Isn't there a MoS guideline that section titles ought not to start with "the"?
I've had a quick look and can't find it - although I remember reading something along those lines somewhere. I think this should be an exception in any case - a section headed simply "Spanish" sounds more like a reference to the language rather than the nationality. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's here. (The guidelines for article titles also apply to section headings.) And you've also got a section entitled "The Pacific lowlands: Pipil and Xinca", and another called "The northern lowlands". MalleusFatuorum 15:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I new I'd seen it somewhere. There was also "The northern lowlands" as a section. I've renamed Pacific lowlands/Northern lowlands without "the" but I don't think "Spanish" on its own works as a title. I'm trying to think of an alternative but my mind's blank at the moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, because "Spanish" is an adjective, but "Conquistadors" would work. MalleusFatuorum 15:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed - I've renamed the section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish weapons and tactics
"Spanish weaponry and tactics differed greatly from that of the indigenous peoples of Guatemala. This included the use of crossbows, firearms (including muskets and cannon), war dogs and war horses." Who had all that fire power, the Maya or the Spanish?
I've changed it to "This included the Spanish use of..." Simon Burchell (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In Guatemala the Spanish routinely fielded indigenous allies, at first these were Nahua allies brought from the recently conquered Mexico, later on these allies also included Maya." That needs a punctuation check. And is it really necessary to repeat "allies"?
I've changed to "In Guatemala the Spanish routinely fielded indigenous allies; at first these were Nahua brought from the recently conquered Mexico, later they also included Maya." Simon Burchell (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Impact of Old World diseases
"Based upon a comparison with modern knowledge of the impact of these diseases upon populations with no prior exposure ...". That sentence just doesn't work.
Changed to "Modern knowledge of the impact of these diseases on populations with no prior exposure suggests that 33–50% of the population of the highlands perished in the plague." Simon Burchell (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kaqchikel rebellion
"He demanded that the Kaqchikel kings deliver 1000 gold leaves each of 15 pesos". Another punctuation problem; is that saying that each king should deliver 1000 gold leaves, or that each gold leaf should be of 15 pesos? What does "of 15 pesos" mean anyway?
I've dropped in a comma and a footnote explaining Spanish coinage. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He reported that the houses of the city were still in excellent condition, his account was the last description of the city while it was still inhabitable." Presumably that should be "habitable", not "inhabitable"? The punctuation is a problem again as well.
Cambridge online dictionary suggests both "habitable" and "inhabitable" are fine. I don't mind either way. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked with the OED and you're right; a bit like the confusion between "flammable" and inflammable" I suppose. MalleusFatuorum 17:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guatemala prior to the conquest
"The second most important polity was that of their hostile neighbours ...". I'm not at all sure about that. Surely there can only be one "most important" thing?
I've rephrase to "The second polity in importance was that of their hostile neighbours, the Kowoj." Simon Burchell (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In the centuries preceding the arrival of the Spanish the K'iche' had carved out a small empire covering a large part of the western Guatemalan Highlands ... the Kaqchikel kingdom had been steadily eroding the kingdom of the K'iche'". Which is it, an empire or a kingdom?
Sort of both - the Maya operated almost a feudal system among their kingdoms. More powerful kings browbeat less powerful kings into alliances, demanding military support and tribute. So although the K'iche' had extended their power over other kingdoms, they retained direct governance only over their own kingdom. For simplicity I could change "small empire" to "kingdom" but it looses the sense of extended power that the K'iche' had. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what was it the Kaqchikel kingdom was eroding, the K'iche' kingdom or the K'iche' empire? MalleusFatuorum 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively the "empire" ended when the Kaqchikel broke the alliance prior some years prior to the conquest. The Kaqchikel were eroding the core K'iche' kingdom. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy of the Spanish conquest
"The initial shock of the Spanish conquest was followed by decades of heavy exploitation of the indigenous peoples, for allies and foes alike." Can "exploitation" have weight? And what does "for allies and foes alike" mean? Should that be "by allies and foes alike"?
It means that the Spanish made no real distinction between allies and foes once the conquest was over - they treated them both equally badly. Perhaps "The initial shock of the Spanish conquest was followed by decades of intense exploitation of the indigenous peoples, both allies and foes."? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just drop the "for", and change it to "allies and foes alike". MalleusFatuorum 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
