This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Native Americans,
Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related
indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
in the article is, i believe, from the cover of Marc Simmons book, The Last Conquistador. It was painted by Jose Cisneros, a well known artist, was is, I think, still alive. I have asked the person who posted the picture to defend it, but if i don't hear pretty soon i think it needs to be removed. In fact, i will remove it. Any other thoughts?
Carptrash06:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I've reverted a long rant against the PBS show as unencyclopedic -- here's the opening sentence:
" "The Last Conquistador" by John Valadez is full of lies and propaganda being used to vilify don Juan de Oñate, the Spanish, and Catholics. "
Nevertheless, there might be something of value here, if someone has the time & energy to sort through the rant and distill it to a line or two. Cheers,
Pete Tillman (
talk)
22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I just undid
an annon editor's edit that had Oñate listed as, "a New Spaniard/Mexican explorer,". The editor added the phrase "New Spaniard" a couple of times and I thought that we might as well discuss it here first. Is this a good edit? Einar aka
Carptrash (
talk)
21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)reply
I think it is best to avoid stating nationality, since saying "Mexican" is anachronistic and he probably didn't identify as a "New Spaniard". In his own period he would have been identified as a
Criollo.
·ʍaunus·
snunɐw·23:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)reply
I rewrote it to "Mexican-Spanish" because that is what we would call him in modern times and this is what readers will immediately understand, although it is clear that neither Mexico nor Spain existed in their present forms then, thus I specify in parenthesis "New Spanish" and link to "New Spain" because this is historically accurate as it was the old name of Mexico when adjoined to the Spanish Empire.--
Coyotecal (
talk)
18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
For someone familiar with the history of the Spanish Empire it might, but a casual reader will find it more easy to read and understandable by adding the few words. "Novohispanic" does not say anything to most readers unfamiliar with such history I believe but everyone in the world understands "Mexican-Spanish" which has the same meaning in different historical contexts. I appreciate your proposal and likewise would be open to other opinions.--
Coyotecal (
talk)
18:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I rewrote it to "Mexican-Spanish" because that is what we would call him in modern times and this is what readers will immediately understand, although it is clear that neither Mexico nor Spain existed in their present forms then, thus I specify in parenthesis "New Spanish" and link to "New Spain" because this is historically accurate as it was the old name of Mexico when adjoined to the Spanish Empire.--
Coyotecal (
talk)
18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
You are making several assumptions that need to be considered. Firstly, "what we would call him" should perhaps read "what I would call him" because it's not what I'd call him, and "this is what readers will immediately understand" is another way of saying that you know what's in a readers mind, someone, say, from India, who knows nothing about the history of the New World might "immediately understand".
Carptrash (
talk)
18:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
What would you call him in modern times then? He was born in modern day Mexico and was a subject of Spain, like all Mexicans back then. "Novohispanic" is an obscure word for an Indian who knows nothing about the New World, following your example, but she would almost certainly understand what it means to be a "Mexican-Spanish" person. That's why I'm trying to make a balance here and keep both, while you're asking "Mexican-Spanish" to be removed just on the ground that it is "less crowded". How about the following then: “was a
Mexican-
Spanish (
Novohispanic)
conquistador, “. --
Coyotecal (
talk)
16:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter (
opinion) what modern country he was born in. Had he been born in
Santa Fe (which I do understand was not founded then) no one (I think) would suggest calling him an
American. So okay, take out the link to
Mexico but leave the one to the
Spanish Empire. Again, why do you assume that our hypothetic Indian would know what "it means to be a "Mexican-Spanish" person." If we were talking about ethnic, regional, political stuff in 16th century India, I won't speak for you but I would get lost pretty quickly. But I undid your edit and you undid mine and I am not inclined to revisit that particular section of the article for, let's say a year or two. Anyone else does what they need to do to make the article better.
Carptrash (
talk)
20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Both approaches have their shortcomings. "Novohispanic" may be more precise but it seems like a specialist's technical term (e.g. jargon) and may not be familiar to many readers. "Mexican-Spanish" is confusing--does it refer to a person of Mexican heritage living in Spain or a person of Spanish heritage living in Mexico? Common American usage (German-American, African-American, etc.) would imply the former. Personally, I like Richard's suggestion... "conquistador from New Spain." Clear and simple.
Glendoremus (
talk)
21:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)reply