Talk:New Spain

message: I´m not completely sure, but I think that Venezuela was also part of New Spain before the stablishment of the Viceroyalty of New Granada.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.178.80.22 (talk • contribs) 
As of 2017-11-10 the article says, "Venezuela annexed to Viceroyalty of New Granada - 27 May 1717".  Yet the map in this New Spain article claims that Venezuela was part of New Spain in 1795.  
Shouldn't the map be redrawn without Venezula -- or the date changed to before 1717?  
Thanks for this useful article and map.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezula 

message: New Spain conquered Fort St. Joseph in present-day Michigan in a 1781 Expedition. It's present-day location, the City of Niles, calls itself the City of Four Flags in reference to all the countries that once ruled it: France, Britain, Spain, and America.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.168.114 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Michigan

message: "Quite often, rape was a factor in the reproduction of mixed-race children."  No citation.
"Unfortunately this trait has never quite disappeared."  Obvious bias.
"most Afromexicans prefer to be considered mestizo, since they feel more identified with this group." No citation.
Several other portions have no mention of sources, either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Salk (talk • contribs) 
"While they often held the Christian god to be an important deity because it was the god of the victorious...'
This sounds like conjecture with no citation provided. The probability of having reliable evidence of such an assertion would be very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias & Uncited work 

message: As the map clearly shows, New Spain was more than the country of Mexico.  Besides including the American Southwest, it also included Central American countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama.
So... the problem is that, at the end of the article, the text starts to talk specifically about Mexico.
:  and  were nevertheless not allowed in the upper levels of the government or any other position of power, and eventually they joined forces for the independence of Mexico. With independence, the caste system and slavery were theoretically abolished.
: , while they no longer have a separate legal status from other groups, comprise approximately 60–65% of the population. Whites, who no longer have a special legal status, are thought to be about 15–20% of the population and still have most of the desirable jobs. In modern Mexico,  has became more a cultural term, since a Native American that abandons his traditional ways is considered a mestizo, also most Afromexicans prefer to be considered , since they feel more identified with this group.
There are a couple different ways to fix the problem...
# Change the text to be more general and thus applicable to all of New Spain (could be difficult to do)
# Create a section called "race relations in Mexico" (except this begs the question of why the sudden focus on Mexico)
# Change the text to make it clear that we are just using Mexico as an example
# Delete the above text from the article
--Richard 07:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing New Spain with Mexico 

message: Is the map really anachronistic?  It seems to depict New Spain as it existed after the recovery of Florida in 1783 and before the sale of Louisiana in 1800 (or perhaps the signature of Pinckney's treaty in 1795 and the abandonment of claims to modern Mississippi and Alabama.)  Should we perhaps indicate it as a map of New Spain in 1783? john k 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did just that, only I used the year 1789 to depict Fort San Miguel. As always, corrections are welcome. Albrecht (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  map anachronstic? 

message: This article puts too much of an emfasis on Mexico. What about all the other Latin American countries, icluding the Philipines. None this is even mentioned in this article. This article needs to expand to mention other Latin American countries, including the Philipines.
:The Philippines is not a "latin American" country... C.Kent87 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more work

message: The flag reported as the flag of New Spain is not so. This flag is known as "Cruz de Borgoña" (Cross of Burgundy), and, according to Santiago Dotor, from Flags of the World, was the Spanish military flag from the 16th century up to 1843, when the colours of the 1785 War Ensign were adopted for use on land too.  So it may have been used in New Spain as well as in any other territory within the Spanish Empire as flag of the Army. Archael Tzaraath 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Flag

message: The Bourbon reforms section of this article doesn't really discuss anything specifically related to the Bourbon reforms and rather concentrates on political and military conflicts during the period. Attention should be given to changes in the civil leadership (particularly the appointment of peninsular spaniards instead of criollos in high positions) and the changes in culture that accompanied these reforms. I do not have particular expertise in this matter, otherwise I would have added these changes myself. 128.120.58.142 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bourbon Reforms 

message: Anselmocisneros 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can such a long article be a "stub"????—Cesar Tort 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: This article through and through is told from the perspective of the colonizers and minimizes the brutality against indigenous folks. Lists of conquistadores, dates, conquests, trade routes. Almost nothing about how they conquered, or what life was like for the conquered-- that is, most people who lived there. These topics are minimized and relegated to the "Criticism of the Spanish Presense", while they should be the main thrust of the article. Nlevitt 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a problem here.  If all sort of Spanish brutalities are to be mentioned, the brighter side of the conquest would have to be mentioned as well: especially the termination of the omnipresent human sacrifices in pre-Columbian cultures, which included infanticide rituals not only in Mesoamerica but in the Inca region as well. —Cesar Tort 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the "brighter side of the conquest"?  Surely you're joking. --141.157.106.115 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding. It was brighter for the kids who, after the conquest, escaped sacrifice by their parents. Take a look at this Discovery Channel article. —Cesar Tort 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I propose either (1) to remove the pov tag, or (2) to mention briefly both: the atrocities committed by the conquistadors (e.g., those cited by Bartolomé de las Casas) and the atrocities committed by the Indians (e.g., those cited in the article Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures). —Cesar Tort 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If no objections, I'll remove the tag by the weekend. —Cesar Tort 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm gonna put the NPOV tag back up. Every culture has reprehensible customs, including the pre-Columbian cultures, and the Spanish. I have no problem with those being discussed, though it would be more appropriate to talk about them on their respective pages. But this article is about New Spain, which means it's about how Spain conquered, occupied, exploited and to a great extent destroyed the people of the Americas. Nlevitt 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The natives were destroying themselves long before the Spaniards came via endless wars and human sacrifices. So the brutality of the Spanish conquest was nothing new or extraordinary to them in general. This article is about colonial Mexico and other lands belonging to New Spain( society, culture, economy), not about the conquest. You may try to add your anti-Spanish hatred to the "Spanish conquest of Mexico" article but not here.   
Isidoros47 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: I'm cleaning up the white american page and removing material that isn't related to groups' perceived whiteness (which is what the article there is about).  There was a history of Spanish exploration in the United States on that page.   I'm pasting it here so it can be merged into this article if necessary.  Calliopejen1 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info from [[White American]] page

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article needs a good map of New Spain. Something like this. Can anyone find one we can use? Kingturtle (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the Phillippines issue in the previous section, the map should show Spanish claims north to Alaska 1770s-1819; the 42nd Parallel limitation only took place in the last few years of New Spain's existence (what was north of the line was considered part of California.....Fort San Miguel on Nootka Sound was very much part of New Spain, as the Spanish saw things....).Skookum1 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Found this:
:The Nootka Convention (1791) resolved the dispute between Spain and Great Britain about the British settlements in Oregon to British Columbia.'
That's so wrong I don't have time to rejig it right now; basically at its maximum Spanish possessions, as claimed, in the Pacific Northwest extended to Cook Sound or the longitude of Mount Saint Elias, can't remember which.  This overlap with Russian claims was resolved by the Russo-Spanish Treaty that established the 42nd parallel as the division of their interests (though Fort Ross was built south of it afterwards).  the Nootka Crisis was extremely complex and had more to do with Spain vs. Britain on the world stage than directly affecting New Spain, although effectively by the conventions Spain agreed to the rights of other nations to partake in the trade and exploration of the entire coast, and also gave Spain a way to bow out of Nootka Sound, which was a distant and expensive post to maintain vs. Monterey, which is where the North Pacific HQ was withdrawn to (Nootka had been a field-post out of San Blas).  Fort San Miguel was the only physical outpost, but "acts of taking possesion" were staged all the way up to Valdez, Alaska, at many points along the "Oregon to BC" coastline. There were no British settlements at the time in what is now Oregon; it may be argued that Nootka Sound was in the Oregon Country, but the latter name or concept hadn't even been come up with yet...nor British Columbia either of course).  There's not much on the Spanish era in teh Pacific Northwest here; the relevant time-section is about Louisiana et al...I'll see what I can add about what Nootka means, but there's a whole section waiting to be written here on the various captains and explorations and the circumtances of how Spain withdrew from claims to Alaska all the way back to California....This was also New Spain ,at least in cotntemporary Spanish governmental eyes (which as the point of the Nootka Crisis, on their end...)Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh my goodness...

message: The information about the administrative structure of New Spain is confusing. Considering this article and the spanish one i found capitania generals, (autonomous) kingdoms, provincias, intendancias, audiencias, gobernaciones as terms for units. I didn't find out if they existed side by side (equal but with different names) or if one unit consisted of another class/category of units. Also the map doesn't help, on the contrary. Maybe someone can produce relief.--Severino (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions 

message: Hi! I was looking at the infobox under "today part of" and Kansas is missing even though it's shaded in the map. Is this a mistake or is there a reason for this? --Bentendo24 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox missing Kansas? 

message: We don't need the title "Viceroyalty of New Spain". "New Spain" is simpler and a much more common term for it, and there's nothing else by the title that this would be confused with.--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Viceroyalty

message: Nomination here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Category name

message: It says "The Viceroy commissioned Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo in the first Spanish exploration up the Pacific Ocean along the western coast of the Las Californias Province in 1542–1543."
But when was Las Californias Province established? Eldizzino (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed references to names the didn't yet exist in 1542. WCCasey (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Californias Province in 1542–1543 

message: Removed three original (WP:OR) maps containing numerous errors: 
*File:Viceroyalty of the New Spain 1819 (without Philippines).png|thumb|300px|New Spain after the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 (not including the island territories of the Pacific Ocean).
*File:Viceroyalty of the New Spain 1800 (without Philippines).png|thumb|300px|New Spain 1800 (not including the island territories of the Pacific Ocean).
*File:Spanish Caribbean Islands in the American Viceroyalties 1600.png|thumb|300px|Spanish Caribbean Islands in the American Viceroyalties in 1600.
The information these maps intended to convey is important; better maps are available and would be welcome. WCCasey (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed OR maps 

message: This is an error.  New Spain was not a kingdom.  There were no kings of New Spain.  It was always a viceroyalty, a specific political entity subordinate to the King of Spain.  Furthermore, it's ludicrous to say that it was not a colony.  It was in fact colonized by the Spanish and never independent of Spain.  The article requires editing to clarify all this. Tmangray (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingdom?

message: Whenever I click anywhere on the page, I get linked to a Twitch stream. I made a Google search, and it seems that this kind of vandalism has been done before... - VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever that was it seems to be gone now... - VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious vandalism 

message: Can someone please add the date range to the heading, "Economy during the Habsburg era"?  It would make it easier to understand.  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added dates. Amuseclio (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy during the Habsburg era -- when was that? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Links in the middle of the page seem to be placed in backwards. Can someone fix it? Jordf32123 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links 

message: You mention 1419 and 1420 as years in the summary section for the establishment of the vice royalty of New Spain.
New Spain is considered to be by and large in the Americas plus Oceania.
How can that year be right if 1492 is commonly referred to as the year for Columbus discovery of the Americas?
The vice royalty would had to be formed before the discovery ...
I think (might be wrong as I am not to deep into that period) that we have to change it to 1519 and 1520 respectively.
To the owner of the page:
Please find the right date and fix NormanBuck (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dates in the summary section seem off 

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.   -- Calidum 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: New Spain →  – Per WP: CONSISTENT, this is the only one out of the 4 Viceroyalties, the others being aptly named Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, Viceroyalty of New Granada, and Viceroyalty of Peru that does not have "Viceroyalty'" on it's title so I think it should be consistent with the other article titles. Please let me know what you think, thanks! PyroFloe (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 February 2021 

message: you added this ref name last year, but forgot to fill in the definition. Could you add your source info there? Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Thank you for informing me, I read a book mentioning that but I forgot the specific page and author and it was 1 year ago so I have to rumage through my history to get the citations needed, I'm busy at work in the day though, I can't give assurances since I'm super busy too since family members died, mother-in-law and cousin, and I'm preparing their resting places, maybe in a week or two I'll get back to you, but anyway, thank you for informing me! Have a good day.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The London Magazine" ref 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I am not going to ask that the flag be changed; it seems that has been argued about enough already. I am asking, however, that the flag be placed alongside the coat of arms in the same box, rather than the flag have its own box. No other country articles on Wikipedia use this format, and it looks disorganized.
TLDR: Place flag alongside Coat of Arms in the same box.
This message applies to any other article on Spanish colonies.
296cherry (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles use this format, See . In the case of the viceroyalties, they have their own coat of arms, but no their own flag. The Spanish flag, the red and yellow flag and/or the burgundy cross are used. Vicentemovil (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I have reverted because those Spanish flags are not proper flags of the viceroyalty. Vicentemovil (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag and formatting 

message: I noticed some parts of the article use the term "Indians", and I know its referring to indigenous people, but I thought some readers could mistake this to mean people from India since the context doesn't always make it immediately clear. I was wondering if we should standardize to say indigenous people throughout the article, or do we prefer it the current way even though its inconsistent? There is probably a relevant guideline but I can't remember it.  Pythagimedes (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous vs Indian 

message: Why is the map in the infobox described as anachronistic? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronist what?