Talk:Juan de Oñate

message: in the article is, i believe, from the cover of Marc Simmons book, The Last Conquistador.  It was painted by Jose Cisneros, a well known artist, was is, I think, still alive.  I have asked the person who posted the picture to defend it, but if i don't hear pretty soon i think it needs to be removed.  In fact, i will remove it. Any other thoughts?  Carptrash 06:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, no one spoke up to save the image, so i'm takin' it out. Carptrash 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture of [[Juan de Oñate]] 

message: I've reverted a long rant against the PBS show as unencyclopedic -- here's the opening sentence:
"  	"The Last Conquistador" by John Valadez is full of lies and propaganda being used to vilify don Juan de Oñate, the Spanish, and Catholics. "
Nevertheless, there might be something of value here, if someone has the time & energy to sort through the rant and distill it to a line or two. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed rant re PBS show

message: an annon editor's edit that had Oñate listed as, "a New Spaniard/Mexican explorer,".  The editor added the phrase "New Spaniard" a couple of times and I thought that we might as well discuss it here first.  Is this a good edit?  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is best to avoid stating nationality, since saying "Mexican" is anachronistic and he probably didn't identify as a "New Spaniard". In his own period he would have been identified as a Criollo.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I rewrote it to "Mexican-Spanish" because that is what we would call him in modern times and this is what readers will immediately understand, although it is clear that neither Mexico nor Spain existed in their present forms then, thus I specify in parenthesis "New Spanish" and link to "New Spain" because this is historically accurate as it was the old name of Mexico when adjoined to the Spanish Empire.--Coyotecal (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just undid 

message: It seems to me that in the lede "was a Novohispanic conquistador, “ says everything that “was a Mexican-Spanish (New Spanish) conquistador, “ does, in a less crowded, confusing manner.  To avoid an edit war I am hoping that a few other editors will show up and offer an opinion. Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone familiar with the history of the Spanish Empire it might, but a casual reader will find it more easy to read and understandable by adding the few words. "Novohispanic" does not say anything to most readers unfamiliar with such history I believe but everyone in the world understands "Mexican-Spanish" which has the same meaning in different historical contexts. I appreciate your proposal and likewise would be open to other opinions.--Coyotecal (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote it to "Mexican-Spanish" because that is what we would call him in modern times and this is what readers will immediately understand, although it is clear that neither Mexico nor Spain existed in their present forms then, thus I specify in parenthesis "New Spanish" and link to "New Spain" because this is historically accurate as it was the old name of Mexico when adjoined to the Spanish Empire.--Coyotecal (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making several assumptions that need to be considered.  Firstly, "what we would call him" should perhaps read "what I would call him" because it's not what I'd call him, and "this is what readers will immediately understand" is another way of saying that you know what's in a readers mind, someone, say, from India, who knows nothing about the history of the New World might "immediately understand".Carptrash (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Carptrash. "Novohispanic" says exactly what we need to say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

text: What would you call him in modern times then? He was born in modern day Mexico and was a subject of Spain, like all Mexicans back then. "Novohispanic" is an obscure word for an Indian who knows nothing about the New World, following your example, but she would almost certainly understand what it means to be a "Mexican-Spanish" person. That's why I'm trying to make a balance here and keep both, while you're asking "Mexican-Spanish" to be removed just on the ground that it is "less crowded". How about the following then: “was a Mexican-Spanish (Novohispanic) conquistador, “. --Coyotecal (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to New Spain is there for anyone who may be confused. I suppose we could use some other word than Novohispanic - perhaps "conquistador from New Spain" might be clearer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter (opinion) what modern country he was born in.  Had he been born in Santa Fe (which I do understand was not founded then) no one (I think) would suggest calling him an American.  So okay, take out the link to Mexico but leave the one to the Spanish Empire.  Again, why do you assume that our hypothetic Indian would know what "it means to be a "Mexican-Spanish" person."  If we were talking about ethnic, regional, political stuff in 16th century India, I won't speak for you but I would get lost pretty quickly.  But I undid your edit and you undid mine and I am not inclined to revisit that particular section of the article for, let's say a year or two.  Anyone else does what they need to do to make the article better. Carptrash (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Agree with Glendoremus: "conquistador from New Spain" (with links) is concise, and all additional information any reader might need can be found in the linked articles. WCCasey (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. At this diff I have made the change. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion needed, please