Talk:Encomienda/Archive 1

Iberian vs American Encomienda
I´d like to expand in the origin and medieval form of the encomienda, as well as in it´s role in Iberia. We have a little bit of it, under "history", but I´d like to expand more. I don´t want to deviate this page-which is mostly focussed in the American version of it, from the definition to the tags. Should I write another page (encomienda, disambiguation), or should I expand in this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

English Treatment of Natives
I take issue with the sentence, "It is interesting to compare these attempts to justify the conquest, malicious and reprehensible as they are, with the remarkable absence thereof by English conquerors in America, which usually proceeded to outright extermination." I am unaware of any instance in which English peoples in the New World immediately exterminated a group of natives upon arrival. In every case of which I am aware, the extinction of native tribes took place over a period of years, sometimes generations. The English system did not present "outright extermination" any more than the Spanish did. Indeed, nothing in the English experience could compare to the Spaniards meeting the Aztecs and Incas.

Beside my other objections, I would point out that, though the sentence says it is interesting to compare the two systems, no attempt was made to do so. Instead, we are left with a single assertion that the English simply exterminated the natives they met. IOW, the sentence serves no useful purpose to this article. So, I believe that the sentence I am contesting should be removed. If no objections are presented, I will remove the sentence in a week. Pooua 06:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
Someone who thoroughly fuckin' understands the encomienda system and the role for social reform 'shit' undertaken by the Roman Catholic Churches÷ (!) should take this and Repartimiento and the New Laws in hand. --20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Style and Spanish Language Article
This article is very hard to read and should take some stylistic as well as content hints from the Spanish language version of the same article. I am going to try to improve the readability of the page. Vizzeroth 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletions replaced by middle-school prattle haven't helped. I tried to set the text in some order again. --Wetman 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Encomienda
Some of your details are incomplete, if possible please gather more important details which is undestandable.... but so far you have the main definitions of Encomienda but i want more.. Thank you... UNKNOWN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.193.166 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire
Last year, User:Mauvarca edited the lead section, writing that the encomienda system began during the Roman Empire. Is it possible to verify this? Jarble (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This needs rewording
"In the first decade of Spanish colonization in the Caribbean islands, they divided up the natives." ...it's vague and doesn't really convey useful information. The word native is probably objectionable in English, even though it's probably correctly translated. Also, as horrendous as this system was, I don't think it was ALL the natives. We need a more specific statement here, with a citation. Elinruby (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lack of internal consistency
In this article it states "With the ouster of Christopher Columbus, the Spanish crown sent a royal governor, Fray Nicolás de Ovando, who established the formal encomienda system.[2]"

In the article on Nicolás de Ovando y Cáceres it states that he was "sent by the Spanish crown to investigate the administration of Francisco de Bobadilla and re-establish order." And later that "in response to complaints from Christopher Columbus and others about Francisco de Bobadilla the Spanish monarch on 3 September 1501, appointed Ovando to replace Bobadilla." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:C105:7D00:F4E4:840F:2E44:F8E2 (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Basis in Native Cultures
I plan to add a section about how the Spanish adapted their original form of the encomienda system to incorporate aspects of the pre-existing tribute system in Mesoamerican cultures. I think this will be an important addition as it will not only provide further context for the use of the encomienda system, but will eliminate the anti-Spanish bias that is present without this acknowledgement. Cmore22 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable secondary sources that support this claim? What do you mean when you say "anti-Spanish" bias is currently in the article?--MattMauler (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Native Resistance
I think it would be a good idea to add something about how Latin American natives fought back against the encomienda system. To this end, I would reference a variety of academic articles, including, but not limited to:

Avis Mysyk, “Land, Labor, and Indigenous Response: Huaquechula (Mexico), 1521–1633,” Colonial Latin American Review 24, no. 3 (September 2015): 336–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2015.1086595. Mysyk focuses on the use of the encomienda system in the town of Huaquechula in Mexico. This article discusses the attempts of the native population to fend off the colonizing Spanish forces, and how they were, overall, relatively successful.

Shawn Michael Austin, “Guaraní Kinship and the Encomienda Community in Colonial Paraguay, Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” Colonial Latin American Review 24, no. 4 (December 2015): 545–71, https://doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2016.1150039. This source discusses the relationships between the colonizers and the colonized in Paraguay during the 16th and 17th centuries. It goes into detail about litigation passed (both in favor of and against the encomienda system) and how the Guarani people organized themselves to try and fight back against the oppressive forces who took over their country. Cmore22 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Extremely poor article
Riddled with mistakes, generalizations, ommissions and lacking adequate sources. I will slowly work on it. We need to phase out articles in newspapers and incorporate specialist historical sources. I was shocked by the terrible shape this article is in. Php2000 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It will be great to see more good sources. The 1545 repeal of the 1542 rules is documented by King Charles I's original 8/26/1545 document at the Library of Congress, which the Lib of Congress interprets as "commands that it be revoked and that the Indian question remain as it was until further decision can be reached." If other sources interpret the events differently, they would be good to include. Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The Spanish crown had to fight a rather nasty war betwee 1544 and 1550 and kill a lot of very powerful people to enforce the prohibition on indigenous slavery. That was in Peru. That "repeal" was temporary in the middle of this conflict which isn't even mentioned in the article! In fact why doesn't wikipedia have an article about it?? So yes, we need to completely rewrite with far more detail on what is a very complex aspect of Latin-American history. We can't rely on tinpot newspaper articles from the US - or any non-academic source from the US. Even the academic ones have to be looked at with caution. I'll try to draw up a list. fortunately I'm hispanic myself so can read primary sources. Php2000 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeking out primary sources in Spanish is a great idea. Be sure to look at WP:PSTS though: Academic/scholarly secondary sources should be the bedrock of the article.  They will be the authorities on interpretation of primaries when it is required, and on how much emphasis certain things receive in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article is in bad shape. I put it on my list a while ago but have basically been only maintaining it and reverting really egregious things; it has been hard to find the time to sink some serious work into it.--MattMauler (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * MattMauler: I don't have much time right now but I'm glad yo agree the articles needs some work. I propose a small structural modification for now. We should have the section on the decline above the assessment/value judgement of the encomienda system. Otherwise the historical flow is broken and its confusing to the reader. What do you think? Ill do the change now so you see what I mean. Feel free to revert if you disagree.Php2000 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Article is mostly about Americas, while saying term applied also in peninsular Spain and the Philippines. I suggest separate sections on those areas, which can grow in the future. Needs a clear definition, which may acknowlege changes in the definition over time and space. Currently the definition is pretty scattered, with inconsistent asides on whether colonist or community owns land, and no discussion of what happens when community owes 50 laborers and has 40 or 80. Furthermore it needs to say which Santiago and Santo Domingo and islands are meant. Probably also needs presentation of research on how accurately this can be called slavery, which may differ in different areas. Ideally it would start to list the relevant laws from reconquest of Spain to 1700s. Some disagreements may reflect changes over the centuries. Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Conquerors
You spelled "invaders" wrong. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:5E6:500F:D308:F9F8 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So fix it intread of complaining. I can't fix it because you didn't say where it is. deisenbe (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your zeal for replying to things, but I was actually making the point that this article is POV through and through, and the changes it needs to change that will certainly not pass if made by an IP editor (ahem). 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:4C9E:9292:DAE6:268F (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are my edits being angrily reverted?
I have literally deleted a sentence supported by a dead link and another sentence which is nonsensical and devoid of content. Is there a problem here?--Encomendado (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is called vandalism. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on why you disagree with my edits. This is no way to interact or build consensus on wikipedia. That was a borderline offensive response. Removing an unsourced sentence is not vandalism.--Encomendado (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should talk to the administrators who will block you. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User Chickdat you are the one reverting my edits. Could you please explain why you disagree with them. I have just deleted an unsourced statement and another which violates Wikipedia policy with a false reference to disparage other sources (WP:NPOV). Do you disagree with this? Why? It would be good to understand your point of view. Just cackling about how you are going to get me banned is just gaming the system. You are aware of this right?--Encomendado (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing a sentence that says that the encomienda system was genocide, DOES violate Wikipedia policies, which I promise were not created by me. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Chicdat the Encomienda was not genocide. It was a type of semi-forced labor which led to widespread abuse and exploitation in the Americas. Secondly, I have not even deleted a sentence which says that the Encomienda was genocide. The article doesn't categorically state it was so there is no reason to do so and your point is moot. I have simply deleted i) a POV value judgement sentence which violates policy by not saying anything of substance and includes false references and ii) another which is unsupported by any source (has a dead link to a website). I think you need to understand that your own political views are something quite totally separate from what you refer to as "Wikipedia policy".


 * Could you now please be more explicit about what you dislike about my edits beyond stating your personal perspective on history?


 * Incidentally if the reason for your behavior is my choice of user name, it just means "entrusted" in Spanish - in the sense that i have been entrusted to something or someone. I don't think any aspect of my language should hurt the sensibilities of non-Latin Americans or particularly White Americans.


 * But if you want to edit this article positively, engage with other editors constructively or discuss in good faith you should start by 1) Not blank revert them with fabricated reasons in your edit summary 2) behave politely, 3) not attempt entrap other editors and 4) not ignore them when they try to engage with you and 5) not respond by making fun of them about how smart you are that you are getting admins to ban them. This is way out of line.


 * I will give this article 48 hours after which I will continue working to improve it, since it is an area of history I'm knowledgeable about. Should you continue to behave disruptively I will seek mediation or intervention. Thank you and goodbye.Encomendado (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well goodbye, then. Most likely I'll never see you again, since I mostly edit in hurricanes. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it, then I will wait for 24 hours to pass and restore my edits unless someone has any meaningful argument to oppose them. Of course, I am willing to discuss any alternatives to deleting those sentences (changing the working or finding better sourcing). I hope we do not come into conflict again. I believe in friendly and productive collaboration on wikipedia. Regards.Encomendado (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me the original edits were made in good faith and deserve a reasonable response. Glendoremus (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone's aware, they were not in good faith. Further, for the record, if this kind of stuff happens again in the near future, it might be a good idea to check against the linked sockpuppet investigation. Hobomok (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

references and WP:RS:: www.remilitari.com and Ward Churchill
I see there has been some tussling here and lot of frantic reverting so I'll come to talk. Should we consider www.remilitari.com a credible source? I'm not exactly sure what it is exactly by looking at it. It doesn't seem to come anywhere near meeting WP:RS. Any thoughts anyone? Historian734 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realized this article also heavily quotes Ward Churchill! Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the controversial activist is certainly not considered a valid source on Wikipedia due to his research misconduct. Does anyone here support keeping remilitari and Churchill as sources?--Historian734 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I dug into the history and I best I can tell the content attributed to www.remilitari.com was added back in June 2019 here by a blocked sockpuppet. The article history is a mess due to edit wars, socks and other disruption.  If you do not get any responses within the next week, I suggest taking your concerns to the Reliable sources noticeboard. S0091 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good S0091. No rush, anyways. I'm sure the article will eventually be fixed - its not on a particularly controversial topic. Just a question. When do you normally go to noticeboards rather than simply editing the article? There doesn't seem to be a substance-based edit conflict at the moment and I can't imagine anyone reasonably wanting to keep those two sources.--Historian734 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the situation. If an editor is certain a source is not reliable and it is unlikely to be controversial then editing the article makes sense. If unsure or if there is a debate, then going to a notice board may make sense.  You might also try posting a note at a relevant Wikiproject (see top of article talk page) to see if you can get some interest in participating in this discussion.  You can also search the archives at WP:RSN to see if the sources have been discussed before. S0091 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for the info! I'll wait to see if a debate materializes. Hopefully not! Historian734 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference: Rudolph Rummel and WP:RS
I remain unconvinced by Rudolph Rummel's validity as a reliable source on this specific subject. The reference "Democide" contains some rather odd statements which seem contrary to mainstream academia. I had never heard of him but I see from his article on wikipedia he teaches political science and is a global warming denialist who believed Barack Obama aimed to undermine liberal democracy. I am not sure if he can be classed as an expert on the Encomienda system in colonial Latin America since his books seem to be mainly about the evils of socialism. I will not be bold and remove it given the history of this article but eventually take it to the RS Noticeboard. Anyone has any thoughts?Historian734 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about Rummel, but I'd take the source to the RS Noticeboard prior to removing it. Since we're casting an intense light on the "Scope" section, I think it might do well to do the same on the "Skepticism" section. While most of these sources in both sections come from peer-reviewed articles, the main section of the "skepticism" section is largely made up of articles and interviews from Spain's conservative ABC News, with titles like "Hernán Cortés had an Indian son that he adored, while Jefferson sold his mestizo children," which is an interview with María Elvira Roca Barea, whose work usually functions to excuse imperialism. The title itself seems to be consciously comparing Spanish imperialism and colonialism to British and U.S. imperialism and colonialism, while both were abhorrent. Do these belong with the rest of the sections and sources?
 * Also, some of the section's paraphrases are misleading. For example, the sentence "Rosenblat estimates a lower number for Mexico and Colombia. Acuna-Soto R, Romero LC, and Maguire JH suggested the rate of mortality from disease in native American populations at around 45%" is misleading, as the cited article states that "the epidemic of 1576 ... killed 45% of the entire population of Mexico." The switch there from one epidemic killing 45% of the Indigenous population over one year to the epidemics as a whole killing 45% of the Indigenous population is a huge leap, and should be corrected. As one final example, one quote says "What mortality of the native population did occur was mainly attributable to disease. Most scholars agree that the main culprits were European infantile diseases like smallpox, measles, and chicken pox." Most scholars would not agree, as we see with the above section, and the cited source for that information is a nine page paper from 1988.
 * All of this said, for what it's worth my recommendation moving forward for clean-up would be to take Rummel's section to the RS Noticeboard (although his incorrect ideas around global warming and former President Obama don't invalidate his statistical work in the same way Churchill's misrepresenting historical record in some of his essays do, I'd say), remove and rewrite the first paragraph of the lead-in section on skepticism beginning with Noble David Cook (perhaps bring down criticism also presented in the "Scope" section into this section), and work to represent the arguments in the essays presented more honestly. As stated above, I am sure this last section is also a bit of a mess due to frequent sock puppet editing. I'm happy to begin doing that here. Hobomok (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I will take it to RS noticeboard next year. I'm quite certain Rummel has not performed any statistical work on colonial Latin America. He himself referred to all of his figures as "educated guesses", including those which are the object of his interest as a politologist. Historian734 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * R/t my discussion above regarding ABC News as a popular sources surrounded by peer-reviewed scholarship and misleading paraphrases, I've removed the interviews and misleadingly paraphrased sections. Specifically, regarding work done by O'Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz, the current paraphrase says "Brendan D. O'Fallona and Lars Fehren-Schmitz separately estimated a historic native mortality of about 50% loss with a quick recovery and little loss in diversity." The article itself states the the "results support analyses of historical records indicating that European colonization induced widespread mortality among indigenous Americans." I'd have to say, then, that the chosen paraphrase is a bit misleading, much like the paraphrases outlined above, and the study itself either shouldn't be included here as it supports the genocide section, or it should be moved to the genocide section given the way the authors choose to represent their own results. In fact, the Acuna-Soto and Maguire paper that follows this paper states that the mortality rate killed "up to 80% of the entire population," so the two begin to contradict one another as far as the paraphrasing provided is concerned, and seems to be selective paraphrasing. Unsurprising given the recent history of sock-editing on this page. That said, I've removed both studies for the same type of misleading paraphrasing I've outlined here and above. Finally, the last paraphrase: "a recent, controversial study recently proposed by microbiologist Rodolfo Acuna-Soto suggests that the diseases that decimated the population were actually a native hemorrhagic plague carried by rats" cites the same Acuna-Soto/Maguire piece that was misleadingly paraphrased above, but that article makes no mention of rats, save for one mention of contemporary arenaviruses and hantaviruses in the Americas caused by rodents on page 737. I've removed it and the sentences that accompanied it, per above reasoning r/t the paraphrase "Most scholars agree that the main culprits were European infantile diseases like smallpox, measles, and chicken pox," as there are no sources to support such phrasing. Hobomok (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hobomok, I'm reverting your blanking of sources for now. Just as I have refrained from deleting sources I find questionable, I suggest you do likewise and seek consensus prior to such radical changes in the article. I can see from your edit history that you are trying to push the view that indigenous inhabitants of the Americas were mostly murdered by the Spanish empire through conscious ethnic cleansing rather than die of disease. If so, that is incorrect and indeed the vast majority of academic sources contradict this notion. In the meantime, I suggest we take this all to RS (or in this case POV) noticeboard. Please do not blank entire sourced sections of this article. Historian734 (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm also trying to make sense of your arguments for removing peer reviewed scientific articles. The one I struggle the most with is where you delete the Acuna-Soto source on the basis that it says the origin of hemorrhagic fever is in "rats" rather than "rodents". By the way, a very important source on this matter which is missing is the latest 2018 study you can find here which blames a strain of Salmonella of unknown (but possibly European) origin for the largest population collapse in Mexico. I suggest this is incorporated too if we are going to have this article discuss population decline and its causes. Historian734 (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Historian734, you'll see that in my original reply to you, I marked the sources as questionable, and when there was no response to that, I removed them for the reasons I gave above. In the interest of not starting an edit-war, I am not going to change this section again in the near future. In relation to my edit history, let me just say that what you see as POV pushing has been, in fact, a long battle wherein sock puppets come to pages r/t Spanish Colonization of the Americas and attempt to excuse violence during Spanish colonization through introducing deterministic arguments about disease's role in the destruction of Indigenous societies. A small part of that sock puppet investigation is here. I do sincerely wish that I didn't have to keep editing pages r/t Spanish colonization because one sock puppet keeps returning, because I'd much rather be working on returning The Great Gatsby to Good Article Status or introducing Indigenous and Native American scholarship to U.S. based articles like the Frontier Thesis. However, because of persistent sock puppetry, I keep being drawn back to these pages.
 * Regarding your reversion of my edits and using noticeboards, etc. Let me again, briefly, give the reasoning that I already provided above. Also, to say that the "vast majority" of academic sources contradict the fact that Spanish colonization, and here the Encomienda system, were/was violent and consciously eliminatory (whether that be physically, socially, or culturally) is, well, wrong according to the section that cites, among many others, Resendez and Stannard. These two authors have books that come from major University presses, as opposed to the ABC News sources, which are not scholarly, are surrounded by scholarly sources, and are biased. One source's headline, for example, is: "Hernán Cortés had an Indian son that he adored, while Jefferson sold his mestizo children." Is this really a source that needs to be used? This isn't a scholarly source that merits questioning at a noticeboard--a headline like this alone, I would think, should remove it from consideration alongside the scholarly sources it's surrounded by. Moreover, it is an interview with María Elvira Roca Barea, whose work usually functions to excuse imperialism. In relation to the sources on demographic collapse due to disease, they are misleadingly paraphrased. I won't go into all of the specifics, as I already do so above, but as an example, in the case of "rats" vs "rodents," it isn't that the word rodents is used in place of rats. It is that "rats" is mentioned one time in the entire article and the point of the article is not that rodents caused disease in the New World, although that is what the paraphrase said. I also have to wonder why you removed the word "controversial" when you changed "rats" to "rodents"? Finally, the statement "Most scholars agree that the main culprits were European infantile diseases like smallpox, measles, and chicken pox" does not track with the above sections of the page (Resendez and Stannard, for example), nor does the citation for such a claim lead anywhere (Francisco Guerra. Origen de las epidemias en la conquista de América).
 * Essentially, for the reasons outlined above and in this response, the ABC News sections and sweeping generalizations r/t disease do not belong. I also believe that the paraphrases r/t the scientific articles should be edited to better reflect their content. You'll notice that I did not remove the Noble David Cook citation, as it comes from a major University press and the paraphrase does justice to the book it seeks to represent, although the book did not receive great reviews. Finally, the Nature article that you cite from 2018 does indeed argue that salmonella is possibly the disease that caused the "epidemic was known as ‘cocoliztli’." However, I'm not sure how that matters in a discussion of genocide r/t Encomienda. The article you present only argues that the disease that caused the “cocoliztli” epidemic itself was salmonella. It does not argue anything related to the Encomienda system. --Hobomok (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, upon further investigation, it would seem that the ABC News sources in the skepticism section were added by User:Php2000, a confirmed sock puppet of User:Filologo2 known for pushing POV on pages related to Spanish Colonization, [|here] and it was reverted once, only to be added again here. After that User:Encomendado, a sock puppet of User:Php2000 tried deleting sections of the Genocide section, supported by User:Queloquepasa and User:Cuentaseria, both also sock puppets of User:Php2000. All of this said, the sections I removed for not being up-to-snuff source-wise and for being misleading paraphrases were introduced by a combative sock puppet editor who continues to return to this page to introduce contentious sources. These sections should be removed.Hobomok (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One final point r/t the disease and "rodents" paraphrase ("a recent study recently proposed by microbiologist Rodolfo Acuna-Soto suggests that the diseases that decimated the population were actually a native hemorrhagic plague carried by rodents"), that study's main conclusion is that droughts in the region exacerbated "ecologic and sociologic conditions, magnifying the human impact of infectious disease in 16th-century Mexico." Again, this study supports the above section r/t colonial violence exacerbating disease and disease impacts, which is what contemporary scholarship suggests. It was previously in the above section until User:Php2000 removed it. This section needs to be cleaned up and the paraphrases need to be written honestly. As I did above, I'm going to propose a change here: The ABC News sections need to be removed, as they do not match scholarly rigor of surrounding citations. The Noble David Cook section should stay. The two following paragraphs with paraphrases from O'Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz, and Acuna-Soto et al. need to be moved to the above section and paraphrased honestly to represent their content. These popular sources and dishonest representations of source material were introduced by numerous sock puppet accounts and they should be removed. --Hobomok (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hobomok There have indeed been multiple socks editing this page over the past two years, including banned User:Quorisullo who has been pushing exactly the same line as you with sources which don't mean reliability standards - blogs. But I do not mention this to cast aspersions against current editors. The objective is building consensus to improve the article.
 * I don't know who added "ABC news" since I see no such source on the article. If you are referring to ABC (newspaper) its level of reliability seems roughly equivalent to the Washington Post. I do agree that it is ideal to have academic rather than media sourcing - but these are easy to find and substitute since its a secondary source pointing to primary academic sources. That be said, what I find most misleading is the entire section which seems to be like a POV-fuelled exercise of synth, no doubt originating in legacy from User:Quorisullo. If it is to stay, it should at least be structured adequately and sourced properly. But I don't think this is the adequate article to discuss salmonella, smallpox or hemorrhagic fever - my vote would be to eliminate the entire section and a new article be created on that topic. Let's give it some thought and discuss further. I will propose some list of sources and structure here. Salute.Historian734 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Historian 734, I do not know Quorisullo, but if you'd like to call for an investigation or a Check User search, be my guest. Regardless of which sock accounts added blogs/misleading paraphrases/etc., both sections need to be cleaned up. Your removal of Churchill, the military blog, etc. were a good start on the genocide section, and I agree wholeheartedly with you removing them. However, there are sections of the Genocide section that are scholarly in nature and are honest paraphrases, such as the sections from Resendez, Stannard, Lemkin, and the Yale Insitute of Genocide Studies. In the context of the skepticism section, I am referring to the ABC (newspaper) articles (added by Php2000, here), which are either interviews or opinion pieces by random writers and journalist César Cervera--they do not hold up to the scholarly rigor of other sources provided. I believe that they should be removed until an adequate academic source can be found. There is indeed an entire article on cocoliztli epidemic. However, the reason the paraphrases regarding disease can and should be deleted is that they are misleading. The authors of those studies hold weight in the genocide debate, and not the skepticism debate, so they are misleadingly paraphrased.
 * I offer an example of misleading paraphrases again: "Since 1960 historians, such as Julián Juderías, Woodrow Borah and Sheburne Cooke have challenged both the numbers and the causes offered by Raphael Lemkin (1). Brendan D. O'Fallona and Lars Fehren-Schmitz separately estimated a historic native mortality of about 50% loss with a quick recovery and little loss in diversity (2). Rosenblat estimates a lower number for Mexico and Colombia (3). Acuna-Soto R, Romero LC, and Maguire JH suggested the rate of mortality from disease in native American populations at around 45% (4)."
 * 1. There are no citations from the authors Juderias, Borah, or Cooke to support this statement. Julian Juderias died in 1918. His wikipedia page contains no citations. He could not have been writing about Spain past 1960.
 * 2. O'Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz state, in their article, that one of their main takeaways is that their "results support analyses of historical records indicating that European colonization induced widespread mortality among indigenous Americans." Thus, the study seeks to show that colonization did indeed cause widespread death among the Indigenous population. That is how other scholars have interpreted the work as well. For example, sociologist Dorceta Taylor writes, "O'Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz (2011), ... utilize both historical documentation and genetic sequencing techniques, [and] found evidence of significant population decline caused by widespread mortality during the [colonial] period" (113). The paraphrase is dishonest, as it portrays the authors to be arguing that Indigenous mortality surrounding colonization was not notable in number.
 * 3. Rosenblat is not listed anywhere on this page.
 * 4.The article's abstract states " the epidemic of 1576 ... killed 45% of the entire population of Mexico." It does not state that "the mortality fromm disease in native American populations" was "around 45%" as the paraphrase says. In fact, this article itself supports the claims of Resendez and others in the above section, because it states, on page 736, that poor living conditions, exhaustion, etc. forced on the Indigenous population by the Encomienda system and forced labor would result in susceptibility to disease. I quote it at length here: "The historian Juan Bautista Pomar observed that the separation line for the disease was marked by living conditions and that those 'rich, well dressed, and with a comfortable living were not affected by the disease.' Cristobal Godinez, a government official reporting on the epidemic wrote: '... the reason why so many Indians die of pestilence is a God secret. I do not find any better answer than that in the past the Indians were not as badly mistreated and oppressed as they are today with heavy work loads. They are skinny and delicate, the disease finds them overworked and without resistance, so they are finished.' Under those conditions, the presence of an infectious agent favored by poor living conditions or nutritional deficiencies may well explain the pattern of the cocoliztli epidemic. It is important to remember that all epidemics of hemorrhagic fevers during the entire colonial period had a marked preference for the Indian population." With this in mind, this paraphrase is dishonest, and it should be removed.
 * The same types of problems persist in the subsequent paragraph ("Regardless of the specific number, it is widely agreed..."), but I won't dive into that one specifically right now.
 * As I stated previously, the Noble David Cook book can and should stay. Overall, my proposal is to keep the sections where they stand, given that the majority of scholarly opinion gives credence to the genocide section, but cut the fluff from each section, as you have begun to do on the top, and I am trying to do on the bottom. Hobomok (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, in what I hope is the final point about the "rodent" paraphrase, let me quote the section in question from the cited paper, followed by the paraphrase:
 * "In the last decades, several geographically-restricted arenaviruses and hantaviruses have been isolated on the American Continent. These are rodent borne viruses that produce hemorrhagic fevers which cause high mortality. Their presence is probably ancient and perhaps more agents remain to be discovered. It is not unlikely that the virus that caused cocoliztli remains hidden in the highlands of Mexico" (Acuna-Soto et al., 737).
 * The paraphrase: "a recent study recently proposed by microbiologist Rodolfo Acuna-Soto suggests that the diseases that decimated the population were actually a native hemorrhagic plague carried by rodents."
 * As I hope is clear, the cited source does not suggest that the virus that caused cocoliztli was found in rats native to the Americas. The authors state that there have been viruses found in rats that cause similar symptoms, so it is very likely that the virus that originally caused cocoliztli might still be present in the Americas and could possibly be found and isolated by contemporary researchers. I removed it because this paraphrase is misleading, and because the cited source doesn't provide any information related to the point made in the section of the page it is cited under. Again, my recommendation is to remove these dishonest paraphrases, the ABC (newspaper) op-eds and interviews, and leave the Noble David Cook paragraph.--Hobomok (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hobornok, do understand that all I have really done on this article is remove a military enthusiast blog which was being used as a source. I have not yet really engaged in any actual editing.
 * Regarding your last statement. You seem to be outright denying what the source is saying. From the wording it is very clear to me it is saying that the source positively states the Cocolitzli is likely of native origin. As far as I know the first to postulate that the Cocolitztli was of indigenous origin were Marr and Kiracofe - the source for which you can find here.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1044288/ Additional speculation is based on the mention of a similar plague in 1320 in the Chimalpopoca codex. If you are arguing this in good faith, I don't even know what to say. I can see someone with a short temper construing it as an attempt to sabotage reasonable discussion. I guess this we can take it to a noticeboard and let a 3rd party give input rather than continue discussing and ending up getting into an argument. I will do so.
 * But your final sentence worries me. "A majority of scholarly opinion gives credence to the genocide section?" That's a bold statement. And what do you mean by "dishonest"? How can explaining the causes of something be dishonest? I see much of your drive to edit articles related to Latin America are related to the "genocide" narrative. But it is problematic and hardly a majority view - particularly in the context of the Cocolitzli. It is indeed true that Native Mexicas were treated in hospitals during the Cocolitzli and efforts were made to both treat and find a cure for the disease. This is a well known fact and you can find plenty of UNAM academic articles on this topic. They even gave medical attention to beggars and vagrants. The disease has been considered to have been "perhaps" exacerbated by drought, resettlement/living conditions (and rats) but I have not seen any study linking it to "forced labor". You support this with an opinion by a government official 500 years ago and another observation that poor people are more like to die than rich people - tends to be the case, even now. Not to mention that the 20 years of encomienda in Mexico did not encompass 10 million people which are said to have died. It may have affected a few tens of thousands. How does all of this fit with your narrative? Even if genocide is your long term battle horse do try to keep things neutral.
 * On the subject of the Cocolitzli, I ask you to read in detail this excellent source which literally does most of the work for us since it has plenty of internal sourcing itself. http://ri.ibero.mx/handle/ibero/522. Once you have read it we can continue discussing as it will be more productive. If you need academic sources on how Mexican hospitals operated in the 1500s I can provide a few additional ones.
 * Overall, I repeat I think the entire section should go or at the most reduced to a well balanced paragraph in terms of opinion. The wording of "skepticism about.." is very strange - as if to present something quite mainstream as a minority view. But if you want to drive this discussion into the "genocide" debate which I see is your main long-term concern here and in other articles, I'll do some research over the coming days/weeks. I'll see what sources say overall, so we can discuss them here in the talk page. I'm sure those currently being used across Wikipedia will be enough. Incidentally you are also welcome to request a check-user on me, that way we can settle any mutual suspicions.Historian734 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been following these discussions with interest. My feedback is that the focus on disease and genocide is misplaced in this article. There are several articles where a more detailed discussion of disease, epidemics, population, etc. would be more appropriate. See for example Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas as well as Native American disease and epidemics. This article is about a system of labor widely deployed by the Spanish in the early days of empire.  Focus should be on the system and its effects. Other, related topics should be summarized at a high level with links to the appropriate detailed arguments. Glendoremus (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. I think there should be a section called "Human consequences" or something of the sort. With a high-level balanced review on what sources say on the matter. Glendoremus, I'm moving both our comments down to the bottom of the page if you don't mind - facilitates discussion. Historian734 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * At some point my rebuttal to the longer post was lost here as posts overlapped. I believe scholarship makes it clear that this system of labor laid the conditions for Indigenous susceptibility to disease. Furthermore, dishonest paraphrasing is rampant in the sections noted, which is what I was attempting to make clear and remove. Redoing the entire section with an eye toward Resendez, Stannard, Lemkin, Cook, and the Yale Institute would, in my opinion, work best. At any rate, I do hope this discussion goes somewhere and something is done with the page, which is what I was originally attempting by removing dishonest paraphrasing. Hobomok (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well that is far more reasonable position to take, Hobornok. Some sources may argue that and - if they are reliable - then they are relevant to the article and should be included. So long as your positions remain in the realm of what is logical and reasonable and you are willing allow for balance, diversity and quality in sources there should be no issue to build consensus. You should not be outraged by the existence of academics with views which oppose your own. Wikipedia is not a good place for political crusades. Whether you "win" or you "lose" the end result is a worse article.
 * On which sources "work best": In my view, sources which work best are ideally historians who are specialized in this period of history, and this part of the world. i.e. historians specialized in colonial Latin America or who have written books/studies about colonial Latin America. I'm sure we can find plenty to create a simple balanced paragraph. Historian734 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the lesson in how Wikipedia works. Thank you for explaining.
 * Peer-reviewed works from respectable scholars, respectable journals, and respectable presses, I would say, would fit the bill, especially in an increasing age of interdisciplinary within academia. With that said, I stand by my previous statement that Resendez, Stannard, Lemkin, Cook, and the Yale Institute provide the solid line-up for a discussion of violence related to Encomienda. The ABC News sources should also be cut. --Hobomok (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure about Lemkin or the Yale Institute. The other ones you propose seem reasonable. On the articles in ABC (newspaper) (not ABC News) - they quote Joseph Perez, Stanley Payne among others. There are plenty more more specialized academics from the hispanic world I will look for. So there are two options. Improving sourcing by taking the primary source in ABC or removing them altogether and reframing the section without the hyperbolic "genocide" language as Glendoremus proposes and I also prefer. We should be careful with academic sloppiness and off-handed statements unsupported by academic research. The encomienda did not lead to "millions of deaths" - it may have contributed to or exacerbated a demographic collapse. "Human consequences" sounds good enough to me for the entire section which should be short. I agree that this article is not a place to tackle or discuss the "genocide" debate. It is also distracting from other ways to improve this article. Historian734 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We're not going to reach agreement here for a number of reasons. I'm not going to move forward when sources are misrepresented, popular sources from one journalist that cherry-picks quotes are used and master's theses are touted as "excellent source[s]", and thinly veiled condescension from a new editor is the mode of interaction. I do hope this talk section stays up as an example of how and why this page was changed. Hobomok (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Without reading through the entire wall of text above, I will say that I am in agreement with Hobomok on the issue of sources, including Lemkin and the Yale Institute. However I will add that I find Rummel to be a terrible and unreliable source when it comes to issues of mass killings overall, primarily because of his insanely high death tolls regarding Marxist-Leninist states, which post-1991 archival revelations have rendered completely irrelevant, although his estimates on "democide" here seem downright conservative by comparison. So basically Rummel should definitely be taken to the RS Noticeboard, and the sources/materials listed above by Hobomok should stay in place as they are relevant to this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Stannard, Resendez, Lemkin, and the Yale Institute need to stay, and some discussion of disease would also have to stay considering Resendez's discussion of it in relation to forced labor here, or what he calls one of the "other slaveries," adding to conditions that would make Indigenous peoples more susceptible to disease. It might also be tough to remove genocide entirely from this debate as Stannard calls the encomienda a "genocidal system" (139). The dishonest paraphrases that I've outlined need to be removed (I restate that in no way are the sources dishonest, but the paraphrases that supposedly represent the sources' findings r/t disease are dishonest. I recommend taking another look at my breakdown of the paraphrases above in relation to this, as I never stated that the cause of disease didn't exist or that disease wasn't a cause of Indigenous mortality, or anything related to what was interpreted). Further, the popular sources from one journalist need to be removed, a master's thesis is not a source that stands up to the peer reviewed academic sources that should stay, and I've got no problem with the Rummel section going to the RS noticeboard as I stated originally alongside commending the original editor for their removal of the military blog and removal of Churchill. Hobomok (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand what you mean by the paraphrasing being dishonest, Hobomok. Are you saying that Acuna-Soto does not argue that the Cocolitzli was of indigenous origin? If so you are wrong as can be seen here: https://www.revistabiomedica.mx/index.php/revbiomed/article/view/329 As for "genocide", as stated, I agree with Glendoremus. In my view all references to the term should be removed altogether. David Stannard may have made that statement but he is considered a sensationalist writer who has been criticized by historians of more weight such as John Elliott for his indiscriminate use of this term. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/06/24/the-rediscovery-of-america/ As for Lemkin, I agree he is certainly a valid source in his areas of expertise - International Human Rights Law. His understanding of Latin American history or the Encomienda is understandbly limited to non-existant - so I would not consider him a reliable or priority source for this article, considering he is not even a historian. In the meantime I will take the Rummell source to RS:noticeboard, something we can all agree on at least. --Historian734 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The paraphrase of the Acuna-Soto study that is cited on the page, rather than the new one that you provide here, is misleading. I've outlined it above, I see no point in doing so again. In relation to Stannard, his book comes from a major University press, and it has been well-received by Indigenous studies scholars such as Samuel R. Cook and Vine Deloria, and other scholars such as Alfred Crosby and Richard Drinnon. I'd trust Deloria on most matters related to Indigenous studies. While Elliott may disagree with Stannard, those are some examples of established scholars who do agree with him. Just to note also, while Elliott critiques Stannard's discussion of Cotton Mather, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson's actions regarding the genocidal nature of settler colonialism in North America, recent scholarship on the subject of the genocide question in North America, and settler colonialism in general in relation to Cotton Mather, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson, has supported Stannard's stance as well. At any rate, we're not discussing North America, but I just wanted to point out that Stannard's claims to genocide in both cases was, and continues to be, well-received and built upon despite Elliott's critique. Of course there will be disagreements in any given field at any given time, but Stannard's original argument was in no way panned by academia, and it is still used in graduate and undergraduate classrooms. In relation to Lemkin, given his expertise on International Human Rights Law and the question of genocide, I, and others, would say he's well-positioned to make an argument on the question of genocide. I still agree with taking Rummel to the noticeboard, and I still agree with your initial edits related to that blog and Churchill. Hobomok (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I most certainly disagree with some of these names - particularly Vine Deloria. Academia and political activism do not sit well together, and none of these have written any books about Latin American history. Anyhow we can park the genocide issue for now since it requires too much time for the season. Ideally other editors can help. I'll post the Rummell issue on RS noticeboard and that will be my last Wikipedia editing until after Christmas. If anyone knows where else he is cited let me know and I will included it in my post. Happy holidays to everyone here. Historian734 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Paraphrases
There was previously a separate issue on this talk page where I brought up a question r/t misleading paraphrases. I am going to attempt to streamline and/or remove the misleading paraphrases. I'll outline some examples here so that there is reference for the edits: Ex. "Since 1960 historians, such as Julián Juderías, Woodrow Borah and Sheburne Cooke have challenged both the numbers and the causes offered by Raphael Lemkin (1). Brendan D. O'Fallona and Lars Fehren-Schmitz separately estimated a historic native mortality of about 50% loss with a quick recovery and little loss in diversity (2). Rosenblat estimates a lower number for Mexico and Colombia (3). Acuna-Soto R, Romero LC, and Maguire JH suggested the rate of mortality from disease in native American populations at around 45% (4)." 1. There are no citations from the authors Juderias, Borah, or Cooke to support this statement. Julian Juderias died in 1918. His wikipedia page contains no citations. He could not have been writing about Spain past 1960 when Lemkin was writing, because he was not alive. 2. O'Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz state, in their article, that one of their main takeaways is that their "results support analyses of historical records indicating that European colonization induced widespread mortality among indigenous Americans." Thus, the study seeks to show that colonization did indeed cause widespread death among the Indigenous population. That is how other scholars have interpreted the work as well. For example, sociologist Dorceta Taylor writes in The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: "O'Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz (2011), ... utilize both historical documentation and genetic sequencing techniques, [and] found evidence of significant population decline caused by widespread mortality during the [colonial] period" (113). The paraphrase is dishonest, as it portrays the authors to be arguing that Indigenous mortality surrounding colonization was not notable in number. 3. Rosenblat, whomever they might be, is not listed anywhere on this page. 4.The article's abstract states " the epidemic of 1576 ... killed 45% of the entire population of Mexico." It does not state that "the mortality fromm disease in native American populations" was "around 45%" as the paraphrase says. In fact, this article itself supports the claims of Resendez and others in the above section, because it states, on page 736, that poor living conditions, exhaustion, etc. forced on the Indigenous population by the Encomienda system and forced labor would result in susceptibility to disease. I quote it at length here: "The historian Juan Bautista Pomar observed that the separation line for the disease was marked by living conditions and that those 'rich, well dressed, and with a comfortable living were not affected by the disease.' Cristobal Godinez, a government official reporting on the epidemic wrote: '... the reason why so many Indians die of pestilence is a God secret. I do not find any better answer than that in the past the Indians were not as badly mistreated and oppressed as they are today with heavy work loads. They are skinny and delicate, the disease finds them overworked and without resistance, so they are finished.' Under those conditions, the presence of an infectious agent favored by poor living conditions or nutritional deficiencies may well explain the pattern of the cocoliztli epidemic. It is important to remember that all epidemics of hemorrhagic fevers during the entire colonial period had a marked preference for the Indian population." With this in mind, this paraphrase is dishonest, and it should be removed.

The same types of problems persist in the subsequent paragraph ("Regardless of the specific number, it is widely agreed..."), but I won't dive into that one specifically unless someone disagrees with the made edits.

As I stated previously, the Noble David Cook book should stay--that study is correctly represented and comes from a reputable academic press. Overall, the sections should stay where they stand, but it's necessary to cut paraphrases that inaccurately represent studies, remove citations that don’t refer to any cited work on the page, and it's also necessary to remove sources that don't represent studies but instead journalistic opinions. Hobomok (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I also cut large sections of the section on “genocide” as a lot of that was originally introduced by sock accounts with a long history on this and other pages. That way both the deaths and skepticism sections come out to 1-2 paragraphs each. The information in each section now also comes from respected scholars who have been paraphrased honestly, rather than nonacademics or outrightly dishonest paraphrases (see above). I also placed a “see also” tab so that those more interested in this area can go to the population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas page to read further. Previously it had linked to “genocide of indigenous peoples,” which editors disagreed with, so this page might be a solid compromise. -Hobomok (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lemkin is neither a historian nor a specialist in the encomienda. He should not be mentioned in this article at all but I will leave it anyways. The encomienda was not a genocidal system. Quite the opposite, it was part of a gradual abolitionist effort by the Spanish crown. You have made your strong views clear Hobornok but we have to draw a line at your POV pushing here. Historian734 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok Hobormok, I have self-reverted and kept part of your edits. Julian Juderias is indeed irrelevant to Lemkin as is that entire paragraph which you deleted so I think it is fine like this. I still think you have to go easy on the genocide narrative. You have been quite radical about your maximalist position on this. Historian734 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Historian734 Please stop this. I made an edit that was not objected to by any of the other frequent editors of this page, which attempted to clean up and streamline the section on genocide here. It is also why I linked to Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. You'll see that I also removed a large section of the genocide discussion on this page in addition to the skepticism section, in order to streamline the page as a whole. You have consistently failed to engage specifically in any discussion of what I wrote above r/t misleading paraphrases and how they are again represented in the final paragraph here, wherein you reinserted Weasel words/phrases such as "it is widely agreed" and "mainly attributable" in relation to disease when the Resendez paraphrases above that section (for example) denote otherwise, and you removed a link to Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas for no reason that I can discern. I am still at a loss over the inclusion of the ABC (newspaper) articles from journalist Cesar Cervera, an opinion columnist with a bachelor's in journalism. For example, see: «Estar de Jauja», «valer un Potosí» y otras expresiones que derivan de los descubrimientos del Imperio español, which argues that Spanish colonialism was positive because new phrases resulted from it. One needs only look at the rest of his articles to see the same type of ham-fisted argumentation. You'd like to remove Lemkin from the page, but this should stay? The revisions I made keep both sections to 1-2 paragraphs, stick with peer-reviewed work or work from scholarly presses, and are accurate paraphrases. This is in relation to the compromise discussed in the above section, and has stayed until you appeared again.
 * Your account was created in November, you came to this page then, and the majority of your edits have been located here. You do not engage in good-faith discussion regarding edits, as you refuse to engage in any specific discussion regarding why edits are being made, and the majority of our interaction has consisted of you accusing me of having a specific point of view that I am trying to push. I am trying to accurately represent scholarly sources on a variety of topics, which can be seen in my edit history across a number of pages. Most of my edits are not related to Spanish colonialism. I'm not going to engage in an edit war here, but you cannot just turn up here and large-scale revert edits (including copy-edits by other editors) because you "remain unconvinced" by edits that have stood amongst other editors. Until you can engage with specific reasoning for reversions beyond accusing me of "POV pushing" and that you "remain unconvinced," I'm disengaging from discussion with you. It is a waste of my time, for the reasons I outline here and above.--Hobomok (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Aboliton and end of encomienda
The article mentions 1542 as the abolition of encomienda but articles like Huilliche uprising of 1712 mention 1782, 1789 and 1791 as dates abolition of the encomienda. If sources are correcly cited there appears to be a contradiction. Sietecolores (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1542 date is incorrect. Indian slavery was prohibited in 1542 by the New Laws. Encomienda was restricted to some extent but remained legal. I've removed the the false statement from the article. Glendoremus (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)