Talk:Diego de Landa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Remorse[edit]

I remember hearing or reading that del Landa was severely remorseful after the burining of the codices and spent an exhorbitant amount of time trying to research adn document the Mayan language and culture. Does anyone know any more --Agrofe 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)about this?

This is a most important question. Unfortunately I cannot answer it. There are some wikipedians fans of Maya themes that you may approach. Like many Spaniards Landa was so shocked about sacrifices that he himself, Landa, used cruelties and codex burning in an utterly mistaken attempt to change the Mayas’ ways. (The Romans did something similar in the Third Punic War, after which the sacrifices performed by Carthaginians ended.) —Cesar Tort 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
David E. Timmer writes in Providence and Perdition: Fray Diego de Landa Justifies His Inquisition against the Yucatecan Maya that Diego de Landa did not feel any remorse at all for his actions (480). A long argument short states that Landa shared the same paternalistic view towards indigenous people as most Franciscans did, namely that Indians had to be protected and disciplined as children. Landa viewed himself as a father who was betrayed by children. Timmer argues that while confessions were likely coerced and exaggerated, Landa felt no remorse whatsoever because he believed that sacrifices were happening and that brutalizing a handful of people saved the entire population in the long run. Joshuaeweston (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

To match the article's LEAD, this article should be moved over the redirect at Diego de Landa Calderon, or the LEAD should be changed. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrzaius (talkcontribs)

I suggest a move back to Diego de Landa. "Diego de Landa Calderón" may have been his full name, but "Diego de Landa" is by far more commonly how he is refered to. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Per your comment on my talk page, please note that the "Which is it above" was merely asking for advise on the first point above. I was just working through Special:NewPages at the time, and have little to no subject matter expertise, but was trying to standardize the first instance of the name & article title, per generally accepted norms. Again, either solution would have been fine, and if you assert that the short version is more common, maybe we should just go with it per WP:NAMEPEOPLE. That said, if de Landa is just a geographic identifier or something of the sort, we probably should retain "Calderón" per the same policy, as it is unambiguously a common surname. MrZaiustalk 06:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're not familiar with names Spanish language countries, "Calderón" is presumbably de Landa's mother's fathers family name, and "de Landa" his family name from his father by which he'd usually be refered. Same reason why we have the article at Miguel de Cervantes rather than "Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra", or Benito Juárez rather than "Benito Juárez García" and numerous other examples. The es:Wikipedia article is at "Diego de Landa". While the matronym is mentioned as part of the person's full name in the article, it isn't usually included in the article title unless that's what the person is/was commonly refered to by. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Move back to Diego de Landa - its the best known name - just like Barack Hussein Obama II redirects to Barack Obama.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agree article should be moved back to Diego de Landa, overwhelmingly how he is referred to in the sources. Most individuals from the spanish-speaking world are most commonly known by some abbreviated form of their 'full' name. See also Spanish naming customs.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me/non-controversial if someone wants to go ahead and request it. Redirect in the way from previous move. MrZaiustalk 10:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, have moved it back to Diego de Landa, reckon there's no need here to go back to WP:RM.--cjllw ʘ TALK 11:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)