From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSpanish conquest of Yucatán has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSpanish conquest of Yucatán is part of the Spanish conquest of the Maya series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2014 Good article nomineeListed
April 16, 2015 Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on November 3, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although a battle near Mérida in 1546 established Spanish control in the north of the Yucatán Peninsula during the Spanish conquest, the last Maya kingdom in the south did not fall until 1697?
Current status: Good article

Comment

Perhaps where it says a great many people died, it could be elaborated on? It is quite the event. I think Jefferey Diamond or Matthew Restalls books will have a good account of this.

Well, I guess someone should add some information about the Spanish atrocities which followed the conquest. Asharidu

Independent Native Mesoamerican State

The article ends with " Mesoamerica was not to see another independent native state for over a hundred years." What independent native state would that be? Could whoever wrote that please elaborate or at least clarify that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.231.180 ( talk) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Addition to the article

Hello. I recently read "Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan" by Inga Clendinnen, and I would like to add some of its information. The problem is, is that the numbers and information given in the article already contradicts some of my notes. For instance, my book states tha Grijalva's expedition included 240 men. There is also some other contradictions here like the numbers given that 1,200 Maya died in a battle near Chauca; the only battle near Chauca I can think of with these numbers was at Tiho in 1542. The natives near Chauca were allies since the current of the peninsula stopped around there, and threrefore accustomed their port to allow the Spanish ships. Does anyone have a problem with me reverting some of the information seeing that the book I read won awards and Inga is a well known author? Again—like I did before on other article with the same problem, I will sometimes add the two opposing numbers and divide them by 2 (if the author is well known). Thanks for you time. InternetHero ( talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I don't think that averaging the figures given by different sources is the way to go, as that could probably be seen to contravene our WP:NOR and WP:SYN policies. Also, there's no real reason to suppose that the 'true' or most likely figure lies halfway between the numbers given by different sources.
For situations like this (which are reasonably common), IMO the best approach would be to make clear what each of the different sources—preferably the primary ones if they are accessible, if not then reliable secondary ones—has to say. So, something like, "primary source X gives a as the number, however source Y gives a higher figure, b". Or along those lines, anyway.
For the numbers in Grijalva's expedition, one of the primary sources (Bernal Diaz) gives 240 as the complement, and I've now noted that in the article. Haven't consulted them yet, but it's possible other primary sources like Gomara or Juan Diaz supply different figures. If they do, or other secondary sources mention other numbers, these can be provided too.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I understand. Sincerely, InternetHero ( talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I checked Sharer and Traxler 2006, p. 759 (the original source cited in the article). It states there were 200 men NOT 260 which is what was originally written in this article. Probably a typo by the original author. As Diaz (a primary source) and Clendinnen (a Cambridge accredited secondary source) both agree on 240 I'm confident this is an appropriate number to use.

My edits on the article

@ Simon Burchell:, I see you reverted most of my edits on the article. Let me give you some arguments why I made them:

  1. "De" is part of the Spanish surname, as shortly explained in the article Spanish naming customs#The particle "de" (of); when the given name is omitted, the particle "de" gets capitalized. It is part of the name; "Carlos Córdoba" or "Carlos de Córdoba" are two different people; "Córdoba went on a journey" refers to Carlos 1 and "De Córdoba went on a journey" refers to Carlos 2. For the other Spanish conquistadors that have a name composed with "de", the particle is used in their naming too. That is similar in the other languages; German; "Von Stauffenberg" and not "Stauffenberg", Portuguese; "Do Carvalho" and not "Carvalho", French: " Du Maurier" and not "Maurier", Dutch; "Van Oranje" and not "Oranje", etc.
  2. The use of "the" with Cozumel. That "the" does not refer to "the only island off the eastern Yucatán coast", but it refers back to the earlier text where the island is already described, so "the" links back to the knowledge gained by the reader. The use of "an island" then is strange; the reader already knows about Cozumel. Then better remove any particle and just use "Cozumel" or "Cozumel, off the eastern Yucatán coast" or similar. Using "an" is not logical; that would only be if it is the first time the island is described in that section.

You are the main editor of the article, so I won't revert your changes; your work is by far larger than mine, so I respect your changes, although I disagree with them. Tisquesusa ( talk) 16:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Tisquesusa. With regard to "de", it is not considered a part of the surname in most sources for the historical period in question. Books dicussing the Montejos and the Alvarados, both in English and in Spanish, omit the "de", which is not capitalised. In modern Spanish surnames, the "de" has sometimes become a part of the surname, and then is (sometimes) capitalised, and listed as part of the surname. As an example at random from Google Books, you can see from Juicio a un conquistador, Pedro de Alvarado: su proceso de residencia en Guatemala (1536-1538) by José María Vallejo García-Hevia that 1) in this Spanish language book, the "de" is not capitalised in the title of the book and 2) that the page I linked to, when discussing Alvarado without using his first name, does not use the "de" either. I linked page 481, on that page note 375 discusses Alvarado by his surname only. This was the first book with preview available that I came across on Google Books, and is by no means unusual. For an English language source, used in this article, see The Ancient Maya by Sharer and Traxler, I've linked Page 767 dicussing Montejo the Elder. I could give many, many more examples. Simon Burchell ( talk) 09:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
With regard to your second point, it is a fair point, as Cozumel has previously been discussed and its status as an island already established. That being the case, there is probably no reason to reiterate it being an island at all, and I have removed the statement. All the best, Simon Burchell ( talk) 09:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks Simon, for the explanation. I understand your choice; you respect the source material and take over the naming convention of that source. The sources I use for the Muisca in most cases correctly use "Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada" (in combination with the given name indeed the "de" is not capitalised) and "De Quesada" (when the given name is omitted, the "de" gets capitalised), so I take those conventions too. As Wikipedia is an open office of areas of expertise and choices of MOS that not necessarily conflict, and your status as the main editor about the Maya topics with great and rightly acclaimed articles, your choice counts.
Indeed the best solution for Cozumel I think too.
One other thing; I see the Maya articles (mostly by you I reckon) do not have "See also" chapters, while I have added those on the Muisca articles a lot, mainly because in the mobile version of Wikipedia the navboxes that have those links are not shown. I won't add See alsos to your Maya work, but it might be an idea to link to (the best; that's why I include the quality classes a lot) articles that are worth reading further? I linked to the Maya conquest articles (Yucatán, Petén, Guatemala, Honduras, Chiapas and the Maya) a lot, because they are so good and relevant further reading for the interested reader of the Muisca conquest, see Spanish conquest of the Muisca#See also. Cheers, Tisquesusa ( talk) 13:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
On the whole, if an article is relevant enough to include in a See also section, I have linked it from the article text. MOS changes a lot over time; it certainly used to be the case that if an article was linked from the text, then it shouldn't be included in the "See also" section. I just checked WP:MOSLINK and it does not specifically say that, although it does still say that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article" - so if a subject was linked from the body text, I would have removed it from the "See also" section. This is especially true of any article that has undergone GA, A-class, or FA review, where this would probably have been picked up by a reviewer. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
I know nothing about Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada, and looked him up on Google Books - I note that this book refers to him just as Quesada, which is actually what I would expect. Simon Burchell ( talk) 16:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spanish conquest of Yucatán. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong national ties to Belize

Assuming the topic of this article has strong national ties to Mexico and Belize, I–

  1. added the Template:Use dmy dates tag,
  2. added the Template:Use British English tag.

I don't think this should be controversial as the article already seems to use the English used in Belize (eg armour, kilometre). In addition, both Mexico and Belize use dmy dates. If the change was significant or controversial, please do tell!

Asdfjrjjj ( talk) 13:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Asdfjrjjj reply

No infobox

Noticed that this is one of the very few conflict articles rated as good without a conflict infobox. Is there a reason one does not exist or should one be created? Bly000 ( talk) 21:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Spanish_conquest_of_Yucatán&oldid=1210480173"