Talk:Mixtón War

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Mixtón Rebellion → Mixtón War — Much more common name. "Mixtón Rebellion" only gets 4 hits on Google Book Search and "Mixton Rebellion" without the accent gets 32, while "Mixtón War" gets 65 and "Mixton War" gets 458. Even the Spanish Wikipedia has Guerra del Mixtón. —Ptcamn (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• support, sounds quite reasonable to me. No issue with a move. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Flesh out the article a little. Provide references to more than a single printed source, one which I don't have convenient access to, even for the purpose of ascertaining whether our Wikipedia use agrees with the usage in that single source. Furthermore, as User:Erudy points out in the comment below, if the present evidence supports any move at all, it supports a move to Mixton War, not to Mixtón War. But this article is probably something quite insignificant, probably not meeting Wikipedia notability standards, at least as long as nobody is concerned enough about this article being hidden away in obscurity and unfindable because the name most people are most likely to come across in English won't get them anywhere if that redlinked term put in a link or entered in the "Go" box. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment. The notability of this conflict would be hard to dispute. It was one of the largest uprisings in Colonial New Spain, and is covered multiple contemporaneous sources, not to mention any modern serious historical account of the region. It was the conflict where Alvarado met his end. Granted, it's hard to glean its significance from the article in its present state, but that doesn't mean the topic itself is not a worthy entrant here. Like many thousands of other wikipedia articles, it's awaiting attention and improvement; given the comparatively few active editors with knowledge and interest in the field it's just not going to happen overnight. In any event I've added in a handful more references in case there should be any doubt re WP:N, and will look to work 'em into the text over the next little while. I don't quite see why a name change would be strongly opposed until the article is brought up to a higher standard (or do I misinterpret that comment...?)--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The statistical analysis above seems pretty convincing. "War" seems more common then "Rebellion". My only question: should the article perhaps be moved to Mixton War, without the accents, if this is what is most commonly used in English sources? The first sentence could then read "The Mixton War (Spanish: Guerra del Mixtón) was ..." Erudy (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A general Google search also supports Mixton War rather than the other choices presented here, eliminating some but not all of the bias introduced by Wikipedia:

Google	hits
"Mixtón War" -Mixton -Wikipedia	86 hits
"Mixton War" -Mixtón -Wikipedia	526 hits
"Mixtón Rebellion" -Mixton -Wikipedia	41 hits
"Mixton Rebellion" -Mixtón -Wikipedia	25 hits

Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of the book hits for "Mixton War" actually have "Mixtón War", probably due to Google's OCR misinterpretting ó as o. --Ptcamn (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, there's 6 hits for "Mixtdn War" and 1 for "Mixtbn War". --Ptcamn (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if you are searching for just Mixton without excluding Mixtón, it finds both; a larger number of hits than I have above ("Mixton War" -Wikipedia, 692 hits, for example). The other problem in your second message may relate to the use of various character sets on web pages, or on what somebody else pasted into a web page from a word processor or whatever. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a web search, this is a Google Books search, so character sets aren't an issue. This is an OCR issue. The hits for "Mixtdn" and "Mixtb" actually have Mixtón on the page, but the OCR software has misinterpretted the accent as the ascender of d or b. --Ptcamn (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite. "MixtOn War" is also another variant spat out by OCR renderings, that gets a few more hits. Searching under the spanish name "guerra del Mixt[o|ó]n" brings up plenty more. And quite a few other sources, both english and spanish, call it the Mizton war (both with and without the accent); yielding a further set of hits.

Having this article at Mixtón War (with the accent) is quite compatible with our current practice on Mesoamerican and colonial Mexican articles; namely, to preserve the origin-language orthography of a name, barring circumstances where there is a clear and widespread omission of diacritical characters when that name is written in english-language sources. In this case, the name is probably not well-known to the general public, and academic english-language sources as often as not preserve the accent. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roasting and Eating Juan De Arce

While it's a minor detail, it is not "dubious" as an editor has claimed. Ritual cannibalism was common among the Indians of Mexico. The specific reference which I will add to the text says of Juan de Arce that "le mataron, y asado se le comieron" which I would translate as "they killed him and they ate him roasted." I don't claim to speak perfect Spanish, especially 18th century Spanish, so if somebody wishes to contest that translation, fine. Or if this particular passage is considered too trivial to include in a Wikipedia article I will remove the reference and simply say, "they killed him" However, the fact that the Indians ate Sr. Arce would seem to me to be an useful indicator of the Indian's hatred of Arce and hatred of the Spanish in general. And it would seem also that their hatred was well justified. User: Smallchief 22:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is of course true that many mesoamerican peoples practised ritual cannibalism - but there are very few cases in which this is known to have happened to Spaniards. I think it is problematic because those kinds of statements were often made by spanish officials about Indians in order to justify their extermination - I would say that the value of the claim depends very much on the kind of documentary primary source the claim stems from. That is what I would like to know more about in order to evaluate the claim of this particular case of cannibalism. Could y provide information about the source that Padilla, D. Matias de la Mota used to back up the claim? Where did he, writing 200 yers after the event know it from? Also how would their eating him be indicative of a special hatred if they usually ate their enemies? ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

'The Spanish were forced to change their policy from one of forcibly subjugating the Indians to accommodation and gradual absorption, a process taking centuries.'

A lack of immunity to Old World diseases wiped out a large portion of the indigenous population. These circumstances allowed mestizos, who had better immunity, to thrive at the expense of the native population. Those of mixed ancestry also went on to outnumber those of European extraction fairly early in the colonial period. Western colonies might have been under the dominion of a European kingdom but within a few decades those of predominantly European ancestry consisted only a minority of those who participated in its expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)