Talk:Pueblo

message: the definition under law with the one informed by the folklore of people who had little knowledge of the indigenous communities of the American SouthWest. There are pueblos and there are reservations, side by side in some areas. One was established by the King of Spain and the other by the United States Congress. The definition in folklore - mud house - started with those postcards wealthy tourists carried home from their vacations. Having this one on the page is both beautiful and offensive. Most of the pueblos have prohibitions against photography in their community. Rainchild 07:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Living in a 'pueblo' in Spain, I am surprised to see the confident assertion at the beginning of the main article that "Pueblos are traditional Native American communities of the Southwest United States of America." Although the article goes on to concede that "On the central Spanish meseta the unit of settlement was and is the pueblo . . ", the remainder of the article appears to ignore the fact that by far the most common usage of the term is in relation to Spanish pueblos rather than the certainly far less numerous North American variants. I have no objection whatsoever to an article on North American pueblos.  However, I think the article should make it clear at the outset that it's purpose is specifically to discuss the North American pueblo and the preliminary definition at the article should make this restricted sense clear. Johngosling 12:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an English-language Wikipedia, so we are using the English definition of the term. Yuchitown (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pueblo?

message: The quality of this article seems to have deteriorated substantially over the last six months and has never been equal to that of Pueblo_people.  Does anyone else think that it would make more sense to discuss Pueblos from within the discussion of the Pueblo people?Bridgewater 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (& if the quality did actually deteriorate, revert.) -114.91.69.42 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article? 

message: On 15 July 2008, an editor added "Pueblos are also used as houses in some cases."  I removed this because it demonstrates a failure to read the article by the editor. The article refers to the fact that "adobe buildings" "are sometimes called pueblos."  But the article makes the meaning of the word pueblo reasonably clear, and that is not a synonym for "building".  While it is true that people did and do live in pueblos, have there homes in them, etc.  It is misleading to call such pueblo dwellings "houses", where "set of rooms" is more appropriate. Now modern pueblos (in the sense of community or town) often have separate houses, that it not the type of building that pueblo refers to in the sense "adobe buildings"; those are large, multiple use, interconnected-room buildings. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Houses

message: I came across this article almost by accident and will make a suggestion only as to law, following an invitation at large (unclear from whom) made in 2004.  In a legal context, "Crown of Spain" and "King of Spain" would presumably mean the same - that is, the Spanish head of state considered as an abstract, juristic person.  See, further, Ernst Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies (1957).  This is what is meant when, in the UK, a criminal prosecution is brought by "the Crown";  Elizabeth Windsor does not, and constitutionally must not, have anything to do with it.  "The Crown" there is as abstract as, say, being prosecuted by "State of Kentucky".  It is similar to the legal personality of a public authority, both in governing and in entering into contracts.  Whether the abstraction has monarchical, republican or other political content may be unimportant for this purpose.
It would be in that capacity that a King of Spain would, for example, have entered into a treaty with another country.  It would make no difference, legally, if the king personally had a hand in the negotiations or signed the treaty personally.  What was done would be done by Spain, through the king's name as the name of the abstract, juristic person.
What would matter, however, would be the king managing some place as his personal domain, as Leopold II once did with the Belgian Congo.
Hope this may assist. --Wikiain (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: King and Crown

message: This article sows confusion by focusing on one meaning of pueblo, while giving only passing mention to the civic unit of Spain, and no mention at all to the numerous non-Native American pueblos established in New Spain by the colonial government. For example: the cities of Los Angeles and San Jose, California both began as colonial pueblos.
I agree with the editor above who proposed that this article be merged with Puebloan peoples. Failing that, some disambiguation is needed until a separate article can be composed about the Spanish colonial pueblo. I propose to:
:1. move this entire page to a new page titled "Pueblo (Native American)", 
:2. create a "red link", and eventually a new article called "Pueblo (New Spain)" (or maybe a larger and more general article about colonial organization in New Spain),
:3. update the disambiguation page.
 
Comments, editors? WCCasey (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed 

message: Substituted at 03:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following seems incomplete and out of place: 
There is a legend that states “ There are mountain lions that breaks into peoples houses.” DaddyDevito (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction paragraph 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a narrow consensus that the current topic remains the primary topic. And conversely, there is definitely no consensus the other way.   — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 March 2024 

message: That's a reasonable summary of the !votes, but what is the current topic: people, settlements, both or something else? Certes (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The settlements, lands, and civic institutions (geographical, physical, governmental, and legal aspects of the Pueblos), while the ethic group conversations go on the Pueblo peoples page (language, etc.). For instance, the feast days should probably be moved here, since those are when outsiders engage with the pueblos (the physical/geographic villages) the most. Yuchitown (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic 

message: I appreciate the discussion of the geography of Pueblo settlements. I am having trouble finding information about which tribes or peoples historically resided near the Pueblo, especially to the south. Fluoborate (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical neighbors of the Pueblo?