Talk:Mexican Empire

Pretender
The "pretenders" to the throne are the creation of amateur hobbyists and exist only in fantasy. No such claim has ever been formally presented. This paragraph could be dropped, to the considerable improvement of the article. --Wetman 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They are out side, can be a fantasy for you.--TownDownHow's going? 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of members accept Mexican pretender and wrote many articles. Do you suggest delete all? Motsu 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinions
Although I do not question the accuracy of the article, it draws conclusions that would be better in articles dedicated to specific opinions about the events. Rather than remove these opinions, separate articles with supporting evidence or references to similar opinions would enhance and improve the coverage of the subject. I feel this article would be a better overview if it were limited as tightly as possible to events, without analysis or conclusions.

Other provinces that were lost
I came to this section after reading a reference to it in the history of Guatemala. That article suggested the Mexican Empire included most of the Latin American countries that now exist and yet I see no reference here made to them.

I'm sure that's an oversight, but it suggests to me this article is badly written and needs a complete workover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.118.111 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Juarez owed his coming to power ???
Juarez became president of Mexico the first time as constitutional successor to Comonfort, and was elected president in 1867. He owed his power to his military victory in the War of the Reform and in the resistance against Maximilian. In neither case did American soldiers participate. He did have political support from the U.S. government, especially during the war against Maximilian. I think the paragraph as it is now phrased is tendentious and it needs to be revised. Juarez clearly had the support of a vast majority of the Mexican population.

I think this part should be removed.
This article is only about the two empires, not about the war with the United States, so I think this part should be removed

"Following the Emperor Agustin's abdication, Mexico became a republic. In 1833 Santa Anna was elected President and three years later he lost the vast state of Texas to Sam Houston at the battle of San Jacinto. Nonetheless, Santa Anna led the Mexican forces into a disastrous and ill advised war with the US in 1846 and went on to lose half of all Mexico’s territory. In 1853 under what is known as the Gadsden Purchase, he sold 77,000 square kilometres of Mexico (all of Southern New Mexico and Arizona) to the US for $10 million, pocketing most of the proceeds for himself. Finally in 1855 Santa Anna was overthrown. Between 1822 and 1860 there were more than fifty changes of President and the actual form of government was changed no less than ten times. These fluctuated between total anarchy and outright dictatorship. In the same period there were over 140 military coups." XIIGustavoIIx 12:51, 05 December 2009 (UTC)

Prince Lorenz, Archduke of Austria-Hungary and his family
I have a question about Prince Lorenz. If he and his sons are in the Line of Succession to the Mexican throne, why aren't his daughters in it?? Please answer my question, someone. Thank you, David101jam 19:42, 18 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.189.150 (talk)


 * Maybe they follow the Salic Law. SamEV (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Line of Succession to the Mexican throne nor ever exited a formal succesion law for the Mexican throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.154.22.32 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, neither of the external links mentions a line of succession... SamEV (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we need this article?
Isn't this just an overblown disambiguation page? Is there any real connection, other than similarity of name, between the First and Second Mexican Empires that justifies unified treatment? Why not convert this to a disam page and move any material to the First Mexican Empire and Second Mexican Empire articles that is not already there? Ecphora (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse that. SamEV (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this too. No need for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. I don't think there's really anything here that isn't already covered in the other two articles anyway, but I'll check.Flyte35 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to disambiguation.Flyte35 (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gracias. Ecphora (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Partial restoration?
I made a bold edit restoring parts of the old article. First of all, this is a set index, not a disambig. That means all entries here are (from WP:SETINDEX) "a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name [...] they share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name" (in this case Mexican monarchies), as opposed to a true disambig where an entry doesn't (necessarily) have anything in common with another except the name.

I can defiantly see the argument that this page was redundant to those other two articles, but I think we eliminated too much and threw out the baby with the bathwater. As a set index, this does not need to be a mere list of entries, i.e. scene the entries share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name, we can give information about that common characteristic.

I restored the See also, External links, and lead sections. I however didn't restore the "First Mexican Empire", "Second Mexican Empire" "Pretender to the Imperial Throne of Mexico" sections, which comprised the bulk of the article. The First and Second Empires can be, and are covered on their own articles (per the above discussion), and the pretenders can be covered on the Emperor of Mexico article.

The lead is sort and sweet; it gives an very brief induction to the Mexican Empires, but directs the reader to the First and Second Empire articles. The see also section is pertly normal for a disasmbig, let alone a set index. External links are unusual on a disambig, but perfectly normal on a set index.

Does this look good to everyone, any objections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement that Mexico "reverted to the Second Mexican Empire" is misleading as it suggests that there was some connection between the First and Second Empires. The only connection is that they were both "empires."  I think this should be left as a disam page.  Ecphora (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "latter reverted" is an odd way to say it, for sure, since what really happened is there was one government calling itself an empire, then a republic, then another government calling itself an empire. That's an easy problem to correct. But it's not disambiguation and I think the brief lines now in the article convey pretty well what happened.Flyte35 (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no disambig page to leave this as. I didn't turn this from a disambig into a set index; this was a set index miscategorized as a disambig (the entries here are all ""a set of items of a specific type [...] share[ing] a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name"). It's not that I disagree with the above discussion (I don't have an opinion), aside from it's imprecise use of the term "disambiguation". I just think the implementation went overboard, and removed stuff that wasn't actually redundant to the other two articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)