his parents as "Amerindians of the primitive race of the country." He worked in the corn fields and as a shepherd until the age of 12. On December 17, 1818, he walked to the city of Oaxaca looking to educate himself and find a better life. At the time he was illiterate and could not speak Spanish, only Zapotec.

The Native American name controversy is an ongoing dispute over the acceptable ways to refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and to broad subsets thereof, such as those living in a specific country or sharing certain cultural attributes. Once-common terms like "Indian" remain in use, despite the introduction of terms such as "Native American" and "Amerindian" during the latter half of the 20th century. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerindians

Juarez would have been dead for nearly 100 years before this word was introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.231.201 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentence out of place
"Juárez gained power only after receiving considerable US support in money and weapons, provided because the Second Empire was not amenable to US interests."

That's currently in the opening paragraph. However, in the same paragraph it is said that Juarez became president for the first time in 1858, years before the Second Mexican Empire was established. Did the US support him in his first term?--Menah the Great (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations
There is some question as to whether or not he made the "Among individual/As among Nations" statement. Juarez may have quoted Immanuel Kant, a German enlightment philosopher whom Juarez may very well have read and who may have helped shaped Juarez's political philosophy. It could have been a direct quote or paraphrase. I will do further research if I can track a source down before I do anything to the article. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship
I am very sorry. I do not know what I did but I accidentally deleted this section. The posting for this section mentioned Juarez's presidency as having been maintained by fraud. I just wanted to add that he set up concentration camps for clerics and conservative political enemies. Im very sorry again, I dont know what I did.

Could you provide a source for this info? Pres Juarez was on the run for most of this period and I find it difficult for this to be the case. However, during the civil war in America, both the south and north maintained consentration camps. And since Pres Juarez was the legitimate president of Mexico anyone who sided and supported Maximilian I would be guilty of treason, right? Son of Sieglinde (Dec 10, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSieglinde (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical context
This section seems rather poorly/informally written. For instance, it begins with: "During Juarez’ time, there was a really big political conflict in Mexico." I don't know enough about the subject to revise it, but I think it should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.186.171.222 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.27.49 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unqualified assertations?
Anyone else think that these sentences need slight revision?

"The ultra right wing has always hated Juárez and continuously attack him, even nowadays many myths created by them prevail against Juárez. The Benemerit of the Americas, Mexican President Benito Juarez remained in power for several periods through elections that the ultra right always accused of being fraudulent without providing proof of that."

Always? Really? With no verification, shouldn't someone flag this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmin (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

paragraphs removed
I've removed the following as redundant. It mostly repeats the preceding paragraphs. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

''Juarez lived during a cataclysmic time in Mexican history. A group of conservatives and a group of liberals fought continuously to acquire power. When the liberal party assumed political power in 1855, they promulgated a new constitution called “Constitucion de 1857.” As a consequence of the liberal inclination of the constitution, the Catholic Church and the military lost political privileges, for example, there were special courts for military and clericals that were eradicated by the new laws. The Catholic Church was very powerful in Mexico. During Juarez’s administration there was a separation from the government and the Church by a law called “The Reform.” In 1859 Juarez decided to confiscate church properties. Since the Church was such a powerful and influential identity in Mexico, by reducing its power, Benito Juarez automatically became a controversial political figure.

During the 19th century Mexico was characterized by political, social and economical instability. The balance of power in the American continent moved remarkably to the United States. In 1836 Texas gained its independence from Mexico. Afterwards, Mexico also lost the territory that today constitutes the  American states of Arizona, California,Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. Twenty six years later in 1862, Napoleon III, attempted to establish a French colony in Mexico.

In 1864 the conservatives along with the French intervention won and established an empire in Mexico and they helped Maximilian rule the country. Maximilian had the support of France and the conservatives. However, by this time Juarez was leading the liberals, he had support from the United States government, and he was recognized as a ruler in exile. While this was taking place France was threatened by a Prussian invasion; therefore, the French started to return the troops that were occupying Mexico. In 1867, the liberals won the war and Maximilian was executed after a trial. Juarez was then recognized as a person that saved and rescued the nation from foreign invasion.''

Atheist
I saw him categorized as such earlier and thought it was unlikely, but I didn't remove the cat since I wasn't certain. I haven't been look into it too deeply, but don't all freemasons acknowledge a Creator? If Juárez himself claimed to be an atheist, then that is a different story. But I don't think he should be categorized as an atheist just for implementing anti-clerical policies.--Rockero 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By reading some of his writings I believe he was not an atheist but anti-catholic.

--==Dictator==

This man was a dictator like many other presidents of Mexico. He used his position as president to steal the elections of 1867 and 1871. While he was certainly a patriot and hero to Mexico, I find it humorous that so many refuse to accept that he too maintained his office by dictatorial means. Maybe because he was the only full blooded Indian to become President he gets a pass.... 71.146.59.75 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If he was a dictator, at least he improved many things that nowadays we take for granted such as freedom of expression and conscience. Thanks to this guy we are not a ultra-Third-World country like Afghanistan or Sudan, where religious fanatism is rampant. The people against him are always ultra-right-wing or ultra-conservative hardliners.--Scandza (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not let your anti-religious bigotry define your views. Would it be proper for us to bring up the casualties of atheistic ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.19 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm against Benito Juarez and I'm not an ultra-right or conservative.... I think that there are many lies about him, he is just the starter of the nasty political leaders that we still have in our country. Juarez killed many innocent people and did a lot of damage to Mexico... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Story Behind the Myth section
I would like to make a very dramatic change to the article--we need to eliminate the "story behind the myth" section. The very title of this section sounds like a textbook, not an encyclopedia, and much of the section reads that way to. In fact, I would not be surprised if it's nearly copied out of a high school level textbook, in the way that it focuses on a few key actions, makes the Monroe Doctrine sound like something to benefit Mexico, and gives personal (and unverified) evidence about his wife. The whole second paragraph is completely out of context--when did this occur in the Juarez's presidency? How does that relate to the rest of the narrative? Is that one event so critical that it deserves a whole paragraph by itself?

What I'm proposing to do is scrap that paragraph in its entirety, and move the verified, sourced information to other paragraphs. This may be controversial, so I wanted to explain here first and see if anyone has any objections. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A democratic leader?
I'd like to understand how could it be possible that Juarez is regarded as a liberal leader if he held power from 1858 until 1872, that is, 14 years? In fact, it seemed that he would stay there for much longer if death hadn't caught him. --Lecen (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no correlation between how long someone serves in office and either how democratic or how liberal they are. Different countries have different rules about how long heads of state can serve; in the UK, for instance, a person could be Prime Minister forever, so long as their party kept a majority in the legitimately elected parliament.  Margaret Thatcher, for instance, was PM for 21 years, and there's no doubt she was democratically elected.  And being liberal is just a political stance; both liberals and conservatives could remain in power indefinitely.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Different countries, different cultures. Margaret Thatcher governed for almost 11 years, not 21. And she was elected and re-elected. In the case of 19th century Mexico, elections were carried through fraud, where the common people would vote on whoever the local boss wanted. Nothing o this is mentioned and is quite hard to believe that Juárez was a demorratic leader being "elected" and "re-elected" over and over until his death prevented him from staying forever in office. Profirio Diaz did the same later, and not surprisingly, he was one of Juarez's men. --Lecen (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect (mirror) orientation of portrait in article
It is a very minor issue, but the image of Benito Juarez toward the end of the article, under Legacy, is flipped, a mirror image. The other images in the article show his hair parted on the left; the final one has the part on the right. Aesthetically more pleasing since he is not looking off the page, but factually incorrect.

69.130.98.77 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why so many Mexicans hate Juarez?
This is a very interesting phenomenon as foreigners don’t understand why Mexicans hate such an important person, and Mexicans don’t understand why he is so admired. My point of view is from a native Mexican who has lived half his life in the US.

So, either as slaves or free men, the indigenous people was forced to learn the way of life of the dark ages: either you were a slave, a peasant, a cleric, a soldier, or you were _born_ a royal. So, as an Indian, you are definitely not a Royal. I guess the key concept that many people forget is that, as indigenous America came to the Renaissance, it was subjugated to Hobbes’ Leviathan. By force we were made to believe in the heavenly powers of government and God, which we shall not doubt or challenge.

So, then the Enlightenment came, and the ideas of Rousseau, Luther, Smith, Ricardo and Locke resounded over the western world, announcing that we are all equal, free from the Church, capable of anything, and that free trade is the way, triggering all the revolutions and spelling the end of Monarchy as the primary way to govern by the late 1700s.

But that didn’t happen in Mexico. The Spanish forbid such teachings, and most indigenous people couldn’t read anyhow. So by the begging of 1800, with the USA and the industrial revolution well underway in the “Modern” world, Mexico was still in the dark ages. So it is not a secret that the “Independent movement”, which later led to the independence of Mexico, in reality was started as a way to return Ferdinand VIII to the crown, after he was forced to depose by Napoleon. Check the Spanish Wikipedia article; while Wikipedia’s English article is a complete loss, the Spanish article is surprisingly well researched: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independencia_de_M%C3%A9xico#La_conspiraci.C3.B3n_de_Quer.C3.A9taro_y_el_Grito_de_Dolores. Note, top left of Hidalgo’s independence Guadalupe flag, the Royal Bourbonic Coat of Arms.

So it is incredible that in those days (1840s) an illiterate Zapotec Indian, who didn’t even know Spanish at first, went through all the hurdles to get an education and succeeded. And it is not only that he became president, but that albeit all the fog in the convoluted Mexican History, he was able to see a future of equality, freedom from the Church, from Monarchs and an with an economic system based on free trade. As indicate in the plan de Ayutla. In the 6th paragraph “… to protect free commerce, internal AND external…”. He was incarcerated once, was exiled, started a war, refused Maximiliam’s pardon, and stayed true to his vision until his death. A vision which we all take for granted today.

So how can Mexican’s forget that? When outside he is considered one of the greatest leaders of the World?? Well because, to this day, Mexico is not fully out of the middle Ages. It is still very common to hear archaisms in common day language. Words like “Vide”, “Aiga”, which many Mexicans take as simple bad Spanish, are in reality remnants of the Spanish Mexico, which are very well and alive today. So Mexicans still believe on the almighty government which shall provide everything and on their inability to self-govern and succeed as individuals. This is very compatible with Dictatorships, and that’s what we got all over Latin America for the past 100 years. Unfortunately, it is also very different from Juarez vision.

Modern Mexicans cannot understand free-trade, and the significance of private industry for the well-being of the country. Their ideas are more compatible with Communism and Socialism: they expect the government to take care of everything, and do not believe on the abilities of a single person. So, communism was naturally adopted by the 1920-30s, starting with President Cardenas. While thanks to some awakened part of Mexico, and with much intervention from the US, Mexico’s government has remained center-right in theory, in practice the population remains in love with socialism, lingering for a vision that has almost disappeared everywhere else. The governing party in Mexico City is the PRD, who succeeded the Mexico’s communist party. So, while from the outside, many people see Juarez at the level of Washington, or Xaoping, from inside many see him as just another Capitalist, who tried to help the Rich burgoise ( like if they were not Mexicans too), the US, and did nothing as father government for the “poor” Mexicans. This vision goes from indifference, to hate, as Mexico’s government, and Communism/Socialism keeps faltering. ...

--ALEVP

It's obvious that you know next to nothing about modern Mexican society, and your patronizing views show it.


 * Benito Juárez isn't hated by most mexicans, but he should. He is in fact treated as nigh-deity in public History books. We don't celebrate the birth of any other hero except for Juárez's. To speak against this man in public forums, TV or what not is tantamount to being a traitor and one gains animosity because of it.


 * Juárez ability to surpass his own birth-limitations in a time when natives where so segregated is, indeed, nothing short of heroic. However he is FAR from the hero that mason and state-supported historians would have people believe.


 * His reforms, though ahead of their time, where incredibly badly received by the people because such liberal notions were unheard of at the time and collided with the national identity that New Spain and Mexico had held for over 300 years, this is the whole cause of the Reform War. It was only through securing U.S active support with the McLane-Ocampo treaty that Juárez was able to prevail (it was really the U.S forces that largely won the fight for Juárez). That treaty is an affront to mexican sovereignty, and is to this day, the most odious document in Mexican history. Anyone who has heard of the treaty (it's existence was denied and hidden by decades) has all the reasons they need to hate Juárez.


 * Juárez is mentioned as being a Saint, a Mexican Abe Lincoln, a president of the people. Yet, once in power, he didn't let go of the presidency until his death. After having defeated the Conservatives, he began acting without regard to the constitution or due process, exiling enemies wherever he saw them, so much that even his loyal supporters resigned their Juárez-appointed positions in government or became his political rivals. Not only this, but all of his reforms were contrary to what the people wanted. In resume, his rule wasn't democratic, wasn't constitutional and was, in fact, a dictatorship.

Juárez's case is the same as any other U.S intervention in Latin America: the will of the nation against the will of the U.S. The U.S supported Juárez and thus he came up winning, never mind what the mexican people actually wanted. All these details are ignored by state-appointed and official school grade history. While Juárez did some good things, he was far from the hero we are led to believe and there are many, many more figures in Mexican history far more deserving of the praise that Juárez gets, and whose only fault was that they weren't supportive of U.S intervention of Méxican affairs (Iturbide, Díaz, all the conservatives, even Santa Anna.), which is why they are remembered as villains while Juárez and other pro-yankee people are regarded as heroes. 189.187.48.132 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Benito Juárez. 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/20060212042305/http://www.zermeno.com:80/Benito%20Juarez.html to http://www.zermeno.com/Benito%20Juarez.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Title of President not immediately mentioned
I noticed that Juarez is described as a lawyer and politician, and it is not mentioned until the fifth sentence that he held the office of President of Mexico. Similarly Barack Obama's page reads "an American attorney and politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from January 20, 2009, to January 20, 2017." and Vicente Fox's page reads " is a Mexican businessman and politician who served as the 55th President of Mexico from 1 December 2000 to 30 November 2006." I feel Benito Juarez page should be in the same format as the current one downplays his role in history. Furthermore when performing a google search the wiki page is shown which again states Juarez as "Mexican Lawyer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.228.96 (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Review of Information
As of 9/25/2018 First sentence is "Benito Juárez García (benit-o-k mela); 21 March 1806 – 18 July 1872)[1][2] was a Mexican lawyer and liberal politician of Rio de Janeiro origin from Amsterdam". Can someone verify the information regarding Rio de Janeiro origin and Amsterdam? There is also a punctuation error at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:EE0E:7500:A824:3EF1:6B4F:A3F (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018
Benito Juarez was a countrywide hero and president of Mexico (1861–72), ISlackAlot (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what you want done; please make a precise request.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Height
In the American television game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire they say he was four and a half feet tall. I don't see his height in this article. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Legacy section
It is too favourable, omitting mention of the fact that he was a brutal dictator who infamously carried out many massacres. (86.156.198.128 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

Summary
I think the opening summary of the article is too long and excessively based on opinions (the word "controversial" appears three times). Shouldn't it be shortened and made it more fact-based? Lucretius (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Freemasonry section
A recently added Freemasonry section includes a number of Mexican politicians who are alleged to have been part of the organization along with Juárez, but the cited materials do not include said information, or are very limited otherwise. Would like to know if the section clashes with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. @Tabu Makiadi Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrea Campa connection?
An editor has added text that Juarez had an extramarital relationship with one Andrea Campa, producing a child and discussing her descendants, citing a doctoral dissertation. I recently tagged the citation for specific page numbers. Brian Hamnett's biography of Juarez states he was the father of 12 children, two before Juarez married Margarita Maza, and ten with her. For now, I am deleting the references to Andrea Campa, but if there is more specific information about a relationship with her then expanded text be added to the Personal life section.Amuseclio (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Amuseclio Amuseclio (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I had added this information based on history research done in Mexico from ENAH (Mexico's National School of Anthropology and History) and I had cited the references. I think it is important to keep this information given that the children from this relationship resulted in several important public figures who also have their own Wikipedia page. It is also discussing an important subject of relationships outside marriage from people in power. It is an important topic for the public to also reflect on and learn about. I don;t understand why it was deleted. I think this information is important to have. 14:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)PumitasUNAM (talk)

Should I return the text that I had added originally? What is it missing? I aimed to cite relevant sources. Thanks for your time. PumitasUNAM (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the information about Andrea Campa again, but also added more new relevant references.PumitasUNAM (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The text on Andrea Campa needs to be more specific, since the information is not part of any standard biography, so far as I know. Juarez was known to have a premarital relationship and recognized his offspring. We know the date of his marriage. Is the relationship with Andrea Campa premarital or extramarital? Did he recognize the child as his? Whether or not this is a pre- or extramarital relationship has implications for perceptions of Juarez during his lifetime and in history. Citing study to support the contention is not helpful to readers who would like the opportunity to see the evidence themselves, and for that reason I added a citation tag for pages. In general, Wiki bios do not include information about distant descendants, so I think that text should be deleted. The new information about Juarez's personal life is of great interest, but much more specific information needs to be provided and cited. I encourage the editor(s) to do this. Saludos cordiales, Amuseclio. Amuseclio (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Amuseclio
 * It has been now nearly two months since I originally flagged this text about Andrea Campa. I have deleted it. If the editors who originally posted this material provide well-documented evidence on this alleged relationship then I encourage them to post it, citing verifiable sources with specific page numbers. Meantime, as an established scholar of Mexican history, I view the information on Campa as posted and then revised text as still casting a shadow on Juárez's personal life, so its removal is justified at present. As better documentation becomes available, then revisiting this question is justified. 18:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Amuseclio.

Sorry I had a death in my family and I have not been able to work on the article. My family life was disrupted. I hope to be able to have time to return to this. Sorry for the time delay. PumitasUNAM (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added the requested evidence about the life of Beatriz Juárez Campa and Andrea Campa. I have also added the requested details. I have cited the specific relevant pages and research. One important thing to consider is that in Benito Juarez's biography the information about his wife and children with his wife, as well as the decedents that they had, is included. It is therefore also relevant to include information about the children and relationships that Benito Juarez had with other women.

The research we are citing comes from Latin America and is done by women of color. It is strange that this research is not taken as serious as research coming from the global north and produced by white males. We would invite you all to read about citational justice (see relevant research papers below). Without citational justice, this Wikipedia article of an important indigenous political actor, appears to promote colonialism of knowledge.

Another important note is that in Wikipedia, the background of the Wikipedia editors should NOT matter. I have a PhD and am from the global south. But that does not make my contributions on Wikipedia more relevant than those made by others. You being "an established scholar of Mexican history" also do not make your contributions on Wikipedia more valid. It also does not justify erasing the work of people from the global south.

Kumar, Neha, and Naveena Karusala. "Braving citational justice in human-computer interaction." Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2021.

Ahmed, S. I., Amrute, S., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Bidwell, N., Dillahunt, T., & Wong-Villacrés, M. (2022). Citational justice and the politics of knowledge production. interactions, 29(5), 78-82.

Collective, Citational Justice, et al. "Following the Trail of Citational Justice: Critically Examining Knowledge Production in HCI." Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2021

UNAMResearcher (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
Why do we have Juarez's tenure a president, shown as uninterrupted? Why are the regents & the emperor ignored? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)