Talk:Puebloans

message: The Field Museum has a nice collection of pottery, old and new, from the Pueblo people. For example, Cicuye pueblo showed notable facility and creativity. It would change the feel of the web page to add it; is that all right? If so, how it be in a separate header "Gallery of Pueblo pottery"? I can upload my images to that header on this page, if everyone is amenable. --Ancheta Wis 11:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: go for it.  If someome says that it should go on a Pueblo Culture or Pueblo pottery page, [nothing there now] ask them to start one, or, do it yourself.  Your pictures probably should be somewhere here, especially if you have good labels or text to accompany them.  Carptrash 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery of pottery (bowls) by Pueblo people 

message: The change from San Juan Pueblo to Ohkay Owingeh is official as of today, according to this AP story.  —JerryFriedman 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks.  I am going to be driving past Ohkay Owingeh tomorrow and am curious to see if the road signs are changed or not.  Given that the name is being changed from an Hispanic one to a native one I'm guessing that signage changes will not show up for a while.  Of course there is always the possibility that the "San Juan signs will disappear overnight - so it will be interesting to observe.  Carptrash 19:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS My in-house astrologer tells me that today is the perfect day to do this name change on.  A full moon, while Mercury is retrograde is a great time to revert back to what they used to be. Carptrash 19:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for name change 

message: Since there has been no discussion about the merger proposal from April 2007, I am removing the tag. There is obviously a difference between Puebloan peoples and Pueblos. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rvv --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think such a merger is advisable, the word 'pueblo' is often used to refer to the particular type of settlement used by Puebloan peoples.Synchronism (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger tag

message: How can the Puebloan peoples be classed together when the Zuni language is an isolate, completely unrelated to Hopi? Is it solely a cultural classification? A. Parrot (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They all live in the southwest, they all practice agriculture, they all came under the influence of other cultures, who named them for the pueblos they lived in. Separate languages also exist for others, such as the Chinese people etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: that the Colorado section is a good addition to the article.  The various states included are an Anglo overlay of largely Pueblo lands.  Since some current Pueblo people trace their ancestry back to southern Colorado - in many places just inches from NM or AZ, I think that it should stay.  I think that another linked article could be done for Pueblo ruins if they are to be mostly left out of this article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue against that inclusion, simply because the article doesn't appear to really address Puebloan history, archaeology, oral history, etc. Different Pueblos trace their ancestry to places all over the Southwest, I wouldn't expect the article to list them all.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems to me 

message: "This group stands in contrast to the Rammal-speaking Pueblos (except Jemez) ..." -- what the heck is Rammal? 71.90.73.192 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Rammal' has been in the article for years. I do not know the language topics. Please feel free to improve the language designation. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rammal-speaking 

message: One of the more interesting things my father who spent time visiting the pueblos told me of was their use of burros. An adult burro is difficult to get up the trails to the pueblos so weaned juvenile burros were carried up by humans. The burros would spend most of their lives as beasts of burden for humans. At the time they arrive the humans are beasts of burden for burros.RichardBond (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of burros 

message: "The only reason they live in pueblos is because in the morning it is so HOT so it keeps the house cool and at night it is cool so it keeps the house warm. Pueblos are made out of adobe. Adobe is a type of clay traditionally used as a building material by Native Americans and later, Spanish colonists in the Southwest."  
:This was in the "Subdivision" section and (1) does not belong there and (2) might not belong anywhere in the article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One criticism is that it accepts the pueblo adobe as a given, rather than something that evolved. The Mogollon to the south, in the prehistoric lands that were to become the US and Mexico, show a seamless evolution, from stick huts on the plains, and from caves in the mountains (for example, the nooks and crannies of Hueco Tanks), to single dwellings, to dwellings with porches, to multiple room dwellings, to pueblos with multiple story, multi-room dwellings. Right there it gives the lie to houses made only of adobe. The people used what they could find. The El Paso Museum of Archaeology, on Trans-Mountain Road, has a nice diorama showing the interrelations of the types of dwellings to be found in pre-Columbian times, such as the Cueva de la Olla (archaeological site), which is located in the Sierra Madre Occidental mountains in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. (In the Fort Bliss area alone, (about the size of Rhode Island)  there are 18,000 archaeological sites.) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just cut this good faith section out and am moving it here to discuss 

message: This edit has broken the citation. Please revert it yourself, until you fix it. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken ref 

message: Substituted at 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I am wondering what Pueblos there are in Texas, as the lede states. Carptrash (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see it. Carptrash (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas?  

message: Could someone explain why "Pueblo" is a proper noun and capitalized? If it was some sort of nation, what did they call themselves?
And then why isn't it in italic as a foreign word? Or is it now an English word, like "taco" and "tortilla"? deisenbe (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalized? italic? 

message: There is very little information on this article about the fate of the Pueblo after the Pueblo Revolt. It's hard to believe that nothing happened from then to American incorporation. What was Mexican occupation like? American occupation? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish invaded again. See Pueblo Revolt#Reconquest. Yuchitown (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the Pueblo after the Pueblo Revolt? 

message: I know that WP:Ethnic groups has found many problems with the related groups parameter in the ethnic group infobox. Navajos, Utes, and Hispanos all live in the same region as Pueblo peoples today (Comanche did in the 18th and early 19th century but not now) but don't have common origins and aren't linguistically related. Comanches split from the Shoshone in the Great Basin, actively raided Pueblo communities, then quickly moved onto the Southern Plains. There's even very little intermarriage between Pueblo people and Comanche (I can think of exactly one family). It seems better to just delete this parameter than lump Pueblo people in with totally different ethnic groups that invaded their lands, but if folks here insist on keeping the "related" field, I'll try to find better information from better sources. Yuchitown (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If an umbrella article can name, but separate the groups, they are distinct and even non-coeval with the Puebloans, and the Hopi, and the Tohono Oʼodham. I am thinking of the Tarahumara, the Yaqui (from Mexico), or the Kiowa (who see Hueco Tanks in El Paso as part of their heritage), or the ancient Hohokam (in Chihuahua) and the Mogollon culture, or the Apache from the Spanish-descended 'Hispanos', it would be better for the encyclopedia.  The distances were vast before the re-introduction of the horse, which allowed the Kiowa to come to Hueco Tanks (which had harbored human populations for 10,000 years). I would agree with separation of Hispanos from the infobox. They might live in New Mexico, but they are non-associated with Puebloans. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 19:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Kiowas are linguistically related (which is an intriguing mystery since they hail from the Northern Rockies), but that's about it. Apache aren't related culturally or linguistically; they just moved into Pueblo lands centuries ago. Perhaps Ancestral Pueblo peoples should be listed in related groups? (If it's retained; deleting "related" as has been done with many other ethnic groups would be far less of a headache.) Hopi are often considered to be Pueblo, so that makes sense, as does Mogollon. Tohono O'odham are neighbors to the west, but how are they related? Don't see the connection to Yaqui or Tarahumara. Yuchitown (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting 'related' groups from the infobox. What I fear is the backlash of Puebloans against 'Hispanos' (2007), and Equestrian statue of Juan de Oñate (2020). Memories are long. I only know of Yaqui or Tarahumara in their relation to the Mexican Revolution (the Yaqui especially were revolutionaries). I agree that the Puebloans did not participate in the Mexican revolution. But many groups rose up during the revolution, including brujas and what are called feminists today.   --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 23:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you that the other "related" groups do not belong in the Infobox. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 23:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related groups 

message: Talk:Pueblo#Requested move 7 March 2024 is discussing  the articles :Pueblo and :Puebloans, what the topic of the former article is or should be, and what if anything is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the word "Pueblo". Comments are welcome there. jnestorius(talk) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger or rename proposal