Talk:Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire

message: I noticed that people were putting general information about the Spanish Conquest of Mexico/Central-America in this Article specialized for the Conquest of the Aztecs. This is like going into the First Italo-Ethiopian war Wiki and seeing stuff about the conquests of somalia/sudan/kenya/ect... in there. 
There is already an article for the  Spanish Colonization of the Americas. If people want to be more specific, maybe an article for these other conquests of the region will help declutter this wiki Article, something like "Spanish Conquest of Mesoamerica," instead of having the section for "Further Spanish Wars of Conquest."  I did read the portion (of this wikitalk) of people talking about the article's name, though I don't think it's a problem, there should be separate articles for each conquest anyways(and a few general ones).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomokokuroki (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs to be split into two articles

message: The article was moved from (swapped with) Spanish Conquest of Mexico per request. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name swapped with redirect 

message: I have rewritten the first half of the article which is where the copyright violations were.  The rewritten version of the article is in Spanish conquest of Mexico/Temp.
Richard 19:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed Richard's revamping, and I could no longer find any copyvio.  I have taken his work in Temp and copied it here, and removed the copyvio notice.  I see that a couple of folks have edited the file after the copyvio notice was added (the one which says "Please do not edit this page for the time being.").  Sorry to overwrite the changes.  Madman 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations removed by rewriting offending sections 

message: This article, like many on Wikipedia, has been edited by many authors.  Over time, issues with spelling, grammar and diction have been fixed but, as the article is expanded upon, new errors are introduced.  A major reason for this is that at least one of the authors is a Mexican who, although quite knowlegeable about the Aztecs and the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire, has a less than proficient command of the English language.  Those editors who are fluent in the English language are asked to be patient and diligent in finding and correcting any errors which may arise.
An alternative approach would be to have our expert write in Spanish and then have the Spanish text translated into English.  I suspect that doing things that way would slow down the development of this article considerably.
Richard 03:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of problems with spelling, grammar and diction 

message: The article text says "Legends say that he convinced the four leaders of Tlaxcala to become baptized."  The source is Hugh Tomas, "Conquest of Mexico" 1991.  My question is "Why is this attributed to legend?"  What is the source for this assertion and why do we attribute it to legend rather than say "according to Cortes" or "according to Bernal Diaz" or "according to Sahagun"?
Richard 07:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that is because that is what Hugh Tomas coments... Probably he does not trust his source on this. As i recall, he took form the "History of Tlaxcala" by muños camargo.  A tlaxtalteca who wrote after the conquest. but not all his writting is trutsworthy..  Nanahuatzin 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think i found the original source. An inscription in one off the oldest churchs in Mexico "El Exconvento de San Francisco ".  http://www.adopteunaobradearte.com/estados/tlaxcala/asun1.htm . But from the tone of some schollars (in the magazine "Arqueologia mexicana" ) they don´t see it as an historical truth, since the paintings look more like propaganda.. but maybe we should not bother the readers with this last detail... Nanahuatzin 02:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Cortes convince four Tlaxcala leaders to be baptized? 

message: In the Cortés as Quetzalcoatl section, we find the following:
:"In his letters to Charles V, Cortés claims to have learned at this point that he was considered by the Aztecs to be either an emissary of Quetzalcoatl or Quetzalcoatl himself."
and
:"Ironically, Cortes does not mention the alleged "god worship" episode in his letters to King Charles V of Spain. He may not even have known about it."
I am unfamiliar with the letters, but to me these seem contradictory.  Can someone straighten this out? Madman 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the letters, so let me check.. But if i remember well, Cortez did not mention the Quetzalcoatl cult in the known letters (two of them had been lost). But it was mentioned by Gomara. But the point to considered is that some historians question that Cortez was considered a god,   putting some doubts on the spanish writtings. Curiously the mexican historians did not question it, pointing that there are enough native  narrations to corroborate this. Nanahuatzin 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal contradiction in article?

message: The following text from the artice (under Cortés orders his fleet scuttled) is swiped directly from the PBS website:
:Those of his men still loyal to the Governor of Cuba conspired to seize a ship and escape to Cuba, but Cortés moved swiftly to quash their plans. To make sure such a mutiny did not happen again, he decided to sink his ships, on the pretext that they were not seaworthy.
I'm not sure what to do about this; do I just take out the text, or do I need to re-write it in different words?  –Benjamin  (talk)  19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A rewrite is better, but if you don't have time, just remove it.--Rockero 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Clearly different editors will have different standards for rating articles.  User:Kyriakos just recently demoted this article from "B-class" to "Start".  It would be nice if he would provide some explanation of what his standards are and what specific areas need to the most immediate attention.  Thanks. --Richard 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifying this article as "Start" rather than as "B-class" 

message: [QUOTE] I don't think the point is valid at all, publications since Prescott has used the title "Conquest of Mexico" to change that would only cause confusion and rightful accusations of political correctness and making of neologisms [/QUOTE]
It's not about political correctness, it's about historical accuracy.  Merely calling it the SPANISH CONQUEST is highly erroneous in itself because it grossly ignores the fact that the bulk of the army that defeated the Aztecs was made up of other indigenous people, lead of course by the newly arrived foreigners.  The popular version of this historical event in Western circles is the simplistic and flippant one that gives full credit (or almost) to europeans from the lowest rung of iberian society. Myths created specifically to make us believe that it was inevitable that a few hundred criminals (which most of the so-called "conquistadors" were, a misnomer if there ever was one) were destined to defeat an "inferior" primitive savage people. I highly recommend Matthew Restall's book "Seven's Myths" for a more balanced approach to recalling the events of this period in history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.133.31 (talk • contribs).
:I think we're all for historical accuracy; however, there is only so much information that the article title is able to convey, by itself. It would require absurd lengths to comprehensively describe and include all of the influences, participants and machinations in the title, which after all only needs to be a brief but recognisable label. The article's text is the place to describe the detail and subtlety, and this article does not neglect the roles played by Tlaxcala and others, or the internecine struggles and animosities. No doubt there is room for improving depth of coverage here, yet I'd not call the treatment here simplistic or flippant. And neither does this or any of the other Aztec articles seek to characterise them as inferior, primitive or savages.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 203.33.133.31 is arguing that the title should be changed to Conquest of Mexico or Conquest of the Aztec Empire or something like that.  Leaving off the word "Spanish" would probably go a long way to address his complaint. --Richard 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical accuracy and the title

message: Hello, for your information, here's a SVG map from Commons: :Image:Conquest of Mexico 1519-1521.svg. Historicair 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Cortés path 

message: Hello all. My name is Andrew and I am an undergraduate at the University of Toronto. Currently I am taking a course called "History of the Americas: Interaction and Inequality." My main interests are the conquests of the Aztecs and the Incas, and have been reviewing this topic and other Latin American topics in history. I made this contribution because I believe that the Indigenous account of the conquest is often overlooked. Soon, I hope to include more primary Indigenous accounts of the Spanish conquest.--Vandrew (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cortes as Quetzalcoatl contribs

message: Currently the opening paragraph reads: "The Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire was one of the most important campaigns in the Spanish colonization of America. The most important conquistador in this conquest was Hernán Cortés." If the article were truly balanced, there would also be something that read, "The fall of the Aztec Empire to Spanish conquest of the was one of the most largest slaughters under Spanish colonization of America. The most important resistance fighters were..." History gets to be wrtten by its victors. Wikipedia, we've got a long way to go. Morganfitzp (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening para comment

message: I suppose this should be "founds Veracruz".  I changed it. Campolongo (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cortés finds Veracruz

message: I notice that we have a red link to one Hernan Cortese, and he is also later refered to as Cortes. Should we change Hernan Cortese to Hernan Cortes and link it to the Wikipedia Article w/ the same name? That is who we are talking about, correct?
:His name is Hernan Cortés.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: His signature indicates he was "Fernando" Cortés, used in some modern monographs.  More standard in the scholarly literature in "Hernando" Cortés.  WP has decided his name is Hernán Cortés. Amuseclio (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cortese/Cortes 

message: Recently, the new IP editor  added  to this article. I agree, this article is scholarly but expresses biases.
:Yes. Often reads like a high-school textbook:
::*"The conquest must be understood .." Oh really, it must? 
::*"His History of the Conquest of Mexico, first published in 1843 remains an enormously engaging narrative of the conquest.." Thanks for your opinion! Is it really enormously engaging or simply massively awesome? 
:Looks like the result of an effort ca. 2006 (10 years ago).  -- GreenC 23:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree w/ tag 

message: Who was Cortez 
What did he do
Why did he do it 
Was he a bad or good guy CandyKat (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: no 2601:4A:C481:A680:FCD4:FE8A:DFCC:FA61 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Studies HW about Cortez 

message: "which might well have included those in Spain during the Christian reconquest of territory held by Muslims.[3]"
What has this got to do with the subject of the article? 82.26.78.212 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems Irrelevant 

message: An IP user has been making unsupported edits concerning numbers.   changed the number of Tlaxcala and other allies from ~80,000–200,000 to 200,000-500,000.  Perhaps someone could review this change? See User talk:2600:1700:7270:2CB0:4CC9:23BC:DAB8:79CF and User talk:2600:1700:7270:2CB0:592F:6D14:BAD8:DFA7.  Cxbrx (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in the number of Tlaxcala needs to be reviewed

message: I see the word New World some times in the article. We should change it because it is under old-fashioned European centralism in my opinion.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:GREATWRONG. We're not here to fix injustices, or wave politically correct flags, we're here to summarize information in a form that is usable by general readers. New World is a term used in many references, which is generally understood to mean the Americas. And no, we're not going to rename the continent to solve the problem that it's named after a European mapmaker. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your information about WP:GREATWRONG. I think there are many other words that I believe to be under old-fashioned European centralism as well as Middle East and Far East. Because I am not going to wave any political flags and have to accept facts that most people use them without any doubts, regrettably, I can no longer claim it.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the word ''New World'' right?