Talk:Conquistador

message: content from Wikipedia:Reference desk about descendants of Pedro Serrano and Catalina Fernandez moved to Talk:Conquistador/Ancestry.
Word!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.53.104 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page moved

message: We claim there is no relationship between the "Conquistador" and "Reconquista" concepts. There is one between the words obviously.
Reconquista was linked to the Crusades, though. See the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. But I wouldn't link the Crusades to the Conquistadors. -- Davidme
I claim there IS a relationship. Spain's conquistadors and the Reconquista were directly related.  Spain's conquistadors were merely the next evolution of the warriors from the Reconquista.  Spain took over the Iberian Peninsula in 1469, and had nowhere to keep conquering except in the new world.  They called themselves conquerors, or conquistadors, and moved on to new lands, to continue the cause of Christianity, by any means necessary.  ~chip  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryhungrychippo (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like original research.  No one cares what you claim.  If you can find a significant source for your claim, then you've got something to talk about.Ekwos (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: Columbus did not "DISCOVER" America, because there was already people living in the New World.  Plus, at first Columbus thought he had made it to India.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.186.209 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just changing the at wording so a plural is unnecessary.  Done.--Eb1232 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not entirely true that we "must" use the form conquistadores. The English language eventually goes towards common usage, not always prescriptivist rules. The plural of sinus is sinuses, not sini.  Words like octopus can be both octopuses or octopi. ["Octopodes" is correct, actually] The Random House Dictionary gives the standard plural of conquistador as conquistadors, then gives the Spanish plural of conquistadores.  The American Heritage Dictionary gives both versions of the plural but lists conquistadors first. Usually the first listed is the more common or accepted spelling and the second are the variants in dictionaries, which would mean that conquistadors is more common. Kman543210 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this isn't about the English language, because "conquistador" is a Spanish word, not an English one. English dictionaries have no bearing on this, really. If you have to pluralize the word, use "conquistadores" because it's the correct term. If you won't use Spanish correctly, then just refer to them as "conquerors". Shadow86 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is in the English-language section of Wikipedia, and it's using the English word "conquistador". Although the English word is derived from the Spanish word, the word, as used in English, is an English word. Its etymology involves Spanish, but dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster and Random House) list it as an English word. Thus, the English plural is appropriate in the English-language Wikipedia article. In a Spanish-language article, the Spanish plural would be used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.126.40 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquistadors or Conquistadores 

message: This article is completely unreadable.  It appears to be a badly translated version of something else poorly written. --70.89.231.121 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Unfortunately, I'm not at all familiar with the subject (which explains why I visited the page). Dziban303 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This article is chaos. This article should only be about the Conquistadors, the people themselves, not an entire retelling of every single conquest during the 1400 to 1800 period! I would cut 90 percent of all content here, but I am afraid doing so would bother many people, even if in my opinion, it's the right thing to do. 220.255.2.67 (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was completly reworked during January to March 2012 by 85.251.106.11, so these comments refer to different articles. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Dear Anonymous IP people: I completely agree, this article is terrible and needs extensive pruning. There has been a problem that some editors using anonymous IPs have been strenuously defending the bad material. The page is now semi-protected so that they can't change it, but part of the solution to this problem seems to be for people like yourselves, who care about the quality of the article, to make signons and complete the process to become auto-confirmed so that you can change it. Any little fixes that you can make would be very helpful; this is far too big a task for one editor, or even a few editors. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete reworking definitely needed 

message: This article should have more information about who the conquistadors were in general, not just about the conquests of the few famous ones.  It should have information on the equipment, weapons, tactics abilities and horsemanship of the conquistadors.  his article is entirely to short for the impact the spanish conquests had on the entire world and the path of civilization.
why dont you do it then?89.242.173.91 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Broad enough 

message: Quote:
"...brought much of the Americas and Asia Pacific under Spanish colonial rule between the 20th and 21st centuries."
I think it was a little earlier than that.
:It was just a case of vandalism. I have reverted that edit. Next time you see something weird like that try and click the "history" tab and compare different versions to see when the error/vandalims was added and what others wrote before. Take a look at the history of this page and play with the functions of the history view and you can see what happened. (It takes some playing around with the history view to understand how it works.) --David Göthberg 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 20th and 21st centuries? 

message: Every time I read about the conquistadores and the American colonies of Spain, there is a strong emphasis on how cruel and greedy the Spaniards were and how many Indians they killed. On the other hand about the British, Dutch, French or Portuguese colonies there is only names, dates and standard information. And I wonder why.
Maybe there was no slavery in these colonies. Or there was?
Maybe the other countries did not exploit their colonies as much as they could. Or maybe they did.
Moreover, the USA started an expansion towards the west. They killed very many Indians looking for gold and new lands. Later they invaded Mexico and force the Mexican to sell them their northern territories. Surprisingly, all these "cow-boys" who killed Indians and Mexicans in the XIX century (not that far in time) are considered heroes in all the films and books. They are almost always the good guys.
Could anybody give a serious explanation (with no prejudice) on that?
===It was the US Army, not "cowboys" who killed the Native North Americans===
PS:  I also fixed some of your spelling/capitalization.  
You need to look to some other areas for the Dutch (e.g. South Africa) and British (e.g. Ireland).  The Portuguese certainly didn't take second fiddle to the Spanish in their (mis)conduct.  But, that just goes to the point of how this article is NOT written from a neutral POV.
--69.137.225.247 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Indians" were just as prone to kill each other as the Army and cowboys. There was a tendency for different tribes and tribal groups to serve alongside the colonial as well as directly joining those same colonial forces.  PaPiker (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question 

message: PS:  I also fixed some of your spelling/capitalization.  
You need to look to some other areas for the Dutch (e.g. South Africa) and British (e.g. Ireland).  The Portuguese certainly didn't take second fiddle to the Spanish in their (mis)conduct.  But, that just goes to the point of how this article is NOT written from a neutral POV.
--69.137.225.247 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Indians" were just as prone to kill each other as the Army and cowboys. There was a tendency for different tribes and tribal groups to serve alongside the colonial as well as directly joining those same colonial forces.  PaPiker (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: It was the US Army, not "cowboys" who killed the Native North Americans

message: Hi,
The Hernán Cortés article provides Hernán(do) Cortés as the spelling of his name.  This formulation has been in use for over 6 months.  Some anon editors have recently changed the spelling from Hernán(do) to Hernando and from Cortés to Cortez.  I have reverted both of these changes because they were not discussed on the Talk Page first.  However, I would not be able to defend the current formulation if challenged.  Can anybody explain what the differences are between Hernán(do) & Hernando and between Cortés & Cortez?  Thanx.
--Richard 06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is simple: the guy was called, as per the contemporary records, Hernán Cortés not Hernando Cortez whatsoever. Currently in Spanish the family name "Cortés" still exists, while "Hernán" has become rather "out of order", but that doesn't mean that we should change the guy's name now, right? So The Force is definitely by your side to defend "Hernán Cortés" anytime..I'm sure he thanks you from well under the sod..Mountolive 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of [[Hernán Cortés]] 

message: ...been completely erased? Considering that it was the Portuguese who took much of Brazil and South East Africa - well?Tourskin 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't tell me to be bold. Thats not answering why. Tourskin 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Trouble is, I don't know anything about the Portuguese Conquistadors, otherwise I'd write about them.  It's certainly entirely unbalanced though. 92.0.208.26 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the Portuguese side of this... 

message: Brought lotsa stuff over from Spanish Page--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish page

message: The way the article is broken up is quite haphazard and confusing, particularly the "Factors" segment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's really a poorly constructed article that needs work. Noteworthy is that we must discuss that the so-called victims in this story were hardly passive little lambs --- the Indians were viscious, trecherous, bloodthirsty savages who had even fewer scrupples than their conqurors. So let's skip the revisionism and tell the true story.--137.186.193.232 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the entire article is poorly organized and in some parts not well written. It needs a major upheaval, a better table of contents with more sections, rewriting, etc in order to make this a decent wiki article. As it is now, its confusing and sloppy, which makes it difficult to read and to edit. Bigdan201 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Please discuss the article, not the subject. This page is to discuss how to improve the article. It is not a forum.-gadfium 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be altered to eliminate the obvious bias against the Spanish. Those poor little Indians were no angels either --- human sacrifice, mass murder, all kinds of atrocities those savages committed should be included.--137.186.232.41 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Sections

message: The English (American?  Actually a lot were Dutch, German, etc., but that seems to have escaped you) colonists had little conflict with the Native Americans until the French started using them to terrorize those on the frontier (many of whom lived quite peacefully and traded with the Native Americans in their area).  This led to an English rebuttal in the "French & Indian War" (see WikiPedia, ahem).  The conflict with large populations of Native Americans and the people from Europe was much later in time. 
--69.137.225.247 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what history books you have been reading as the Spanish were responsible for destroying whole Amerind societies like the Arawak and others who refused to be slaves and work in the large agro-plantations established in places like Haiti, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic. It was the Spanish and Portuguese who began importing African slaves into the Americas. Why? Because they wiped out and or assimilated the Amerinds. Better gets your facts straight before you start spouting your racist garbage. European explorers as a group destroyed the Amerind societies and imposed their ways on the "barbarians" first to exploit and later to "civilise" them. BTW there are no Amerinds in Haiti thanks to the Spanish and French. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Please introduce yourself to some historical facts and return

message: Your knowledge of history of English speaking people is as limited as your knowledge of Spanish/Portuguese speaking!
Look at the history of the English genocide of the Irish (who, um, now speak English because their native language was outlawed).  I also suspect that there are a lot of English speakers world wide, perhaps the majority, who do not fit your stereotype.--69.137.225.247 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you need to reread your own history books and look at the histories of war and subjugation that those "poor natives" inflicted upon themselves. Try the Inca War of Succession or the constant fighting between the plains Indians. The "victim mentality" only goes so far. We all had a hand in it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh those Ugly Americans, they're at it again!!! (biting sarcasm)--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: You have any facts to back up your wild accusations?

message: :I was just thinking maybe the bit about the smallpox needs to be... removed or reworded or something. Even though it was what they (you know who I'm talking about) said; "It was smallpox"; most people here seem to think so too; some new research suggests it might actually not be. Some people who study the subject think it might even be a disease that was already in the area (like the Black Death in Europe) that came back during a period of low resistance and killed everyone. I forgot what it was called, but it's on the tip of my tounge... ma- or mi- something -x- something.
:7h3 3L173 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The flip side of that coin being how the returning heroes brought diseases back to the Old World.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox Theory 

message: if your genetic ethnicity has spanish or part spanish dna making up who you are it's time to acknowledge,own up and apologize for the invading,raping,murdering,pillaging,enslaving,conquering and assimmilating of millions of people on millions of acres in the western hemisphere and throughout the world and also for the widespread participation in the slave trade with sub-saharan africa in which the spanish and portugese brought over millions of black slaves to the americas.how come everyone who is of european descent is considered a white devil imperialistic slavetrading oppressor except for the spanish and portugese?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "There are no professionals, just those who are better at some things than others." John Madden --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly take this B.S. to a political forum where it belongs. 98.182.33.64 (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the politics of history's atrocities 

message: I would like to challenge the clain that conquistador only refers to people of spanish origin. While there is no doubt that the idea and institution of la conquista is spanish/portuguese, there have been plenty known cases of french, english and german adventurers engaging in such enterprises. The references given for this claim are definitely too vague to support it anyway, like page numbers missing. --91.32.198.232 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "French, English and German adventurers engaging in such enterprises" would probably be called conquerors in the English language, not conquistadors. To change the article to support your view, you must find references that actually use the term conquistadors to refer to such "French, English and German adventurers". — Joe Kress (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there should be some Portuguese in there though (see above). 92.0.208.26 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok I've "been bold" and put something very small in. 92.0.208.26 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish only 

message: I've placed the  template on the article because it appears to contradict itself. The second paragraph says that "Conquistadors in the Americas were more volunteer militia than organized military." While the first sentence of this subsection says that "The conquerors were professional armies…" Neither claims are supported by a reference. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: After receiving notice from Juan de Grijalva of much gold in the area of what is now Tabasco, the governor of Cuba, (Diego de Velasquez), made a decision to send a larger force than had previously sailed, and appointed Cortes  as Captain-General of the Armada.  Cortes then applied all of his funds, mortgaged his estates and borrowed from merchants and friends to outfit the ships that would sail under his command. Velasquez may have contributed some to the effort, but the government of Spain had no financial input into this undertaking.(William Prescott - Mexico and the Life of the Conqueror - Volume I, Book 2, Chapter 2, circa 1843)Gtbuilder (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding for Cortes 

message: For the love of god, re-write this. It's utterly incoherent at best, and frankly of very little use to anyone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.96.239 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incoherent

message: I'm copyediting this epic disaster. Suggestions welcome. I'm already observing that it covers far more than its ostensible subject. The tangential stuff should go. I'll defer until I complete the edit and reorg passes in hopes of generating some feedback.
:Lfstevens (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lfstevens (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: It could be necessary to create or to link some article or articles about explorers, traders, colonizers... not in the service of Spain and Portugal, because many events are due to the interaction and rivalry between human groups, even native groups. 85.251.99.49 (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Explorers 

message: 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 :Conquistador'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 "Martin":
From Rockall: 
From Antonio M. Ruíz: 
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⚡ 12:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Conquistador]] 

message: In the section "Characteristics and behaviour", what does a fishing vessel that ran aground in the North Atlantic have to do with the conquistadors, who the article states were professional soldiers? Ocotea (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this here?

message: Hi. An ip address (who appears to be responsible for this "epic disaster") made the following claim:
"It were the possibility of reaching the American continent in the year 1375, just to Newfoundland long before Columbus did in 1492. Many researchers also argue that at least two dozen of men arrived in the territory of Newfoundland caming from the Bay of Biscay and Bayonne in 1412, but this has not been demonstrated archaeologically yet. The evidence, however, suggest that Basques began dominating the history of whaling when they discovered the Grand Banks by 1372. Basque fishing, trading, or pirate ships rediscovered and perhaps even pillaged the desperately isolated and likely abandoned Viking Eastern Settlement on Greenland, probably before 1450."
The ref provided Basques discover the Grand Banks 1372 is a discussion page on a wikipedia article. These claims were shortly thereafter reverted as they lacked citations and were of a very dubious character. There is absolutely no evidence for the claims above, some of which just appear to be muddled versions of other claims (e.g. two dozen Basque men reaching Newfoundland in 1412 is a reference to two dozen Basque ships reaching Iceland in 1412, which was shown to be untrue anyways: see History of Basque whaling article). 
Unless someone thinks otherwise, I'll be removing it within a week. Or, if others agree, I'll remove this trash right now :) Baily'sMacomb (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. That IP appears to be another sock-puppet of User:Sonia Murillo Perales/Curritocurrito, and in the spanish wikipedia PapaNicolau, all three now blocked. I'll put more detail on your talk page. Thanks for analyzing that mess, and welcome to this particular wiki battle. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Guess I'll remove the claims then. Thanks again for clarifying the situation. Baily'sMacomb (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims on early Basque presence in the New World 

message: Extremadura is a sparsely populated region in Spain. Even today its population is little more than 1 million people. Yet, it is incredible how many conquistadors hail from this region. Just a few here:
* Vasco Núñez de Balboa (Jerez de los Caballeros, 1475 – Acla, 1519), primer europeo en descubrir el Océano Pacífico.
* Francisco Pizarro (Trujillo, 1476 – Lima, 1541), conquistador del Imperio inca.
* Pedro de Alvarado (Badajoz, 1485 – Guadalajara, México, 1541), conquistador.
* Hernán Cortés (Medellín, 1485 – Castilleja de la Cuesta, 1547), conquistador del Imperio azteca.
* Pedro de Valdivia (Villanueva de la Serena, 1497 – Tucapel, 1553), conquistador y fundador de Santiago de Nueva Extremadura.
* Hernando de Soto (Jerez de los Caballeros,http://www.telefonica.net/web2/jerezdeloscaballeros/hijos.htm Hay una disputa entre Jerez de los Caballeros, Barcarrota y Badajoz sobre cuál fue su lugar de nacimiento, pero existen documentos en los que Hernando de Soto solicita ser enterrado en Jerez de los Caballeros, junto a su familia, lo que parece indicar que fue en esa localidad donde nació. 1500 – 1542), explorador.
* Inés de Suárez (Plasencia, 1507 – Chile, 1580), conquistadora y fundadora de Santiago de Nueva Extremadura.
* Juan Rodríguez Suárez, (Mérida, 1510), explorador.
* Garci González de Silva, (Mérida, 1546 – Caracas, 1625), conquistador.
* Francisco de Orellana (Trujillo, 1511 – 1546), descubridor del río Amazonas.
* Ñuflo de Chaves (Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 1518 – 1568), conquistador y explorador.
* Garcí Manuel de Carbajal, (Plasencia, siglo XVI - Arequipa, 1590 ), explorador y conquistador.
* Alonso de Mendoza (La Garrovilla, Provincia de Badajoz, c. 1480-1490, Tipuani, Bolivia, 1550). Conquistador, fundador de la ciudad de La Paz.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did so many Conquistadors come from the Spanish region of Extremadura? 

message: Diannaa (talk) (your last edit - attribution), I have answered you on my page. Thanks for the the advice and warning, I will pay attention to it. Although it was partly that way, but you're right and it's something I had not realized - and it makes sense.--LuzoGraal (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying within Wikipedia - attribution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Conquistador. 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/20080517052031/http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/AXTELL01.ART to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/AXTELL01.ART
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575057_13/spain.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316075617/http://www.millersville.edu:80/~winthrop/Thornton.html to http://www.millersville.edu/~winthrop/Thornton.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405233341/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/inf/powell/sec2.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/inf/powell/sec2.htm
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) 06:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Conquistador. 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/20090204221411/http://bartleby.com:80/67/908.html to http://www.bartleby.com/67/908.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005010422/http://www.americanjourneys.org:80/aj-070/summary/index.asp to http://www.americanjourneys.org/aj-070/summary/index.asp
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) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Conquistador. 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/20120318141815/http://www.virus.med.puc.cl/viajero/f_amarilla.html to http://www.virus.med.puc.cl/viajero/f_amarilla.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123080659/http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/yellowfever/ to http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/yellowfever/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575057_13/spain.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408213926/http://krypta.i24.cc/saint.php?dir=slavesI&rtn=saint.php%3Fdir%3Dunknown to http://krypta.i24.cc/saint.php?dir=slavesI&rtn=saint.php%3Fdir%3Dunknown
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206081732/http://www.boliviaweb.com/cities/potosi.htm to http://www.boliviaweb.com/cities/potosi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413013323/http://www.borealidad.com.ar/balleneros-vascos-en-islandia/ to http://www.borealidad.com.ar/balleneros-vascos-en-islandia/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510163413/http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/goodling.html to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/goodling.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903042208/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/3489/Overview to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/3489/Overview
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conquistador. 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/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I like how the first part of the article, i.e. the resume, is so aggressive and depreciative towards the 'Conquistadores', such words like 'invader', 'invasions', and the option for 'exploitation' instead of exploration, as well as the option for "opening this region for colonialism", instead of "for colonization". The choosing of that strategic words added a negative connotation, and of course, a biased one. One sided POV is frequent in article about Spanish early modern history, specially when dealing with their kings or conquistadores, and often to the negative sense, English historiography is majorly anti-Spanish when analysing this period of times (From 1500 to 1648). But this article goes beyond, it seems not so much about nationalistic preferences, but political narratives (Clearly left-wing, in this case). So, using diverse sources, selecting one depreciative word here, but balancing it there, not showing any case of original reseach or avoiding editing the texts to make them more aggressive and critic towards the main subject, all of that can make Wikipedia healthier and lighter to the reader. Not the case in this intense one sided narrative promoted here.Sawyersx (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is laughable, you're essentially saying that painting a realistic image of conquistadors as colonizing conquerors is nothing more than the Black Legend. Well I'm a Portuguese person who is not left-wing (not that any of that should matter) and I have no problem with the representation this article. A conquistador is simply a term for Iberian military conquerors who led colonization efforts across the PT & ES empires, so how can you expect the article to cover anything other than their involvement in colonialism. I would say the article is rather neutral in its laying out of the facts, it seems you are the one coming in here with WP:POV. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biasedness 

message: Could someone add some sources/citations for the information under 'Early Portuguese Period'? It's located in the 'History' Header.
It states that "Before the Age of Conquest began, the continental Europe already associated darker skin color with slave-class, attributing to the slaves of African origins."
I'm struggling to find contemporary information supporting this claim. There aren't any sources provided. I'm not trying to start any arguments, I'd just like more information on this topic that supports the claim. 2600:100F:B12E:549F:F820:5682:A86E:3342 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: Hi 2601:80:C87F:DB00:DCE4:6F0E:E76E:216B (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: V 174.16.188.115 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  B 

message: An article about Conquistadors without mentioning their legendary horses? Really? 67.143.208.2 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horses 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Just stumbled on this article and saw this:
:The 2004 discovery of the New World by Spain rendered desirable a delimitation of the Spanish and Portuguese spheres of exploration. Thus dividing the world into two areas of exploration and colonization.
2004? Also the grammar is bad (2nd sentence should probably be a clause of the 1st, or something), and it just sounds bad ("rendered desirable a delimitation"?).
I don't know anything about the topic and I have no idea how to fix this article. But I can tell it's junk. Denbosch (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. That "2004" was obviously vandalization, and there's nothing wrong with "rendered desirable a delimitation". If you don't know anything about the subject, then you're in no position to call it junk based on one malicious edit made by a vandal and one phrase you don't like the sound of because you apparently don't know the meaning of "delimitation". Oxford Languages defines it as "the action of fixing the boundary or limits of something", which is perfectly appropriate in the context. Carlstak (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, sorry for offending! I do know what delimitation means; my issue was with "rendered desirable a delimitation", which I would call bad writing. And the second sentence is a fragment, and plain wrong in my view. Denbosch (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This can't be right 

message: The description of why the Spanish wanted to and did conquer South and Central America is odd. Saying the Spanish told lies about native people and their inferiority which allowed them to conquer them doesn't make sense. To an extent the native people were inferior e.g. no steel weapons, horses and large sailing boats. But to say this was the justification for Spanish Conquest is a wild oversimplification. Conquistador1519 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph