Talk:Aztec society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mexico  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mesoamerica / Aztec  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Aztec (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Removed sentence[edit]

This sentence ("Probably this was one of the first societies that required education for all its members, without regard of gender or social status. ") was removed by User: without explanation. If the truth of this sentence is disputed, please state that and explain why.


--Richard 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article tagged? Why are there no discussions about it?
Also, the above-quoted sentence is accurate. León-Portilla says it was the first society that required education for (almost) all its members.
Minor point: I would enlarge the “Modern chinampas” photo: it gives the picture how the canals close to Tenochtitlan looked like.
Cesar Tort 07:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please restore the above sentence with a citation from León-Portilla so that we can counter the next person who wants to delete it. --Richard 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

{{disputed}} tag[edit]

OK, but why on Earth is the article tagged??? —Cesar Tort 07:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CJLL Wright tagged it back on January 14, 2007. I'll ask him to explain his reasons. --Richard 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that perhaps one issue is that there are a number of uncited statements in this article (actually, at times, whole paragraphs) - without those, one might be inclined to question the validity of the statements - Now I know off-hand that most of this information is true, but as I'm not really an Aztec guy (more of a Mayanist), I don't know what sources are cited for what statements. Getting those in order first would probably be a good start in getting that tag removed. On another note, this article needs an intro paragraph. Anyway, I'll see what I can do to help out. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, dan. CT is right, I probably should have noted on the talk pg more explicit concerns, over and above what I put in the edit summary when I added the tag (also add {disputed} since there's quite a bit of inaccurate info here, combined with roughly-accurate info which could be better phrased).
Other than the lack of cites and somewhat haphazard structure -this article has essentially been stitched together from a couple of others-, there are a number of over-simplifications, generalisations, and some misleading or outright wrong statements. The prose in places is also sub-par, more like a highschool essay (indeed the Daily life in the Aztec Empire article from where some of this text was taken seems originally to have been some student's essay).
Some examples:
  • All the Aztec temples resembled the Egyptian pyramids, as they were built upwards to bring the people closer to the gods -a not-very-apt comparison
  • The Aztecs put such a high emphasis on religion and pleasing the gods, that they most likely did not feel that they should put forth time or energy on art for any other purpose -v. doubtful
  • 2 deer 0 pop - Pop is from the Maya calendar
  • Basically all of the Aztec art...are based on Mixtec artistic principles -there are other influences at work
  • ...sculptures, mosaics, and wall paintings were also an integral part of Aztec daily life and have often been overlooked by historians - material remains are hardly "overlooked"
  • The Aztecs also believed there were “natural” causes for ailments. Such a cause might be war, falling and breaking a bone, a headache, nausea, pimples, chest pains and various infections. -eh?
  • black magic, white magic - not very appropriate terminology
  • ...the "house of the eagles", where in peacetime Aztec captains could drink a foaming chocolate, smoke good cigars, and have poetry contests - reads more like a good night out at the Garrick Club.
Perhaps another, gentler, cleanup tag could be used, and through the efforts of others it has improved quite a bit since it was applied. You can remove the present one if you wish, but I still think it needs some type of cautionary device.--cjllw | TALK 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the present tag is ok for the moment, though the “unreferenced” tag may apply as well. It is much easier to do the clean-up here than it was in the sacrifice article. I am busy in real world and hope that other editor(s) will undertake the job. —Cesar Tort 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the silliness of Egyptian and Aztec temples being similar and pointed out some of their many differences.-- 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Major reworking under way[edit]

I am about to drastically rewrite this article. I think it contains several sections that are of marginal or dubious relevance to the topic. I think the article should focus on the political, social and economical organisation of the aztecs. I think topics such as architecture, art, medicine, calendar, literature and recreation belong somewhere else. For example in the article about Aztecs or aztec culture. I understand that "society" could be so broadly defined that it could include almost all expressions of Aztec culture but I think that is not very useful and that it results in large amounts of repetition between this article and articles such as Aztec, Aztec calendar, Aztec history, Aztec cuisine etc. If you want to discuss this approach before I implement it then now is the time. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Before going too far we shld probably finalise our usages of the terms "Aztec", "Nahua", Mexica", etc so we can be more consistent across the board than is the case now. Maybe finish nutting it out at WT:MESO, then take proposal forward.
As for proposed scope of an "X society" article, think that "political, social and economical organisation" wld be just about right.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pipiltin vs Tetecuhtin[edit]


It seems to me that the word pilli can only be applied to the sons of the tecuhtli (see Google Books). Why this article doesn't mention it and doesn't explain anything about the tecuhtli? You can find the main references about it in the Britannica article and in CAT.INIST. (and probably in JSTOR).

El Comandante (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Calpolli vs Calpulli[edit]

so there are multiple spelling types of the word for the political family groupings in aztec socity

I have reviewed several Nahuatl dictionaries adn found the general consensus to be a 'u' insted of an 'o' in the word 'Calpulli'

However since i am not an expert in the field i do not wish to tamper so if you have a definite knowlege please correct the discrepency