Talk:Aztecs

This article is a candidate for the Mexico Collaboration. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.

Archival subpages

Some of the older entries in Talk:Aztec have been moved to archival subpages. The organization of these archival subpages is both chronological AND topical. This means that entries are extracted from this page and moved to an appropriate subpage according to topic AND to an appropriate subpage according to year.

The chronological archives are: Talk:Aztec/2002-2004 Talk:Aztec/2005

The topical archives are: Talk:Aztec/Slavery Talk:Aztec/Cannibalism

Some entries have been copied to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology.

It is suggested that all current discussion be restricted to this page. Please do not conduct discussion on an archival subpage as many people will watch only this page (Talk:Aztec) for new entries.

From time to time, editors may choose to move old entries from this page to an archival subpage at their discretion. It is suggested that you let entries age here for at least a month or more before moving them to the archival subpage.

If you are a new editor of the Aztec article, please review this Talk page and any relevant subpages before making edits.

In particular, you may find the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology page useful as it covers a number of issues of usage such as capitalization, spelling, prounciation, etc.

---

"martial arts"

Recently added "martial arts": is this really supposed to be "martial arts" (physical techniques of personal combat) or "military arts" (all techniques used in war: strategy, tactics, etc.)? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont think the military training of the aztec would qualify as a martial art... Specially as almost nothing of it is known...  :( Nanahuatzin 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

European populations

Where do the (recently changed) populations given for European cities come from? The article now says: Constantinople with about 200,000 inhabitants, Paris with about 250,000, and Venice with about 160,000.

Previously we had some numbers cited from Top Ten Cities of the Year 1500, which cites Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census by Tertius Chandler. 1987, St. David's University Press, which I would expect to be reliable. Chandler gives Constantinople as 200,000, but gives Paris as only 185,000, and if he mentions Venice it would presumably be behind the tenth in his list, Nanjing, China with 147,000.

While Chandler had some idiosyncratic views on pre-600-BCE Ancient Middle East and Greece, I'd expect him to be rock solid on anything since that date. I'd consider Chandler to have been a pretty good citation; can anyone explain why it was removed and where the new numbers come from? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Tepanec Expansion Age omitted

I was wondering why there is absolutely no mention of the "Tepanec Expansion" under the rule of Tezozomoc, seeing how it was one of the most major events in later Mesoamerican history. Historically speaking, it created the first true nation-state since Teotihuacan 600 years before, it propelled the Mexica and Acolhua from subservant status to states in there own rights. It also led to the independence of of the state of Texcoco by the army led by Netzahualcoyotl, who defeated the forces of Maxtla in a single battle. Its an interesting period in our history, and very much so one of my favorite due to the amount of involvement by many tribes. It is also the bases for the "Triple Alliance", which is why I thought it was important.

I was wondering if I could put the basic information on the period down and expand on it (as well as the Tepanec people, Tezozomoc, and Netzahualcoyotl, a very interesting figure who comes close to being the Texcoco version of Huitzilopochtli).

Please do!--Curtis Clark 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created an article title Tepanec. It's just a stub. I will leave it for somebody else to fill it out. Richard 09:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a Tepanec article is definitely needed. However, I believe that we have the right amount of mention of Tezozomoc and Nezahualcoyotl etc etc in this article already. Madman 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

suspected vandalism:

suspected vandalism: "flowery wars". The term is supposed to be "flower wars".

Altough in english is more common used "flower wars", the correct term should be flowery wars, it,s not a war of flowers, but flowery is the adjetive applied to the war. Nanahuatzin 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss here. The correct translation is "flowery wars", but I've seen it more often has "flower wars" in English. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In nahuatl Flower and feathers are used as sinonimous of "precious", in spanish "Xochiyoauh" is translated as "guerra florida", so i think the correct in english should be "flowery war". Also, the blood flowing from a wound due to war, was called "flower of war". Nanahuatzin 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not widely read on the subject, prior to this, I had only read "flowery wars". On the other hand, Google gives 285 hits for "flowery wars" and 701 hits for "flower wars".--Curtis Clark 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While flowery is a more literal translation of the Spanish florida, I believe "flower wars" is the more common term. FWIW, does anyone know what either the OED or Britannica use? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just question.. What image gives to you "flower war"?. To me, it sounds like a war made with flowers, but i am not shure... . the originalt nahuatl, means a war that produces flowers ( wounds). If Flower war is the more comon term, i think it,s all right. But in the article i need to explain the diference..Nanahuatzin 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I've known the term for decades, I couldn't say what was my original impression of the term. I suspect that neither "flower wars" nor "flowery wars" conjures much of an image on its own, other than both suggesting something less than a full-blown war. Anyway, there is a fair chance that I knew guerras floridas in Spanish before I knew "flower wars" in English. Keep in mind that the use of nouns as adjectives is relatively common on English, unlike Spanish: "club member", "book learning", and "television personality", to give just a few very diverse examples.

I don't know where you got "Floere war", I've never seen that in any language, and Google gives no hits.

• Now corrected. Jmabel | Talk

You say that the article needs to explain the difference; the difference between what? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By what you say, seems there is not much difference in english in both terms. In the article of "Flower wars" i wrote that is more correct "flowery war"... But i am not shure now... (oh.. Floere war, was just one of my typos.. :) ) Nanahuatzin 04:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's far less important what it's called than that readers understand what the "flowers" mean in this case. From flower war:

For the Aztec warriors, providing blood for the gods was a sacred duty and it was a noble occupation. In the Aztec world, flowers and feathers were the most precious things, so the word "flower" means "precious" and it was used as a descriptor for the activity of sacred war. The blood flowing from a wound was described as a flower of war.

--Curtis Clark 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I had guessed that flower war was the more accepted term and still believe it more closely follows the Nahuatl original although flowery wars more closely resembles the Spanish. However, this is not the case in a leading book on the subject. In Inga Clendinnen's Aztecs: An Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition 1995, there are only references to flowery war or flowery wars (according to a Search Inside on Amazon.com) and not a single one to flower war: pp. 34, 97, 122 along with three refernces in the Back Matter. Interlingua 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

xochiyaoyotl does not means a war of flowers, but to a war blosoming with flowers, that is blosoming with the flowers of war (yahoxochitl), thats how they call the wounds flowing with blood.... Nanahuatzin 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulque

just to bring something up:

"Although one could drink pulque, a fermented beverage with an alcoholic content equivalent to beer, getting drunk before the age of 60 was forbidden. While the first time was punished, reincidents could get the penalty of death."

is this for real? in a civilization without modern medicine, how many people would even make it to that age? i've read elsewhere that the life expectancy in classical civilizations was often less than 40, depending on the civ. i cant think what wikipedia article said that, but it didnt have citations either. i suppose the elite of society might live to 60 being pampered, and thus allowed to drink, but why not just make the rule that only the elite can drink? (unsigned comment by 204.95.67.67)

It's the average life expectancy at birth that is most often cited. Considering that infant mortality was (and in many places still is) so high, some people have to live to 60 and beyond to make the average expectancy 40.--Curtis Clark 17:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think i will have to put more citations... In this case. This is from Soustelle, J. (1961). The Daily life of the Aztecs. London, WI: He took this part from the mendocino codex, and is also mentioned in the florentine codex. Maybe i need to expand this. The penalties for getting drung were not equal to all. Comon people who get drunk were only admonished at first and could get a physical punishment and his head was saved, as a public display. It was pillis (nobles) who could get a death peanlty if they get drunk before get to 60. From the aztec point of view, a greter status impied a greater responsability. The mean life of aztecs was 38 years, so those who get to old age, were higly respected. Old men and woomen were pampered, no matter their origin, They were the holders of the Huehuetlatoli.. and enyoy yo give long lecture on every festivy. After conquest, drinking becamea very comon problem... Nanahuatzin 07:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose consolidating Downfall section with Spanish Conquest of Mexico article

Hi, I got here as an extension of a massive restructuring of the Hernan Cortes article.

As part of the restructuring, I moved the discussion of Cortes' campaign against the Aztecs to a new article entitled Spanish Conquest of Mexico. There is also a separate article entitled the Siege of Tenochtitlan. This all started because some of the contributors to the Hernan Cortes article was getting too long.

The Aztec article is even longer than the Cortes article was before I started moving stuff to other articles.

I am now proposing to pull out the text in the Downfall section of the Aztec article and merge it into the Spanish Conquest of Mexico, leaving behind a brief summary as a stub. I would use the "main article" template to reference the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article.

Richardshusr 21:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Article violates NPOV?

Sure seems to me that a great deal of this article VIOLATES Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. There are facts here and there are opinions here which should be moved elsewhere.

---

The above comment was made by 68.77.6.169. What 68.77.6.169 says may be true but I will point out that it is very difficult to maintain a NPOV on some topics, especially when it is easy to make a judgment based upon deep-rooted prejudices and assumptions.

I have scanned the article quickly and I don't see any blatant NPOV issues although I'm sure I could pick some out if I really tried. Is the problem that the article favors Aztecs over other Mesoamerican cultures or vice versa? Or is it that it favors Aztecs over the Spaniards or vice versa?

It would help if 68.77.6.169 and others would specifically identify the opinions that they think which should be moved elsewhere. I am open to this idea but I need help identifying the specific points which are considered to be opinions. Once we've done that, we can think about where those opinions should go.

Personally, I don't think the NPOV issues are important enough to warrant a separate article but I'm willing to be convinced. Please get down to brass tacks and specify what the issues are so we can discuss them.

Richard 18:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Candidates

I am starting a section with items which I think may be NPOV candidates. Please express your opinion about these items especially regarding a possible decision to move them to a separate article. Also please add any items that you wish to be considered for removal.

Note: Unless a NPOV issue generates enough controversy to warrant a 2-3 paragraph article of its own, I think it would be preferable to identify the issue and characterize the controversy in this article rather than create links to articles that have only one or two sentences.

I know that some part of the article may seem to violate NPOV, but thats because most of the history of mesoamerican cultures has been taken from european sources. It was not until 1940 that important writen material from native writers have been translated and given pubicity. Because of this, I favored this first hand sources (by native sources), and also from archeological findings. Clearly some others points of view are needed, for example i am planing to expand the history as was written by the Tlaxcalteca. Of course this section could be perceived as "anti" aztec... but instead i thing it would provide insight in the complex mesoamerican politics.

Nanahuatzin 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very difficult to achieve NPOV. Sometimes, there isn't a single objective truth available to us. We must then provide as many POVs as we think are legitimate. Of course, the Tlaxcalteca are going to see things differently from the Aztecs and quite differently from the Spaniards.

We should try to provide all the POVs that we know about and maybe indicate where some POVs that we think are possibly mistaken. For example, it is a fact that William H. Prescott thought that there was a "right to conquest" and that therefore Cortes did nothing wrong. [1] That's his POV. We could present it as his POV. We would be severely criticized if we presented it as a fact.

That is an easy example. This article isn't open to that kind of blatant POV criticism but, if we read more carefully, we might find more subtle examples of POV problems.

Richard 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvement of welfare of common people under Aztec rule

"Although cities under Aztec rule seem to have paid heavy tributes, excavations in the Aztec-ruled provinces show a steady increase in the welfare of common people after they were conquered."

Issue: Could indicate a pro-Aztec POV. Recommendation: Reword to indicate that "some scholars believe..." and provide reference to the scholarly works.

Not some scholars.. Archeological findingsso far show that, it is not a belief... I will provide the cite of the work: Nanahuatzin 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please cite the work(s). "Archeological findings" don't show anything. Archeological digs find artifacts. Archeologists, anthropologists and other scientists interpret those artifacts as having certain significance. Thus, these scholars put forth theories based on their POV. If you want the article to have a NPOV, you have to say "Scholar X put forth the theory that there was a steady increase in the welfare of the common people."

I know this can be carried to an extreme. I'm just responding to the criticism that this article violates NPOV and trying to find the places where it might so we can counter the charge. Richard 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading this i found something interesting, but maybe it need to be explained in some form.... What the original article stated, is that "archeological finds indicate, an increase of luxury items in home (of all social strata)in the conquered populations (no just cities) some time after they were conquered" (Michael E. Smith et al 2004).

My first question is why this statement can be see as NPOV... Is that because aztecs are perceived as a blood thirsthy culture? .

Nanahuatin

The reason the above text about improvements in welfare of the common people could be POV is that there's a tradeoff: welfare of common people vs. loss of freedom especially for the victims of human sacrifice.

After the Communist takeover of China in 1949, the common welfare of the people improved dramatically. The tradeoff was loss of economic and political freedom. To mention one side without mentioning the other is POV.

Richard 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

After towns were conquered, they inhabitants were no longer were candidates to human sacrifice (unless it was voluntary). The main victims for human sacrice had to be captive warriors of nahuatl language (see the section on human sacrifice). That is why Tlaxcala was spared of being conquered, and that is why they became ally to the spanish.

Nanahuatzin 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This point is not explained well in the text of the article. I have inserted the above text into the "Human Sacrifice" section. Please read it and make sure that I have captured your meaning correctly.

Also, I'm confused about what you're saying about victims of human sacrifice needing to be speakers of the nahuatl language. The Mexica spoke nahuatl, the Tlacalatecos also spoke nahuatl. What other cultures did? Which cultures didn't?

Richard 05:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, "purepechas" and "totonacas" , since they did not speak nahuatl, their warriors were not apropiate for sacrifice... (mayas were to far away...), and the Chichimecas were considered too savage. The victims for sacrifice were considered "mesengers", so they had to speak nahuatl. Aztec conquered almost all the Nahuatl speaking territories. So They decided to keep Tlaxcala free.. and "let the god (Huitzilopchtli) decided if he need fresh victims as if they were on a market" (words atributed to Tlacaelel)... It,s not surprising they get so much hate form Tlaxcala. Non nahuatl victims were sometimes used for sacrifice, since some other gods were not so demmanding.. but since they were lesser gods, those sacrifice were not so common.. Nanahuatzin 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, conquered towns were subject to tribute, but most schollars agree that after an initial period (when the infrastucture of roads were build), tributes were not specially taxing. The aztec suport the local goverments, and some of the began to considere aztec themselves. Of course, this do not means they were subject to a central goverment, like the Roman empire, but the proces was analogous. Probalby the only records that speak against the aztec, are from the Tlaxcalteca, who called the aztec, Proud and untrustworthy, that is a section i want to add, but I still need to do more research.Nanahuatzin 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Should a discusion of how the aztec are perceived included?.. I know that there are two extreme perceptions. One is of a bloodthisrty culture.. or other of an "ancient and wise culture, destroyed by barbaric europeans" (there is a "neo pagan" movement that states that... ) Both extremes are equally wrong.

Nanahuatzin

My POV is that both statements are true. The Aztecs were both a blood-thirsty culture AND an ancient and wise culture destroyed by barbaric Europeans.

Richard 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL... The aztec were not ancient, there were the new kids on the block, and learned all they could from other cultures. And probalby they were not more blood-thirsty or cruel than most european cultures of that time. Nanahuatzin 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But do you think i need to expand the impact of the aztec on other cultures? Nanahuatzin

Yes, I think that is important. Below I proposed a section on "Assessment of Aztec civilization". That section could have a section entitled "Impact of Aztec empire on other cultures". I won't be sure exactly what the structure should be until I've seen the text. Just get started and we can refine it as we go.

Richard 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. Nanahuatzin 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sentiment of other Mesoamerican cultures about the fall of the Aztec empire

"The Tlaxcaltecas expected to get their part; the Purepechas and Mixtecs were probably happy at the defeat of their longtime enemy, and other cultures were equally pleased."

Issue: Could indicate an anti-Aztec POV. Recommendation:

Why anti?? I can provide cites to confirm this... I don,t see two sides (pro or anti) on this issue..

Nanahuatin

Yes, exactly. That's what I meant when I said "deep-rooted assumptions". We assume that the other tribes were happy and pleased to see the Aztec empire fall. They may have focused on the heavy tributes demanded by the Aztec empire and not realized the "increase in common welfare" that they were enjoying as the result of being part of the empire. They also were unable to foresee the effect that the Spanish empire would have in wiping out their civilization.

As the text reads now, the reader gets the impression that the fall of the Aztec empire caused everybody to break out singing "Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead." This may be true and it would be useful to have the cites to confirm it. A more even-handed discussion would mention the points that I raise although it would have to be carefully worded to avoid winding up pro-Spanish or pro-Aztec. NPOV is a very difficult thing to achieve.

Richard 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Opsss. then i need to rewrite this section. What i as trying to say, is the fall of the aztec empire is usually implied as the fall of all mesoamerica as if the aztec were the only mesoamerican culture.... But in fact at first it did not had a significant impact on the other mesoamerican cultures. The Tlaxcalteca at first were important allies of the spanish, eventually, the spaniard would break the alliance, but that was decades aways. The fall of mesoamerican cultures was a long process, the fall of the aztec empires was just the opening, not the only chapter. It was a combination of circunstances, the most significant was the deadly toll of the epidemics, more than the military power or the politic of spain, a fact that has been slowly by the schollars.

Nanahuatzin 20:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you should insert the above text. It's very good. Just insert what you want and us native English speakers will clean it up. (No insult meant here. Your English is far better than my Spanish.)

Richard 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am confused about this sentence "The Tlaxcaltecas expected to get their part". Did you mean that the Tlaxcaltecas expected the Spaniards to give them part of the booty from the Aztec empire? If so, were the Tlaxcaltecas satisfied with their share?

Richard 08:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, after the episode of "the noche triste", when Cortez had to run out of Tenochtitlan, the Tlaxcalteca decide to suport tCortez. Tha Aztec send and emisary to convince them of the contrary, but they thought they should protect their guests. Eventually they dediced to be the allies of the spaniards, with come conditions. They would not be subject to any form of tribute, they should receive the city of Cholula i return, and they would had the right to Build a fortress in Tenochtitlan, so they could have control of the city. Initially Cortez tried to suported them, but the spanish authorities were not of the same opinion. Nanahuatzin 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is good info but not really relevant to the Aztec article so I put it in the Spanish conquest of Mexico in the "Defeat of the Tlaxcaltecans" section. Take a look if you wish.

Richard 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it,s my fault that this sounds like a pro or anti aztec issue. I can provide citation of the impresion of non aztec people, but i did not see relevat for this..... Nanahuatzin 20:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need a separate section entitled "Assessment of the Aztec civilization" where we put both pro and anti POV.

Richard 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of Sources

Issue: The "Sources" section passes judgment on the credibility and motivations of various sources. This could be considered POV.

Recommendation: It would be useful to have any judgments about sources backed up by supporting evidence. If you say "Source A exaggerates his numbers" or "Source B was too pro-Spanish", this is POV. On the other hand, if you say "In work X, scholar Y says that source A exaggerates his numbers", this is less POV. You are now stating a fact about what scholar Y said in work X, not passing judgment on source A yourself.

thanks i will do that, but it will take some time, please be patient. I think i will need o expand the reference section significativally  :) Nanahuatzin 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

absolutely, patience is always a good thing in a volunteer effort like this. Your contributions have been invaluable.

I do think that it is not so much the references that need to be expanded but the linkages between the text and the references. Instead of saying "X is true", say "Scholar A says X is true". Or at least say, "it is commonly held belief in scholarly circles that X is true". Once again, doing this too much can make an article unreadable. It's what makes many scholarly articles unreadable. We have to strike a balance between readability and providing supporting evidence.

Hang in there, I'm trying to respond to the vague comment made by 68.77.6.169 about NPOV. It's difficult to do this without specific criticisms from him/her. I've tried to identify the NPOV issues that I see. I might be off-base in my assessment of what the NPOV issues are. Further discussion from others would help.

Richard 20:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My main problem in this section is how to indicate i am not trying to denounce the sources but to explain the problems that each source have. I found this necesary because not only the indian version and the spanish version of the same incidents differ so much, but because until recently only the european version are widely kwnon.

This of course can be NOPV by itself, so i will need much more help and criticism in this section. An example of this is the case for antropophagia. While there hundred of references. There are only five or six primary sources... and a few arheological findings, but nothing conclusive.

Also i want to make a distintion between primary and secundary sources. After all, what i confess is really NPOV of my part is that i prefer indian sources like Father Sahagun anonimous writters, or even Cortez, and ignore Prescot, since the more extreme opinions over the aztec come from secondary sources. The dividing line is really tenous.... Nanahuatzin 21:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the question should be whether we are after "truth" or documenting how different people and cultures have perceived the truth to be. Your approach looks for "truth". But what has been perceived as truth has changed over time. I'm sure that Prescott was perceived to have been pretty close to the truth by Europeans in the 19th century. Reading him now, his bias is patently obvious. It's not that the "truth" has changed. It is our perception of the truth. This is natural. That doesn't mean we should dismiss Prescott. It means we should describe what he said and explain why parts of what he said are not how we see things today.

Richard 08:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly help if you have the time and interest to do this. I think most of the article is in good shape and perhaps this is the area that would benefit most from additional work.

OTOH, the POV issues in this article are not really that bad and you should spend your time where your interest takes you. If there are other parts of the article or other articles that are more interesting to you, don't feel like the POV criticism was that important. Personally, I think it was more somebody that had an "ax to grind". Worse yet, he/she didn't even tell us what ax he/she was grinding!

Richard 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions about religion and human sacrifice

I just expanded the paragraph about Ahuitzotl and the rate of human sacrifice. I assume this text was originally written by Nanahuatin. Does my expansion capture what you were trying to say?

Also, I moved the sentence "In Mesoamerican cultures, faith was an important part of their life and death." to the beginning of the Religion section. In that position, it serves as an introductory summary for the whole section. Put where it was, it seemed to be a bit of an orphan.

Richard 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, it´s much better Nanahuatzin 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Ramirez Codex

Nanahuatzin,

There is no Wiki article on the Ramirez Codex which is mentioned in this article. Is it worth writing a quick one? Can you do it?

Is this the [[José Fernando Ramírez]|Ramirez] who wrote the Codex? It's not mentioned explicitly in the article.

Richard 05:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it deserves an article, i have been postponing it, there still so much to do.. but i will give priority, sincees it,s one of then main sources. It was discover by Fernando Ramírez, while it is credited to Father Tovar, he copied from ana nahuatl source ( the mauscript has two columns, one is empty, and probably he expected to put the original nahuatl there). Nanahuatzin 22:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote a short article on the Ramirez Codex, part of my current obsession with Mesoamerican codices. Hope you like it - and check out the Aztec codices article itself. I still need to write up something on the Borgia Codex. Madman 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. It turns out that that name has been given to two unrelated codices - the one mentioned above I refer to as the Ramirez Codex (Tovar manuscript) ).

Another question about "other cultures"

In the articles about the Aztec empire, we speak often of "cultures" other than the Aztecs. Does this refer to cities like Cholula?

I have to say that I find this use of the word "culture" a little unusual.

I understand what is meant by "European civilization" and "Chinese civilization". I also understand what is meant by "French culture" and "German culture".

What is the meaning of these words when applied to Mesoamerica? I would have expected to see the word "tribe" and yet this word never shows up anywhere in the Mesoamerican articles.

In the Mesoamerica article, we find the following statement "Mesoamerican metacivilizations included the Olmec, Zapotec, Teotihuacan, Maya, Mixtec, Huastec (also located on Aridoamerica), Pipil, Totonac, Toltec, Tarascan, and the Aztec."

OK, fine. So what are the Tlaxcalatecos? Are they Mexica or non-Mexica Aztecs? What are the Cholulatecos? Are they a non-Aztec culture that was conquered by and paid tribute to the Aztecs?

I ask not just for my own personal learning but also because I don't think these distinctions will be clear to other readers either and I think we should make these distinctions clear in the text.

Richard 06:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The aztec were considered a tribe when they were nomadic, but after they stablished in Tenochtitlan, they created a distintive culture. Mesomerica was formed by city states. Some of them can by grouped into a culture, of example, the Maya, like the greek, they had a comon culture and language, but they never were unified. We could also speak of the nahua culture, that could inlcude Tlaxcala, Tenochtitlan, Atzcapotzalco, Texcoco, Culhuacan etc. But the aztec become so predominat that most of those cities were to be considered part of the Aztec empire and culturally they became the same. Tlaxala was part of the nahua culture, it was a confederacy of several city states, but they keep their own identity, enough to be considered diferent of the aztec culture.. Other mesoamerican cultures were Mixteco/zapoteca, TAjin, Purepechas, Olmeca, Xochicalco, Toltec, Cholula, Cuicuilco etc. Historians clasify those as individual cultures each own with their own language, or at lest their own variant of language. Teotihuacan was a multiethnic, and multicultural city, but it´s achivements were so unique that usually is considered a distinct culture. In the context of the history of mesoamerica, tribe is reserved for nomadic people, like lacandones, Huaves, tarahumaras etc.Nanahuatzin 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I understand this. The Tlaxcalatecos were Nahua and so were eligible to provide victims for human sacrifice even though they were not Aztec. For this reason, they were not conquered.

The Cholula were not Nahua and therefore were conquered but were not eligible to provide victims for human sacrifice.

But, if this is true, then the only cultures who would be find the Aztec practice of human sacrifice a problem would be those who were Nahua like Tlaxcala and Texcoco. Those who were not Nahua would not find human sacrifice to be a problem because they were not eligible to be victims of human sacrifice anyway.

Did I get that right?

Richard 00:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost... The start of the aztec empire was the "triple alliance" formed by Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan (tacuba). The Aztec eventually took over Texcoco, and Tlacopan so they became aztec cities. As a founder member, Texcoco had a lot of priviledges and provide the aztec with their most cultivated citizens. AS the Aztec absorved all nahua cities, that leaved only Tlaxcala (constitued by Tepetícpan, Ocotelolco, Tizatlán y Quiahuiztlan) and Huexotzingo as a source for captives for sacrifice. Cholula originaly was under Huexotzingo, but the aztec absorbed almost all the territory of Huexotzingo, leaving only Talxcala. As you see, there is still so much info to put in the article. And important part, is that the "flowery wars" originally was a treaty decided between the cities of Tezcoco, Tenochtitlan, Tlaxcala and Huexotzingo that was because in 1450, there was a terrible hunger in mesoamerica, and it was believed that sacred wars were needed to end the hunger. By 1455 there was again prosperity in the region, so the sacred wars (xochiyáoyotl) were continued. By the way.. aztec prisioners were also sacrified in Tlaxcala and Huexotzingo... Nanahuatzin 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

Here's some text from Spanish conquest of Mexico

"The Totonacs had been defeated by the Texcocans and by Huehue Moteuczoma, and they had been paying tribute since Ahuitzotl."

Who is "Huehue Moteuczoma"? I assume the writer is trying to say "Huey Tlatoani Moteuczoma I". Is that how you would read it?

Thanks.

Richard 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The text it´s a bit pedantic... but correct. Huehue means Old, And it´s how the aztec refer to Moctezuma I, While Moctezuma II, was called Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, or "Moctezuma the young". The use of numerals is and european tradition unknown to aztecs  :) .... Nanahuatzin 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a "good" article? Do we want it to be?

I think the Aztec article is rapidly reaching the criteria required to be considered a "good" article. One of the criteria for being considered a "good" article is stability. The content shouldn't be constantly being updated and it shouldn't be subject to edit wars. We're OK on the second point but I want to get your agreement about the first one. Are you more or less happy with the content so that we can stop adding content long enough to qualify as a "good" article? If so, I will nominate it to be that. We probably still need some copy editing but I think the English is adequate throughout most of the article.

The key point here is that we would need to stop adding content and focus on copy editing for a while. If that's OK with you, I would suggest that we go for "good article" status. Even if we don't get GA status, we will get someone to give us pointers on what we need to do to get it.

Read WP:WIAGA for details. Then express your opinion here.

Richard 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I found there are still so many areas and holes to be expanded or at least considered and referred to other articles, as it has been done on the section of Human sacrifice, that was cut to another article. I want to coment on Aztec writing, aztec medicine, aztec calendary, and maybe more important, the aztec concept of man (wich i have begining to study). The section on aztec religion barely touches the subject, of course it should be an article by it´s own, but it would take more time. Maybe in a year it will be ready for "Good article" if you can cope with my english....  :) Nanahuatzin 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there is ample scope for more expansion in quite a few areas, however the criteria for GA status appear to be not so stringent- each area does not need to be explored to the n^th degree, as long as they are addressed in some reasonable fashion. But a GA nomination at this point may be premature (although no harm is done putting it through the process if it does not succeed). Perhaps the article ought to go to Peer Review first- it can be a little hit-and-miss, but often a few useful suggestions will come out of the process.--cjllw | TALK 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Related pages need cleanup and restructuring

I just found that there is info repeated in the topics of "Spanish conquest of Mexico" and "[[Siege of Tenochtitlan]" and probably in other sections. Also some of this info if from older version of this page. Can you help me to put some order?. Specially the section of "Spanish conquest of Mexico" which seems to have been cut and pasted from other articles, like the Article on "Mexico". thanks Nanahuatzin 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nanahuatzin,

It is true that the Spanish conquest of Mexico article was pulled out of other articles like the Mexico article and the History of Mexico article. I did that and much more as I will explain below.

This is a good time to explain how I got involved in editing these articles. I started by helping my 9 year old son with a homework assignment on Hernan Cortes. After doing some Google searches, I discovered that the Wikipedia article on Hernan Cortes needed some serious cleanup (in fact, the article had a cleanup tag which has since been removed as a result of my editing work).

Well, as part of the cleanup effort, I discovered that the Hernan Cortes article had a link to La Noche Triste which duplicated information from the Siege of Tenochtitlan article. The Siege of Tenochtitlan article had information which duplicated information in the History of Mexico article.

So, if I remember correctly, I pulled out most of the information about Cortes, Moctezuma II and Tenochtitlan out of History of Mexico and Hernan Cortes and put it into the Spanish conquest of Mexico article. I pulled most of the info about the final battle for Tenochtitlan and put it into the Siege of Tenochtitlan article.

My systematic structure left the Hernan Cortes article with almost no text about the conquest of Mexico since that information had been moved to the Spanish conquest of Mexico article. Similarly, the Spanish conquest of Mexico article has almost no information about the final conquest of Tenochtitlan as that information has been moved to the Siege of Tenochtitlan.

Of course, you cannot talk about Cortes and the conquest of Mexico without talking about the Aztecs and Moctezuma II. And now you know how I wound up editing the Aztec article. All because of a 4th grade homework assignment that was turned in three weeks ago.

Initially, I had only intended to edit the portion of the Aztec article that was related to the fall of the Aztec empire. If you look higher in this Talk page, you will see a place (section 25) where I proposed moving the "Downfall" section out of this article and merging it with the Spanish conquest of Mexico article. That is approximately where I got started editing this article in earnest.

However, I found that the Aztec article needed a lot of help in a number of sections so I decided to pitch in.

I have tried mightily to put some order to the structure of information in the above-mentioned articles and other related articles. I think I've made some significant improvements although more work is needed.

Please identify the areas that you think need more work and we can discuss them prior to fixing them.

Richard 07:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. That explains a lot. I have hardly touch the Hernan Cortez Article, and the Aztec article has been sectiones , because it was too big. Firt i will try to review what articles are related to aztecs, and try so asses whast should go in heaach one. Of course there should be some repetition, but now i foudn to mmany. I am on Hollydays

"semana Santa" but next week i will start on this thanks for your help Nanahuatzin 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

By the way.. it seems my "typing" is worse than ussual in the last months... I think i need a vacation... thanks for your patience.. Nanahuatzin 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved much of the "Religion" section to Aztec religion article

As if the problems mentioned by Nanahuatzin above weren't enough, I have now added to the issues to be regularized by moving some of the text from this article to the Aztec religion article.

Here's my rationale:

Before I resurrected it, the Aztec religion link used to redirect to the Aztec mythology article. However, this suggests that the most important thing to discuss about Aztec religion is a discussion of their pantheon of gods which is what the Aztec mythology article provides.

When I looked at the history of Aztec religion, I found that it used to consist of a long piece of unwikified text that was in dire need of cleanup and reorganization. So I did it. I merged the original Aztec religion text with the text from the "Religion" section of the Aztec article and put it in Aztec religion after breaking the redirect.

Now, I know there is also an article entitled Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. The next step in this cleanup process is to move the "Human sacrifice" section out of the Aztec religion article and merge it with the text in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article.

Though he toil from sun to sun, A Wikipedia editor's work is never done.

Richard 08:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Human sacrifice section should be a section aparte. While it was an important part of the religion, it was more thant that, It was a social tool and a a political tool. Iw was a speciall phenomna on it,s own. On the other hand i wan to rename the article on Azte religion, to "prehispanic religion", and explian that the aztec religion was just a busubset of the prehisnpanic religion. That is because Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, were not aztec gods. EManwhile Huitzilopoctli, and Coatlique were. Nanahuatzin 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

warnings on aztec religion

In the last decades, and probably due to the New age movement, a lot of groups are trying to revive the azte religion. In the proces they are mixing concepts from european and induh esoteric traditions, thus reinventing the prehispanic religions (you will see them every solstice in the pyramides, dressed in white, while "recharging" their "energy"). While i am trying to revert the aditions of this people, not always i succed. The simptons are, complety deny of the practice of Humman sacrifice and Antropopagy. While this practices do not seems to have the huge numbers of popular accounts, they were real, and can not by denied. Also ther took to extrems some claims by historians. Nanahuatzin 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved a lot of text about "human sacrifice" into Human sacrifice in Aztec culture

Please look at the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article.

I have merged text from both the Aztec article and the old (pre-redirect) Aztec religion article into the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article.

I tried to reorganize the merged text and eliminate redundant text. However, the whole Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article needs extra eyes to read it over and check for accuracy, consistency and general copyediting.

Thanx.

Richard 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is that info from ????? most of this is plainly wrong. Aztc had no shamans, nor did had a daily sacrifice, not the believe in souls nor the popol vu is the aztec bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ma out of town and I had little time to correct it... Can you elase restore the previous version? at least until next week when i can review te text?.. PLEASE

Nanahuatzin 02:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make the revert that you requested but it appears you have already fixed the problems you were complaining about. The text you deleted was stuff that I found in the old Aztec religion article. I had no way of knowing whether it was correct or not. I was a little suspicious because I had never heard of the "Popol Vuh" before. However, since I am not an expert in this area, I fi~gured I'd let someone who was an expert decide. Is there such a thing as a "Popol Vuh"? If so, what is it?

Richard 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes i started to clean it, became a bit overanxious, there are still several contradiction in the article. I Think i will to take time to check all mesoamerican related articles... The popol vuh is a text form the Quiche (better known as Maya)... Nanahuatzin 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are too many changes, and too fast... The section onf aztec religion, know implies that human sacrifice was a myth... It was not a myth. But he actual figures had been exagerated in popular literature.

Those are diferentet things. The actual number of sacrifices is hotly debated. There is little info about it in the primary sources ,and some of the figures are higly improbable. So it is not the fact of human sacrifice waht is debated... . Can you help my to correct it? Nanahuatzin 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AAAGH!!! My profuse apologies if I contributed to that stuff being in the Aztec and Human sacrifice in the Aztec culture articles. The only explanation that I can think of is that it might have been in the last version of the Aztec religion article before it was merged into Aztec mythology. I assumed that the last version would have been the best but the last version apparently included this POV stuff that asserted that human sacrifice never happened. I should have read more closely before I chose the version to use.

I think things look better now. If not, let me know and I will try to fix it. Hope you had a "Feliz Semana Santa".

Richard 08:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you said above about the Aztecs not having shamans. The text mentioning shamans is still in the Aztec religion article in the "Bloodletting" section. Is any of the text in the "Bloodletting" section valid? In other words, is it just the stuff about the shamans that is wrong or should we just remove the whole "Bloodletting" section?

Richard 08:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

shamanism is mainly a method of healing between naturalistic religions, instead the aztec had priest, those dedicated to healing were "ticitl" who had little to do with religion. While Shamans existed in small towns, they were looked with suspiction by the priest.

I do not know if the claims of bloodletting and endorfins are right. I would like to found the original source of this before comiting to the article. While bloodleting was used by the aztec, specailly priest, the most common form, was to offer maguey torn tainted in blood, which would involved only small quantities of blood. Nanahuatzin 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, double check the info before commiting to the main article. There is a lot about the aztec in the wikipedia that i have not cheked in a long time. For example, the info deniying the human sacrifice, was reworded from my own writting.... with soo much movement in the wikipedia, sometimes it,s dificult to cope with new adtitions. I am not a schollar, but an enginner, so i try to understand and double check everything before putting it here, so i move a bit slowlly. I have been adding to this article for almost a year and a half...  :) Nanahuatzin 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Peoples, I have a question. Why is everyone so intent on making it clear that indians are perfect in every way, shape and form? These people made human sacrifices for crying out loud! Yet your still pressing that its the europeans that are savages. I still can't believe how they portray those angelic native north americans at school.

Please review the section "The Fate of the Aztec empire under Spanish rule"

In particular, there is this sentence...

"Because of the fall of their social structure, the population had to resort to the Spanish to maintain some order."

Did you (Nanahuatzin) write this? If so, can you explain what you meant? Are you saying that the internal social structure of the Aztecs and related cultures fell apart so that only the Spaniards were left to impose order on the indigenous societies of Mesoamerica? The above text implies that but it is too terse to really get the point across. Can you expand on this point?

Thanx.

Richard 05:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is what i try to imply. It is deliberately terse.. because

i still looking for info about the process. Of course, it was much more complex than that The great urban centers fell apart, the former autorities were drestroyed and the procces used by the spaniard to concentrate the survivors in a few population centers, destroyed the power of the upper classes. That is how mesaomerican cultures colapsed.. But.. it was not the same for all, and i sill don`t know how voluntary was this process. Certainly the mesoamerican culture were attacacek by the misioners. The educatinal system was torn apart, and instead of providing education for all, at first only those considered noble receievd some education, and then all of them were forbitten of having any education.. Their attack also was resposible of the fall of the social structure. The chichimeca fought for 60 years. And i amd still not certain of the process in the south (mixteca/zapoteca/trarascos). I will prefer to left it like this until i confirm if this was the same for all cultures. Nanahuatzin 02:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Limited perspective of this entry

I find the Aztec entry very limited in scope, and it would be good to broaden the coverage. Here is what I mean by limited. (1) consideration is limited mostly to the Mexica of Tenochtitlan, with little information on the other 2 million Aztec peoples in central Mexico. For example, city-states were far more important to most Aztec people than was the Triple Alliance empire, but the entry ignores city-states. In this and other topics, the coverage follows what the Mexica said about themselves (often biased, self-serving, and even incorrect), and not what scholars have managed to reconstruct of Aztec society and culture. (2) There is almost no archaeology in the entry, but this is where the major advances are being made in understanding Aztec life, the conditions of elites and commoners, cities and urbanization, agriculture, and a wide range of economic and social aspects. (3) Most of the information is from a small number of texts (the chroniclers), with little consideration of administrative documents or codices.

The net result is an entry that only covers a small part of what we know about the Aztecs, and only a small part of what is interesting and important about this culture. I'd like to contribute more, but just don't have much time right now. I did make some additions to the bibliography, and I'll try to add some material as I have time.

Michael E. Smith

Yes, as stated in the entry, this articles centers about the Mexica, the other peoples, could no be extrictly called Aztec. This is a limited term, barely used in prehispanic times. What i think we need, and is an article about the nahua in general, Tlaxclateca, Acolcua, Tepaneca, etc..., where the Mexica were just one of them.

most of the info i have put, is confirmed on archeological findings, but as you say, there is so much to say, that the article has to be broken in sections. I invite you to visit those parts and put from what your perspective is important. I have centered most about the mexica historical sources, since a lot of this info is unknow to most english speaking readers.

there are only four aztec codex, while the info is not referer directly, it has been taken as the basis:

Welcome. Please help us. Any new perspective would be important. Nanahuatzin 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Spanish" vs. "Spaniard"

I have created an RFC linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Terminology to get some opinions on the use of "Spanish" vs. "Spaniard" in referring to those from Spain who conquered and ruled Latin America during the Spanish colonization of the Americas.

Richard 06:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

In attempt to better organize the Aztec pages and make them easier to navigate, I've created a template to include in all the related pages. You can see it on this page, I will add it to the other ones as well. Neither the layout, nor the contents are finished, I need some help for this. Editing the template is as easy as editing another page, but be careful not to mess up the layout, always use the preview button. The template is here Template:Aztec. To include it in a page, add

{{Aztec}}

at the top of the page (without empty line following). The society section is pretty much okay, in the people section I've added the "Great emperors" list from one of the articles, maybe we can add all the emperors, maybe others, I'll leave that to you. The template should not get too long. The history section is not good at all, mostly because the articles currently are not organized well. Ideally there should be a page "History of the Aztecs" or "Aztec Empire" (currently redirect), with subpages like "Rise of the Aztec Empire", "Aztec Triple Alliance", "Fall of the Aztec Empire", maybe more, so this section in the template can give an overview of the complete Aztec History. Piet 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Excelent, this helps to give a great coherence, but instead of the list of emperaror coul be put the link to "Hueyi Tlatoani"?. Many thanks. Nanahuatzin 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added all emperors to the template. Of course in this form it's impossible to add Aztec people who were not emperors to the template, I don't know if this is a problem. Either we do it like this or we make it "Aztec people" and add the most important emperors and some other people. Piet 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also added the template to all the emperors pages, maybe this makes the succession box superfluous. The layout will look better without it. Piet 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Break-out History section to its own article? Yes

Fellow editors: I have been looking at ways to cut down on the article size here (present size: 53Kb; recommended size: 32Kb), and I support Piet's recommendation to move the history off onto its own article.

Ideally there should be a page "History of the Aztecs" or "Aztec Empire" (currently redirect), with subpages like "Rise of the Aztec Empire", "Aztec Triple Alliance", "Fall of the Aztec Empire", maybe more, so this section in the template can give an overview of the complete Aztec History. Piet 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I will do this within the next day or so if no one minds. Madman 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this and I think Nanhuatzin will too. The standard for modern-day countries seems to be "History of the United States", etc. So, that suggests "History of the Aztecs".

There is currently no "History" page for either the Inca or Mayan civilizations. I am planning to add "History of the Inca" and "History of the Maya" (note no "s" at the end of these). You could make the title "History of the Aztec" or "Aztecs". The second is more natural sounding for an English speaking. We could use "the Inca" or "the Incas" but it's either "the Maya" or "the Mayans". I only mention this so that we can be consistent across these three major preColumbian civilizations.

--Richard 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy feedback. I guess I'll go with "Aztecs" since that is what you and Piet suggest. Madman 21:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just moved the history to its own article, History of the Aztecs, and I did some copyediting while I was there.

Madman 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There should also be a references section in the history article, maybe just copy the whole block from this page. Piet 07:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The same paragraphs are being crammed into multiple articles

Richard, I see you have added huge blocks of history back into this article, with numerous headers. I think it is not a good thing to have the same verbiage in multiple places. For example, look at the Great leaders section. Although there's really no information there (in fact, there's mis-information, giving numbers of 20,000 - 80,000 sacrifices), that whole section appears in 2 different articles, plus there's an entire article on each of these folks and there's a list of Aztec rulers in the template at the top or each article.

I also don't see a reason to try to summarize each little bit of the History of the Aztecs article within this Aztecs article. An overview might be appropriate, but the piecemeal tickie-checkie unconnected-sentences approach makes for a poor article, IMHO.

Similarly, the Aztec religion article is just a paste job from the Aztec mythology and human sacrifice articles (with a bit on the modern neo-Aztecs at the end). The section entitled "Assessment of the practice of human sacrifice" is appearing in three separate articles!!

All these sections appearing in multiple articles makes a frustrating experience for anyone using this encyclopedia, and has ballooned the main article back up to "too large" size -- right now it's larger than the Ancient Egyptian or Ancient China articles and is a back to being an all-over-the-map grab bag.

I would rather see us trying to create an interlocking set of great articles with largely separate content instead of trying to make each article a stand-alone crammed with as much verbiage as it will hold. Madman 12:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not easy really to make these sections under a header pointing to a main article. You need to have an overview of the other article and insight in what is important, which takes quite a bit of knowledge. On the whole it's probably easiest to keep it relatively short, without subsections. For examples we'd best look at other articles such as United States, which has a very long history section (too long imho) and refers to a main article. USA is probably good but not featured; featured country articles are for example Australia and Belgium, which have a shorter history section (but still pretty long). I think the three examples show more or less what we need: an essay mentioning the main points, leaving out the details and putting things in a context. But again, this takes quite a lot of knowledge and it will probably take us some time to get it right. If there is a good example in the Spanish encyclopedia, we could request a translation. For a start I think we better take out the subsections and make it more essay-like.

• On a side note: the USA article is 76 kilobytes long, much longer than this article before it was split. But otoh the subject probably warrants this – I still think we need to split this and bring both the main article and the side articles to a decent standard. Piet 13:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I put the slightly condensed History section back because you (Madman2001) had removed the entire History section without leaving a summary or even a reference link. You and Piet have been moving stuff out of articles without leaving a summary behind and that's not a good thing. Articles like Aztec, Maya civilization and United States are summary articles which should provide a broad-brush overview of all important topics with reference links to subsidiary "main" articles that provide more detail.

I admit that I was daunted at 1AM by the job of writing a really good summary that isn't just a repetition of the text from History of the Aztecs article but, then again, that's why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. IMO, we need to do two things: (1) make the "History" section in the Aztec article really concise and pithy (i.e. shorten it more) (2) expand the History of the Aztecs article with even more info so that the reader will feel that it was worth jumping to a separate article because there is enough additional info to make it worth reading over the same material in much greater detail. Task #2 is probably a job for Nanahuatzin. I may take a whack at Task #1 from time to time but I hope that the two of you (Madman2001 and Piet) will help.

--Richard 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your 2 sugggestions. I continue to plug away at your #1 suggestion. I am just now concising and pithyizing the Tlacaelel section of the History of the Aztecs article. We could use a better Tlacaelel article as well, but ya can't fix everything immediately, Madman 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving examples of Aztec poetry somewhere else

I would also like to suggest that we move the long quotations to another article or even to Wikiquotes. They really don't belong in the main Aztec article, methinks. Thoughts, anyone? Madman 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have thought along those lines since I came to the Aztec article a month ago. I think the problem is that the quotes are unencyclopedic. Problem is: Where do we move them to? I can't conceive of a suitable article title for them. I don't know much about Wikiquotes. Another possibility might be Wikisource.

--Richard 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource is the right place, then we can link to there. Piet 07:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed two of the long Aztec quotations in Wikisource, with proper (I hope) links back. I also removed this excerpt below from the article, but without any source or author, I don't feel I can add it to Wikisource. Therefore, I thought I could park it here until I (or we) figure out what to do with it. Madman 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, my fault. Fragments from "Colloquios y Doctrina Cristiana con que los Doze Frayles de San Francisco enbiados por el Papa Adriano Sesto y por el Emperador Carlos Quinto convirtieron a los Indios de la Nueva Espanya, en lengua mexicana y espanyola. 1524" (sic. Is written in old spanish). Translated from nahuatl to spanish by Miguel Léon Portilla in "El reverso de la Conquista" pp23-28, and to English by me... Nanahuatzin

thats the full name... the short name used by scholars is "El coloquio de los doce"... Nanahuatzin 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This fragment was moved to Wikisource.

Deficiencies in spelling and grammar

The problem here is that Nanahuatzin is a Mexican whose command of English is obviously not great. He also suffers from the fact that many words that are capitalized in English are not capitalized in Spanish. Madman2001 has complained about this before. Nanahuatzin has promised to try harder but I would guess that there are inherent limits to his ability to keep that promise.

This may be difficult for Piet to understand as an European who obviously has a good command of English. However, it is not as common for Mexicans to have as strong a command of English as it is for Europeans.

One alternative would be for Nanahuatzin to write in Spanish (possibly in the Spanish Wikipedia) and leave it for someone else to translate. I see this as an inferior alternative as the limiting factor is not the copyediting but the flow of information from Nanahuatzin to us. I have tried translating his Spanish before and my ability to translate Spanish is inferior to my ability to copyedit his English.

Another alternative would be to create a sandbox copy of each page (e.g. Aztec/Sandbox and ask Nanahuatzin to put his contributions there. We would then have to edit the sandbox and copy the edited text over to the real page. That creates an extra level of effort that seems unnecessary given the nature of Wikipedia.

I'm sure Nanahuatzin is trying as best as he can but, look at it this way, do you see anybody else contributing substantive content? Would you prefer that we just stop here and leave the article content as is without further expansion? If not, perhaps we should be grateful and appreciative of his contributions and contribute ourselves by cleaning up his English.

Respectfully submitted, --Richard 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with what Madman has said before. Nanahuatzin did not try very hard. If he had used preview or show differences and payed attention, he would have noticed that Nahua and Aztec were not capitalized (remark has been made), that institution was missing an s (in Spanish the s is there as well) and I'm sure he knows gropus is not an English word. That's four mistakes that are hard to explain except by nonchalance. I don't want to propose that he uses a sandbox or puts changes at the talk page first, it would create more work. I notice his mistakes and I correct them, that's fine. But I found it impossible to explain the mistakes by insufficient knowledge, and that is what annoyed me. Piet 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have complained. Nanahuatzin has said he will try. At the end of the day, this is a volunteer effort and we all have other things we could do with our time. Let us hope that Nanahuatzin will continue to find Wikipedia a worthwhile use of his time.

--Richard 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

i made have made some correction on the text about the florentine codex in the Talk:Aztec/Notes, but it need serious cleaning... i would be glad if someone would help me.. Nanahuatzin 08:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited it. Piet 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. Nanahuatzin 23:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Article quality

This dialog moved here from my Talk Page so that all can participate.

I've been working on some other subjects, I'm still following the Cortes / Tenochtitlan articles but a bit from a distance. A lot has happened there in the last month, which is very good. I still intend to work on them but other things keep getting in the way. A general remark is that at the moment enormous amounts of text are added, which has led to a few articles that are too large. And we should find some images to illustrate the articles. Usually contemporary paintings are very good for this, as there are no copyrights (you can scan them from a book and use them under the { {PD-art} } license - only goes for pictures of paintings, not pictures of statues etc). Anyway, we're very good on the quantity part but we need some more quality now. But we're moving on, which is great. Piet 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, Piet. We need to concentrate on bringing all the present pieces together in a coherent narrative. That would mean removing data/words that are duplicated within articles and, to a lesser extent, between articles. And we need images, too. Madman 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked a week or two ago if we wanted to push this article towards being a "good article". Nanahuatzin's response is that there was still a lot more that he wanted to put into the article. At that point, I backed off. However, I think there is a building consensus among Piet, Madman and myself that we want to focus on quality.

Here's what I propose. I'm going to create a page called Talk:Aztec/Notes. I would urge Nanahuatzin to put new additions in that page. The rest of us editors should watch that page and periodically copyedit Nanahuatzin's contributions and move them to the appropriate article. The appropriate location may not be the Aztec article. It could be a subsidiary page or even a new page if one is deemed appropriate. We should discuss the relationship of the Aztec page with its subsidiary pages. When moving text, a note should be left behind in Talk:Aztec/Notes indicating where the text was moved and a signature should be left so we know who did it.

I think we have the makings of a great series. This quality problem has been an obstacle and I think the above proposal will allow us to control quality without stifling Nanhuatzin's contributions.

--Richard 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it´s a good idea. All the movements, editing and copyediting of all of you in the last months has given a lot of structure and coherence to the aztec and related articles. I started to edit the aztec article about two years ago, and i have been building it bit by bit, with the aid of a lot of people. If you wonder why i have been strugling with english, instead of adding to the spanish wikipedia, is that this version is seen by a lot more of people, and copied into a lot of places. So I will do whathever is necesary to have quality here. Nanahuatzin 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I can submit a lot of ilustrations, but i have problems undesrtanding what can i put without problem. For Examble, i have the Borgia Codex, if I scan and clean the pictures, will it do?. And what does it cover "fair use"?. And if i go and take photographs of aztec buildings and reliquia, can i use it here?... Nanahuatzin 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your own photographs are yours, you can upload them here or at Wikimedia Commons (to make them available for other language wikis) and then link to them. It means however that you have to release them intolink title the public domain. If you need help uploading, let me know.

As for scans from books, there is a distinction between 2D and 3D images. A picture of a temple (3D) is copyrighted because there has been a certain choice of angle etc. You can't scan those. A picture of a painting (2D) is seen as a replication and has no copyright. If the painter died a long time ago, the copyright of the original painting has expired and every copy / scan is completely free.

So, for temples etc., if you have pictures of buildings / temples that would be great. As for scans, see for example the Aztec drawing from this article or this medieval painting, which has a more correct copyright tag.

See also:

• Wikimedia Commons welcome page
• Wikimedia Commons licensing page
• Wikimedia Commons copyright tags

Piet 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's focus on the question of the "Borgia Codex". Presumably, Nanahuatzin is saying that he has a copy of the "Borgia Codex" and not the actual Codex itself. If he did have the actual Codex, any scans would be OK as long as Nanahuatzin licensed the scan according to Wikipedia policy.

However, if Nanhuatzin has a copy of the Codex, the problem becomes who owns the copyright on that copy of the "Borgia Codex"? Is the copy in the public domain or does someone assert a copyright on it at this time? I think it's difficult but possible to assert copyright over the image of a public domain document (e.g. a picture of the Declaration of Independence). I think you can't copyright the text but you can copyright the picture. Now, what happens if you scan the picture and crop it so that the document is not evident but just the actual writing on the page? I don't know.

Next, what exactly is Nanahuatzin proposing to scan? The text of the Codex or a picture that was in the Codex? Presumably, no one posesses a copyright to the pictures or the text.

So, we need some clarification as to what Nanahuatzin is actually proposing to do.

--Richard 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a very good copy of the borgia Codex, I am goin to scan, copy and clean the despition of gods and simbols (the original is very damages in some parts), This wil provide with excelent ilustation fot the aztec related topics. The fullpages are too criptic for a common radres, but the indivicual drawings are amazing. Nanahuatzin 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, for a 2D work or for text it doesn't matter if he has the copy or the original codex, because no one can hold any rights over this copy. If I make a copy of a painting in the public domain, and I sell it to you, I do not hold any rights over that copy. The copyright has expired and making a copy does not create any new rights since I'm not adding anything to it. That's how I understood it. A 2D copy of a 2D original can not contain anything that was not in the original, therefore there has been no act of creation and there can be no copyright.

But if I sell you a picture of a 3D work, I have a copyright over the picture because it is considered a new creation. The Borgia Codex was created long enough ago (I suppose) so we don't have to worry about it. It is in the public domain regardless whether it's text or drawings. You can always ask the question at one of the talk pages at Wikimedia Commons if you're not sure. Anyway, we should not discuss it here since we definitely need an expert if we're in doubt. Piet 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates

The original template is at Template:Pre-Columbian. The "new and improved" version is at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test.

Once we have a usable version of Template:Pre-Columbian/Test, we plan to move it into Template:Pre-Columbian and then insert it at the bottom of the Aztec, Maya civilization and Inca empire articles.

Discussion is at Template talk:Pre-Columbian. Please share any feedback and suggestions that you may have.

--Richard 19:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mexica vs. Aztec (again)

I was editing the History section and realized that we have a problem with think he use of "Mexica" and "Aztec". At the beginning of the History section, the two were being used interchangeably. The most notable point was that the opening paragraph discussed the origin of the Aztecs and their homeland Aztlan. It would seem to make sense that Aztecs came from Aztlan. However, I changed the use of Mexica and Aztecs so that Mexica came from Aztlan and did not become Aztecs until the Triple Alliance created the Aztec Empire.

This represents my best understanding of how the names should be used. Yes, I know that the term Aztec was invented by Humboldt many years after the fall of Tenochtitlan but unless we're just going to change Aztec to Mexica throughout the article, we need some guideline of how to use the terms?

Thoughts?

--Richard 15:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think is my fault, i have been using more Mexica than Azteca, a least in Mexico, in archeology, few specialist use Azteca and all the museums use Mexica. But i accept taht most of the population uses Azteca. As a compromise, i think you are right and Azteca could be uses as Hundboldt intended. As the people under the Triple Alliance, and kept mexica, for the people of the individual cities of Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan. Nanahuatzin 05:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just began to read the aubin codex, acording to this, in Aztlan, the nahua live under the rule of a powerfull elit, called the Azteca Chicomostoca. The seven tribes run out of Aztlan, to seek new lands. The Mexica were the last of them, guided by their priest "Huitzil". His god spoke trough the priest and ordered them to never called themselve Azteca, the name of theyr former masters, so they should be called Mexica instead. I will try to write somehitn about this and put so you can review it. Nanahuatzin 05:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have put most of the above points into the article. As always, you are welcome to correct or expand on what I wrote. --Richard 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that inconsistency in the Spanish conquest of Mexico article as well, sometimes within the same paragraph. I would agree that the term Mexica could/should be used prior to the Triple Alliance, with Aztec being the term thereafter. During some copy-editing of Spanish conquest of Mexico, therefore, I replaced Mexica with Aztec. In addition, per recommendation from Rockero, I standardized on "Tlaxaclan". I hope that I have not stepped on anyone's toes. Thanks, User:Madman2001 15:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the change to "Tlaxcalan" and was annoyed by it because I thought we had decided to standardize on "Tlaxcalteca" but I couldn't remember for sure and it wasn't top on my list of priorities. Please consult the discussion in Talk:Aztec/Usage. Then let's come to a resolution. There are valid arguments for "Tlaxcalan" and for "Tlaxcalteca" and even for just "Tlaxcala". The best comment in the whole batch was "Generally there are few hard and fast rules for forming Mesoamerican demonyms, although there are some widely-observed conventions"

As for Mexica/Aztec during the time of the Spanish conquest, I would like to understand from Nanhuatzin whether there is ever any value in distinguishing the Mexica from the Aztec after the formation of the Triple Alliance. If I correctly understand what he has written, the Mexica are the inhabitants of Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan and all the Nahuatl-speakers outside those two cities are Aztec but not Mexica. But, is this a distinction worth making in Wikipedia? It may be technically correct but only serve to confuse rather than enlighten the reader.

Thus, I would go with User:Madman2001's approach of using Aztec throughout those articles unless Nanahuatzin feels differently.::--Richard 17:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, there is not necesary to point the diference, but as we have being reminded, the article has not touched anything about the "aztec provinces". But I hope we would be expand later, so to keep this difference in mind. Also, i think it would be interesant to remind that most of the cities under aztec ruling, abandoned the alliance since they did not considered themselves "mexica" although they could be called "azteca". Only the Tlatelolca, who were aslo Mexica, stayed loyal, even if they had a lot of disagrements with the Tenochca, since originally they were independent of them. I want to writte a more about Tlatelolco, the current article says little about their history. Nanahuatzin 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the sort of thing that I suspected was lurking behind the Mexica / Aztec distinction. When time permits, we should put this in the article. I think it's kind of like the Roman Empire vs. the Romans. Just because you were part of the Roman Empire didn't mean you were Roman. Nor did it mean that your allegiance was to Rome. It just meant that the Romans had you subjugated for the time being.--Richard 22:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and another point is that the mexica were just one of the nahuatl groups, a lot of the cultural aspects were common to the other nahuas. A good analogy wold be ancient greece, where several city states had common language, gods, and culture, and from time to time one of the cities would predominate over the others, but each city state could retain some individuality. In this case what i try to remind our readers that the main cultural aspects were not created by the mexicas, but adopted and transformed by them ( mhhh.. i hope i could make it clear.. it´s 2 AM....). Nanahuatzin 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the discussion over there (Talk:Aztec/Usage). I added my 2¢ to the conversation. I'm afraid, being Anglo-centric, that I prefer Tlaxacalan, as did 2 others, but I will most certainly follow the consensus and change back to Tlaxcalteca if so desired. Madman -- P.S. In the Spanish conquest of Mexico article, I found 2 or 3 different spellings of "Tlaxcalteca".

What happend to the Pochteca?

I just noticed that all the references to the pochteca (merchants) are lost, and the article about the structure of the aztec society just refers now to slaves. Any reason for this?. Nanahuatzin 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I dunno. I looked back in the history of edits and I see that I started mucking around with the "Society" section around March 26th. In this version [2] (before I started moving stuff around), the pochteca are mentioned. When I get a bit of time later tonight, I will take a closer look and see what has gotten dropped along the way and put it back. My apologies if I was the one who dropped the text.

--Richard 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this was my fault at least not in the Aztec social structure article. It turns out some anon user from FLAGSTAFF UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. deleted the entire "Class structure" section from that article this morning.

I don't know when it was deleted from the Aztec article and I don't think it's worth the effort of plowing through all the old edit history to figure out when the text was deleted from the Aztec article and by whom. Can you review the text that I just restored to the Aztec social structure article and copy the important points back into the Aztec article? Please keep in mind that the Aztec article is supposed to be a summary article and most of the details should be in the Aztec social structure article.

Thanx.

--Richard 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks, i was wondering what had happened... The article has now a great shape, but sometimes i get lost with all the new changes :) Nanahuatzin 07:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Aztec

Nanahuatzin has joined Project Aztec. Nobody else has. That's OK, listing your name as a "participant" is just a formality. Hopefully you've checked out the page and will add any information that you feel is relevant.

Personally, I think creating a project for Aztec-related articles is a bit of overkill. I think there are about 25 Aztec-related pages and about 5 active editors. This is at the very low end of the range for which a project page is useful.

Nonetheless, I thought I'd give it a try partly to give a home to the decisions we've take about terminology Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology.

I've just added a task "Review the History of Mexico article". I'm not sure if the discussion of the Aztecs is quite accurate. See the project page for details.

--Richard 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reason not to just handle this under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico? At the very least, I would think it should be listed there as a subproject. - Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I've copyedited sections Nomenclature and History, made them a lot shorter. A lot of the information was redundant, some I considered superfluous because it was in the main article. And some of the editing was just a matter of personal taste of course, improve if you like. The article is still a bit long, here's what else I would do:

• Society and Daily life section. I would make an article Aztec society which could have most of the Daily life section and a bit of the social structure (which would remain as the main article). -- Piet 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The title Aztec society used to redirect to Aztec social structure which discussed class structure and slavery. I changed this so that Aztec social structure now redirects to Aztec society which discusses class structure, slavery and daily life. The Aztec article now refers to Aztec society as a main article for the "Aztec society" section. However, the "Aztec society" section in the Aztec article and the Aztec society article are exactly the same. The next step is to shorten the "Aztec society" section in the Aztec article so that it is only a summary of the Aztec society article.

--Richard 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think Tenochtitlan should not have a separate section in this article, we could maybe mention some more about it in different places but not in a separate section.

After these changes I think we have more or less the desired length and structure for this article, and we can start thinking about making it a Good Article. -- Piet 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have trimmed the Tenochtitlan section a bit. I think it's OK now.

--Richard 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we are very close to a good article. Dare I suggest that we might even be close to a featured article? --Richard 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

When applying for featured status (maybe for good article status too), we will get the complaint that there are not enough references in the text. It is not enough to have a big list of references at the bottom. Ideally, we would have to say in almost every paragraph what source the information is from. Take a look at Red rain in Kerala – which is not featured. Guideline is Wikipedia:Citing sources. I would try to improve this a bit, then request a peer review. Other things: relevant picture in every section (not bad as it is, but maybe not enough to be featured); and to get featured, we probably need something about architecture (isn't that a big gap in our article, or is it not as important as I would think?). Piet 09:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs:

• A good review for accuracy. For example, the population decline due to epidemics is much too high, at least as a consensus:

The first epidemic, an outbreak of smallpox (cocoliztli) occurred in 1520 and 1521, decimated the population of Tenochtitlan and was decisive in the fall of the city. Two more epidemics, of smallpox (1545-1548) and typhus (1576-1581) killed up to 75% of the population of Mesoamerica.

• An overall copyedit to make the article flow -- a consistency of tone and information, removal of repetition, no obscure references requiring prior knowlege (e.g. I cut a reference to "the Twelve"), italicize the Nahuatl words, etc. etc.

Among other changes. Madman 03:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

* Why do you think the estimate of the population decline due to epidemics is too high?  :: --Richard 11:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Check out this article, which says

A fair-minded cross-examination of the broad range of primary sources for the epidemic of 1520 leaves little doubt that smallpox swept throughout the Central Mexican Basin, causing enormous mortality. The epidemic ranked with the deadliest disasters that native annals customarily recorded. Whether the fraction of smallpox deaths was one-tenth or one-half, we have no way of knowing, but from my reading of the texts discussed here, the true fraction must fall within these extremes, perhaps near the mid-point.

One-tenth to one-half is quite a bit below 75%. The 75% figure is close the the total population decline in the 80 years after the conquest from all sources. (See this)

* What are examples of "obscure references requiring prior knowlege"

• Piet mentioned one, where the Nahuatl term for prostitute appeared without explanation.

* I don't remember a reference to "the Twelve", what was it?

• Not sure what article it was in, perhaps [[Diego Duran], but it said something like "he was not one of the Twelve", with no explanation of what these "Twelve" were. The Twelve, I eventually learned, was a term for the the first group of friars to arrive after the conquest.

In addition, in my review of the Diet section, I changed "cocoa grains" to "cocoa beans" and removed a reference saying that the Aztec chocolate drink was "like beer". My point is only that this article needs a thorough review. I certainly think this article is getting there (I hope so with all this work), but there is some additional work. Thanks for listening, Madman 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Architecture

Nothing about architecture in this article. Could anyone write a few words? Maybe here on the talk if you don't know where to put them in the article. Piet 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed the Tenochtitlan section to "City building and architecture" and added a few words. The more knowledgeable among us can probably expand it a bit. Piet 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about "Skybearers" in Aztec mythology article

In the list of Aztec gods, "Skybearers" is the only god listed with English name first. Isn't there a Nahuatl name for this? --Richard 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

it should be Tzitzimime Nanahuatzin 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

then, something is wrong. Here is what the Aztec mythology article says...

* Skybearers - associated with the four directions, supported the vault of the sky.

* Tzitzimime - star demons of darkness that attack the sun during eclipses and threaten the earth

Please clear up this confusion. Thanx.

--Richard 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

please erase the reference to "skybearers". The concept of skybearers as described there is not really aztec but maya.  :( Nanahuatzin 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of Nahuatl words

I think too many nahuatl words are used. I some sections it is difficult to know what is meant. Example: Fathers admonished their daughters to be very clean, but not to use makeup, because they would look like ahuianis. I don't know what ahuianis means and it is not explained in that place. I'm guessing it means prostitute, if so I would use that word or a similar English word. In general, I think we should use English except when it is impossible for lack of a good translation. We should limit the number of Nahuatl words to a set that is small enough to handle for the non-expert reader. Piet 10:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.. My fault, for not explaining.. not all agree that ahuani (bringer of hapiness) were protitute, since there are also references to common prostitues in the streets for the common folks... It seems they were in charge of the "happinnes" of the elite warriors... Of course none of this ocupations were well apreciated by aztec mothers... Sometimes it is translated as a less compromising "coourtisan" (if my enlgish is correct, that is a woman of the court.). Old ahuanis try to keep their beauty with makeup, hence the reference. Ussualy when old they sell themselves as slaves to buy more makeup and try to maintain little more their way of life. Originally the section explaining about ahuani was nearer that text... Nanahuatzin

Strongly agree. In addition, the Nahuatl words should be italicized. Madman 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you italicize a word? --Richard 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

two single quotes around it. Piet 12:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've moved a few references to footnotes. What I wanted to do was bring a common citation style to the article, but I ran into a few problems. Here are the options:

• Harvard referencing: like (Boone, 1989). This is the most scientific, but I don't like it because it breaks the flow of the article.
• Footnotes: like the ones I have added. There is an equivalent template that doesn't put "Note x" next to the reference; this would be better. Disadvantage is that we have to number them ourselves.
• ref template: this is the one I prefer. In the text you add "<ref name=xxx>text of the reference</ref>" and at the bottom of the article you add "<references/>". Example: Red rain in Kerala. Everything is done automatically. The problem is that we can no longer format the references section as we want, so splitting in "Primary sources" and "secondary sources" would not be possible.

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Piet 11:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the "ref template" method. In the Olmec article, we have both Reference and Footnotes sections -- if we do that, the Reference section can be arranged any way we want. Madman 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the notes using the ref template, then realized why I hadn't done so in the first place. A note could be created inside the current list of references, so we could keep the current alphabetic ordering. Using the references template, the order of the reference list will be the order of the references in the text, which is not as good for a long list. I hope someone else knows how to solve this, maybe I'll find it myself. Piet 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You can separate out notes and references. See Abraham Goldfaden for a good example. - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested map

I've put up a request for a map of the Aztec empire. I'm not sure where the data will come from however. Maybe someone could create it from an existing (copyrighted) map. Or does anyone have a very old map where the copyright would be expired? Piet 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can put together a map, based on copyrighted material. Madman 03:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a map! Well done, Madman. Piet 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! It was a bit easier than I expected. It would be nice to have some map-making software, but this will do for a while. Let me know, anyone, if you have any suggestions for improvement.

I would also like to put together a map of the Lake Texcoco area with the various city-states circa 1428, when the the Mexica allied with Texcoco and Tlacopan.

Thanks again! Madman 12:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

I upload some images.. but i forgot how to used them...

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ahuiani_FlorentineCodex.jpg
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pochteca_FlorentineCodex.jpg
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cortez_Malintzin_LienzoDeTlaxcala.jpg
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quetzalcoatl_Ehecatl.jpg
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ToltecaChichimeca_Chicomostoc.jpg

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Huanitzin.jpg
  
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Codex_florentino_51_9.jpg
  

(note: this las is choped.. but i will replace it later..)

Nanahuatzin 07:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New images in commons: I've fixed the category, it's "Aztecs" not "Aztec". Unfortunately Commons uses different categories than Wikipedia. Piet 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nanahuatzin 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

simply [[Image:Ahuiani_FlorentineCodex.jpg]] or, better, [[Image:Ahuiani_FlorentineCodex.jpg|thumb|200px|right|And here you can put a caption]]. Piet 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When you upload more images, consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons, then they can be used in exactly the same way, but from the Spanish and other wikis also. You can also put them in a category like with wikipedia pages. For example, this is the category of Aztec images in Wikimedia Commons. Piet 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks i will do it. I am planing a "photographic safari" at the "museo de antropologia" and "Museo del templo mayor". I hope it will be useful Nanahuatzin 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo safari?? Great. Wonderful news. I would only ask that you continue to document your images with contextual information, the way that you did your recent codex uploads (for example, Image:Ahuiani_FlorentineCodex.jpg).

As a counterexample, here is an image of an Aztec mask in the Commons, but the picture is slightly blurry and there is absolutely no information concerning this mask, like when it was made, where it was made, what it was used for, etc. So, I am reluctant to put it in an article. If you can gather that sort of contextual information along with your photos, I would be very grateful. Muchas gracias, mi amigo. Madman 17:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC) - Oh, and please upload them to the Commons, so we can use them on other language Wikipedias.

Thanks, Piet. There are some images in Wikimedia Commons that might be useful. How do you reference them from a Wikipedia article? --Richard 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as if they were in the English wikipedia: [[Image:xxx.jpg]]. The software will look for them in the Commons as well. Piet 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Richard, over the past week, I have indeed been inserting some of the Commons images into Aztec-related articles. However, I only want to use great images that also have contextual information (like Nanahuatzin supplied with his recent uploads (source, description, etc)). I complained about the Aztec mask image above. The Aztec Education image from this article is also weak. Ideally the images we use should be as educational as the text. Thanks for listening, Madman 17:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Has there been a discussion about this article's name? Somehow I'm not very comfortable with it. I would prefer Aztec civilization like for the Mayas. I know we should not go lightly over this, but there's no use postponing the discussion. Piet 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bothered me forever. I'll try to look to see if there's anything in the archives on this question but I definitely vote for Aztec civilization. We can move this article and then put a redirect from "Aztec" to "Aztec civilization".

--Richard 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mexico collaboration

I nominated this article for the Mexico collaboration back in April but it only got one other vote besides my own. Now may be a good time to vote for this article. Getting some extra eyes on it can help with any copyediting problems. --Richard 14:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tenochtitlan - Palace of Moctezuma

In the Tenochtitlan article, I found the following sentence...

"The palace of Moctezuma also had two houses or zoos, one for birds of prey and another for other birds, reptiles and mammals."

What is "the palace of Moctezuma"? Is it the palace of Moctezuma I or Moctezuma II? I would presume that it is the palace of Moctezuma II but it could have been built by Moctezuma I so I figured I should ask for clarification.

--Richard 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me check, but if i remember correcty, the palace was built by Axayacatl and was the residence of Moctezuma II. I was there where Cortez and the Tlaxcalteca (about 3,000 people) stayed. Adding to the confusion... Moctezuma also has two royal houses. Which sometimes are alss refered as Moctezuma Palace. Let me double check this... Nanahuatzin 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mixtec-Aztec

User:Madman2001 put a caption on the mask image in Aztec mythology that reads, in part, "of Mixtec-Aztec provenance". I interpret this to mean that archeologists don't know whether this mask is Mixtec or Aztec in provenance. Am I reading this right? (Yes, you are. I was trying to say that in as few words as possible. Madman 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC) )

I can imagine a couple different ways to interpret this. Since the Mixtec were conquered by the Aztecs, it could be that we don't know for sure whether the mask is purely pre-conquest Mixtec or a post-conquest Aztec-style mask found in Mixtec territory. It could even be a post-conquest Mixtec-style mask found in Aztec territory outside the Mixtec territory.

My real point, however, is that there is darn little discussion of the Mixtec in the Aztec article or in the History of the Aztecs article. Yet, in the Mixtec article, we are told "In Pre-Columbian times, the Mixtec were one of the major civilizations of Mesoamerica."

I think we need to insert a list of all the "major conquests" of the Aztecs into the History of the Aztecs article and to summarize the most important ones in the Aztec article.

--Richard 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am still a bit confused/ignorant about the differences and similarities between all these cultural groups (if that the right word) in Mesoamerica at the time of the Spanish conquest, e.g. Aztec, Mixtec, Zapotec, Tolteca-Chichimeca, and probably more. They apparently shared common cultural elements, like dieties and languages, so much so that archaeologists have a hard time determining whether some artifacts (like that mask or like several codices) are Mixtec or Aztec, say.

Which is a long-winded way of saying I would be very interested in reading an essay (and having an essay in Wikipedia) discussing the similarities and differences between these cultural groups (or whatever they should be called). Madman 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (The work never ends!)

I agree. The Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan would, in the next 100 years, come to dominate the Valley of Mexico and extend its power to both the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacfic shore. Over this period, Tenochtitlan gradually became the dominant power in the alliance, and the Triple Alliance territories became known as the Aztec Empire. This is the only thing about this period while the earliest history receives a lot more attention. We could fix this a bit using information from Aztec Triple Alliance, but without making the history section as a whole longer. The period is not well covered in the other articles either, there's room for expansion there. And we need a map. Piet 07:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to change the title of this article to "Aztec civilization"

Piet suggested that we change the article title from "Aztec" to "Aztec civilization" and I agreed with him. The rationale is that the corresponding article about the Maya is called "Maya civilization". The corresponding article about the Inca is "Inca Empire".

I'm just formalizing this proposal so that we can see if there are any objections. --Richard 08:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern with this is that, as we discussed, the Aztecs were just one of the various culture groups, tribes, Nahua folks within central Mexico during this time. To say that they were a "civilization" whereas the other groups were just plain Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Toltecs, Tolteca-Chichimecas, is somewhat misleading. That is, the "civilization" there in central Mexico was to a large extent (from my reading) a broad-based Nahua or Nahuatl Civilization. Maybe we should rename it "Aztec Empire" instead of Aztec Civilization? My 2¢, Madman 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying Aztec civilization is the perfect name, I just don't like "Aztec" as a title because it sounds like an adjective instead of a thing. It's like calling the article about the Roman Empire "Roman". "Aztecs" is another option. I've checked a few similar articles:

• "Mongol" → "Mongols"
• "Hun" → "Huns"
• "Vandal" → "Vandals"
• "Visigoth" → "Visigoth"
• "Arab" → "Arab"

So no consistency. I would prefer "Aztecs" over "Aztec" though.

Madman's remark seems reasonable, but would we then have to split everything in "Aztec Empire" for the Aztecs and "_____ civilization" for things concerning all the different groups? What would _____ be then? Meso-America is too wide? Mexica too narrow?

Anyway, before voting I think we will need some more discussion, and there will probably be more than two options. Or maybe after discussing there will be no need for a vote. Piet 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Those other Mesoamerican groups mentioned by Madman above would equally merit a description as civilizations in their own right, viz. Zapotec civilization, Mixtec civilization, etc. That they are presently only titled singularly like Aztec is I think no more than a shorthand. IMO it could be better to rename those as well, and make it easier to split them out into separate articles on the pre-Columbian civilizations and their contemporary descendants, as is done for Maya civilization<->Maya peoples. In the present case, I'd be comfortable with a change to either Aztec civilization or Aztec Empire, with a slight preference perhaps for the former.--cjllw | TALK 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While one of my favorite books is called "civilizacion Azteca", i think the azteca are in a strict maner, a subset of the Nahua civilization. Speaking of the Aztec civilization, is like speak of the Chichenitza civilization, versus the maya civilization o the athens civilizations vs the greek civilization. I like "the aztecs", "the aztec empire" is also a good title... Nanahuatzin 17:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you are drawing an analogy to "European civilization vs. French culture" or "Western civilization vs. American culture".

I don't think the lines between "civilization" and "culture" are that clearly defined. In general, a culture is smaller than a civilization but civilizations can be subsets of each other. For instance, there is "Mesoamerica civilizations which covers Maya civilization and Central Mexico Valley including both Nahua civilization and non-Nahua Aztecs".

I get the distinction that you are drawing between "Nahua civilization" and "Aztec (whatever)" but "Aztec culture" is probably a misleading or confusing title. Also, the concept that you elucidate above is not elucidated in the text of the article. It should be brought out more clearly in the text. Finally, while there is an article titled "Nahua", there is no article titled "Nahua civilization". If we are going to follow your line of thinking, we need to start thinking about whether there should be an article titled "Nahua civilization".

--Richard 18:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should be (sight!!!). Maybe it should be nahua culture, or nahua civilization, and after refering to the comon elements, refer to the specific peoples. Mexica, Huexotzinga, Xochimilca, Tlaxcalteca, Culhuacan, Tepaneca, Texcoco, etc, Some of then are barely knew know, but they were once great cities. Huexotzing was famous for their poets. Culhuacan was considered the most cultived (the aztec tried to marry with woman from Culhuacan, so the may claim they were their ancestor) etc. The mexica became the dominant, but most of the culturale elements not were their own. Like the section on aztec mithology. Most of the gods were common to mesoamerica, they were not just aztec gods. I am trying to write something about it, but i think a should recruit more people, it seems it more than i can cope. Even in Mexico, most of the people knew little of the other nahua people. I think i have became very ambicious...

I think the proper analogy would be greece, it was composed of several city states, each one with their own elements, but all speak greek, share the same gods, and writting, and from time to time, one of the cities became dominant. In the case of the maya, None of the city states became completely dominant, so we called simple Maya  ;) Nanahuatzin 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the mythology, religion, society, and architecture sections of this article describe Aztecs or Nahua? If most of this information deals with the wider Nahua civilization, we could split this article up. It's a bit unfortunate to have such an enormous change after all the work, but it might be a better solution. Using the templates we can probably show the non-expert where to look for the information that would be removed from this article. The amount of work will be very significant though, we have to be very sure.

What is the normal way in literature to group the pre-columbian civilizations? Would Nahua - Maya - Inca - ... make sense? Piet 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the mythology, religion, society, and architecture sections of this article describe Aztecs or Nahua? The answer is basically "yes". For example, as mentioned above, the experts can't decide if many artifacts, like this Aztec mask or the Codex Borgia (no article, yet), are Aztec or perhaps Mixtec or neither. I think the analogy to Ancient Greece is a good one. Madman 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. What a can of worms we seem to have opened up. I suggest that we review every article in the Aztec template and in the Project Catalogue (should be more or less the same list) with the following consideration in mind... Is the text in this article about the Mexica, the Aztecs or the Nahua? Once we get the answer to that question wrt each article, we will have a better idea how to go forward.

My guess is that we need to expand the Aztec, Mexica and Nahua articles to make clear the relationships described above. Then we need to look at the results of our article review in light of the following...

1) To the extent that there are any Aztec articles that are 80-90% about Nahua civilization, we should rename those articles from "Aztec X" to "Nahua X". If there are any areas where Aztec culture differed significantly from Nahua culture, we should mention that somewhere, maybe in the Aztec article.

2) To the extent that there are (or should be) any articles specifically about the Mexica rather than about the Aztecs, we should rename those articles from "Aztec X" to "Mexica X". I don't think there are any articles that fall into this category but we should at least ask the question.

Of course, renaming articles isn't enough. We will have to go through each article and make sure that the right name is being used. Hopefully, this will mostly happen in articles like Aztec religion and Aztec mythology.

One final consideration... no matter what happens, we need to have an article like Aztec which has "Aztec" in the title and is about what people understand to be the Aztecs. {Agreed Madman 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)) We can educate the reader along the way but we must not suddenly say "Oh, even though you think Aztec in your head, you're wrong, you should say Mexica or Nahua instead."

I also agree on this... I myself took time to discover the diferences and reevaluate what i have (miss)learned ins school. Nanahuatzin 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thus, the Aztec article should talk about Aztec religion and then say something like "The Aztec religion was pretty much the same as the religion for all Nahuas. main article is Nahua religion". Where it's the same, say it's the same. Where it's different, explain the difference.

--Richard 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mainly. the aproach to give the aztecs the duty to maintain the world, the overenphasis on wars and human sacrifice. The transformation of their local (Huitzilopochtli, Coatlicue, Coyolxaucli etc) gods into greater gods similar to the old gods. etc. I have tried to write about this, but i still can find the right aproach. And then.. i have a lot of work this days, so i will be of little help for a couple of weeks..  :( Nanahuatzin 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree with this approach. In my work on Aztec codices, I finally had to break down the ==See also== links into Aztec and non-Aztec, although they all were pretty much the same in terms of outlook, purpose, gods, calendars, glyphs, heroes, culture, etc. That's why I set up a category (the first category I've created, by the way) called Category:Mesoamerican codices. The term "Mesoamerica" would be a nice candidate in addition to "Aztec" and "Nahua", but for the fact that it includes the Maya as well (something you wondered about early in your Wikipedia career, I believe, Richard). Madman 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i is really a can of worms... when i started to edit the aztecs article, i was hoping to give just a general impresion, but now with all the work you have done, I thinks it has became an very important source. So i think it will worth the work. I has became a very ambitious work!!!. Now, the best way of diferenciate the groups is by their language. The main languages spoken in Mesoamerica were: Maya (Quiche-tzutujil-cakchiquel), nahuatl, mixteco/zapoteco (originally they were two separate cultures..), Otomi, etc (i am omiting something.. but i don remember the others). Each language contribute to give untity... The problem is when we dont know what language was sopken, like Olemcs , Teotihuacan, or Cuicuilco... ugh...

In the case of Mixteca... the problem is something like happened to the phoenicians. Aztecs like so much Mixtec craft, that they imported artisans to Tenochtitlan and request certain styles. The also like the mixtec codex, so some of them were make by Mixteca, In the later days, Aztec woman (of high society) started to use Mixtec clothing, specifically the quexquemetl. It was wored over their traditional "huipil", and much comented by the women who could not afort such imported goods... In the case of the Phoenician, they imported and duplicate art form other people, so archeologis have trouble idientifiyin the prhoenician productions...

Usually archeologis have not problem identifing mixtec and aztec artifacts.. but other were made for "exportation" and that is when the problems start. Alos, the production of craft was an impaortan part of the Mexioca economy, and they also made pieces for "export"... Nanahuatzin 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put in what Nanahuatzin wrote but it's fragmentary and doesn't tell the full story. I'm thinking that the section on "Aztec society" should be moved up to the top of the article because, when it's done, it's going to tell an important story about the relationship of the Mixteca, the Aztecs and other Mesoamerican cultures.

Here's a question that I still can't get straight in my head: The Mixtecs spoke Mixteca so they are not a Nahua people. Yet, the Aztecs admired them. Are the Mixtecs then non-Nahua members of the Aztec Empire? What other non-Nahua cultures got conquered by the Aztecs and are considered part of the Aztec Empire?

Second question: Who are the Nahua-speaking members of the Aztec empire? The Triple Alliance, right? That is, the Mexica( Tenochtitlan), Texcoco and Tlacopán. The Tlaxcala also spoke Nahua, right? Are there any others?

I think I'm starting to wrap my brain around all this but it's taken me a couple of months and I'm still not sure I've got it straight. The article certainly doesn't tell this story and, IMO, it needs to.

--Richard 04:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I kwnow, and i am starting to fell inadecuate... I have learned all this in fragmentary form, and until now i have never tried to give some cohesion. The Mixtec conquered the zapoteca, and almost absorbed them, so we speack og "mixteco /zapoteca" culture, ( even if zapoteca is a distinct language from mixteca (my grandmother spoked zapoteca, is a beatifull language, i only know a few fragments). Then Ahuízotl, conquered them in 1486, and they had to pay tribute. The Mixtec is between the oldest civilizations of mesoamerica, and the aztec knew it. BUT.... Mixteca is the name the nahua gave them... they called themselves "Nuu Savi" (sounds familiar ?). A lot of names we have are the names given by the nahua to other culture, so this ads to the confusion. The same like many historic names in asia are the names the greek gave to them...

Other people conquered were the "huasteco" (Tajin). They were of maya ancestry, but developed a disctinc culture. The aztec had a cultural clash with them. The huasteco had rituals that included heavy drinking (forbitten in aztec society) and males used to go with exposed genitals (also forbiten by the aztec society...) som of the few erotic nahua tales knonw, involved huastecos. The Spanish inheritage the low opinion of the aztec on huastecos... Nanahuatzin 06:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A most interesting and fruitful discussion, and quite illustrative of the richness and complexity of Mesoamerican history and cultures. There are well over a hundred distinct archaeological and cultural complexes which have flourished in the region at some point in the last 3500 years or more, and many of these share in a common heritage (by descent or cultural diffusion) to some degree, while also maintaining their distinctive characteristics. Over time, each of them deserve their own representation in wikipedia.

This issue of the intermingling of history and tradition found in the region is one of the main prompts behind setting up the proposed WP:MESO Wikiproject (parent to WP:AZTEC and child of WP:PRECOLUMBIAN), from earlier discussions on talk:Maya civilization. It's still being knocked into shape, but I expect that it will define a need for an overarching series of articles at the Mesoamerican regional level (eg Mesoamerican history, Mesoamerican mythology,Mesoamerican technology, Mesoamerican calendars, etc). These can address the commonalities and differences in an overall way. Underneath this structure, similar series of articles for specific civilizations/cultures can give the detailed "local" view, while maintaining links with other related cultures.

Similarly, there is scope for identifying some sort of hierarchy for subsets of Mesoamerica, such as the Central Mexico-Nahua-Mexica-Aztec distinctions, per suggestion of Richard and others. As noted above, a great number of deities (for example) are common to Central Mexico (ie are not exclusively 'Aztec') and also have their counterparts further afield.

As to the question at hand (name of this article), there's a case for it to be Aztec Empire, since the article is mainly concerned with describing the people and accomplishments since the founding of Tenochtitlan. On the other hand, maybe Aztec Empire is best reserved as a synonym for the Triple Alliance (ie description of the state and its apparatus, rather than in general). Aztec civilization might then be more appropriate.--cjllw | TALK 05:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, Aztec Empire is not quite synonymous with the Triple Alliance, which was a stage in development rather than the whole thing.--cjllw | TALK 05:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall we

1. move this discussion to one of the projects? (Not Aztec, one of the higher ones)
2. structure the discussion? What decisions have to taken?
3. invite other projects/the community to comment?

I've removed the vote section, we don't need a vote now, we have to get useful opinions before we move on. Piet 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the vote section. The choices have become obsolete in light of the discussion.

I understand the suggestion to move the discussion to the project. The logical place would be Wikipedia:Wikiproject Aztec/Strategy although experience on another project suggests that people like to talk on the Talk pages rather than on the project pages. Let's hear what Nanahuatzin and Madman2001 think

Regarding other projects (specifically "higher ones"), the problem is that this issue is really about the Central Mexico Valley. The next "higher" project is WP:MESO which is basically all of Mexico (Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Olmec, etc.). I think this issue is only about Central Mexico Valley cultures, specifically those that were under Aztec domination. If that's true, then WP:AZTEC is where the discussion should stay. We should welcome comments from other projects but I don't know of a "higher" project that would be more appropriate than WP:AZTEC

--Richard 14:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be a good idea to see things from a wider perspective, to make sure it's a good idea to move all this information to the Nahua civilization or culture. In fact I don't really want us to decide that here, rather we should look how it is done in literature. Piet 15:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine with continuing discussion at WP:AZTEC, although noting that at its height Aztec civilization/empire influence extended as far south as the Soconosco coast in the Guatemalan piedmont, southeast to the Gulf Coast and to the west as far as present-day Acapulco (ie, beyond the Valley of Mexico homeland and general Central Mexico region).--cjllw | TALK 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Root meaning

Aztec (ăz'tĕk') adj. 1. Spanish Azteca from Nahuatl Aztecatl, one who comes from the place of cranes. áztatl = crane + tecatl = stuff (Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/aztec#after_ad1 )

[NOTE TO WIKIPEDIA: I am not sure if i referenced my source apropriately, i didn't take the time to look that up, but i provided as much information as reasonable to credit the appropriate source.]

Thank you for your contribution. I'm not sure why it was deleted and I personally feel that people who delete the contributions of others owe the original editor an explanation. I didn't delete your text but here's my guess as to why it was deleted.

The meaning of the word "Aztec" is explained lower in the article so the position you put it in is the wrong place. Moreover, the explanation provided lower in the article is different from yours and your source answers.com is not a great source since much of the content there comes from Wikipedia and thus Wikipedia could wind up referencing itself. Finally, one of the current editors of this article is a speaker of Nahuatl which is the original language of the Aztecs. We feel that his knowledge of the orginal meaning of Aztec is fairly reliable. If you can provide better documentation to prove that your meaning is superior to his, we can debate it. Otherwise, I suggest that you defer to his expertise.

--Richard 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well other reasons probably were

1. Don't put notes in the article, put them on the talk page or in a comment
2. Formatting was bad
3. The article should be written in prose

I feel reverting was allowed in this case. Being bold is nice but looking around to see how things are done is better. No offense intended, we all had to learn once, keep it in mind for your future edits. Piet 21:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's quieted down around here....

Seems like there haven't been a lot of substantive edits in the last week or two. Mostly it's been reverting vandalism and a stray additional comments by editors outside the "core team".

Are we all busy or just taking a break?

Seems like there's been a lot of good work done on this lately, mostly by Madman2001. There are great maps and pictures. We still need citations throughout the article.

I don't think we're quite ready for [[[WP:FA|featured article]] status but I think we're definitely at good article status.

Should we go for that or should we ask for a peer review first?

--Richard 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. You are a credit to Wikipedia.

Regarding upcoming changes to this article, here's what I'd like to do:

• I have a map of the Lake Texcoco area that I hope to publish within the next couple of days.
• I would like to go thru this entire article with a critical eye and ensure that everything runs together smoothly and is written in Encyclopedia English.

Regarding the Aztec world in general, I would like to:

• Add more pre-Conquest history to the History of the Aztecs article as suggested by Piet.
• Add something similar to the Itzcoatl article, along with a killer image I found.
• Rewrite the Chinampas article, perhaps including the map I mentioned.
• Rewrite the Aztec religion article, as discussed.
• Bring a little more balance to the Nezahualcoyotl article.

Um, that's all right now. Let me do the top two and then you can run with it, Richard, ol' buddy. Madman 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been a little busy and probably will be for a while longer. Anyway, I think we're close to GA status, but – apart from the changes Madman still wants to do – I would try to add some in-text references. We probably all have a few sources that can be used, just go through the article, find an unsourced paragraph and see what your source has to say about it. Very likely the source can then be used in the article, if there are no gross inaccuracies in our text. I will try to do a bit by the end of this week. It's not something that adds a lot of value for the average reader, but it's a strict requirement for WP:FA. After this we can request a peer review, we will probably get some more useful remarks. Piet 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing: the name. I believe there was agreement that it shouldn't remain at Aztec, but rather for example Aztec civilization. Then the whole Aztec/Nahuatl discussion started, but I think it doesn't mean anything is wrong with this article, rather that we could make it more general by putting some information under Nahuatl articles instead of Aztec articles. So I would propose we change the name anyway and sort the rest out later. Btw, to get featured we will have to sort it out for good, one of the requirements is that the article is stable. Piet 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Good Article

I've been reviewing Aztec, and determined it to meet the qualifications for GA status. The one the article seems weakest on at the moment is stability, though things seem to have settled down for now.

I had a few suggestions for further improvement, but it seems like the main editors already have them in mind.

• More inline citations. It seems like the article is well referenced, but I wasn't clear what citations refered to what facts. Particularly in some of the History section, there seems to be a vacuum of references. Now, some of the primary sources may deal with this information, but some of the more poignant facts could probably use an inline citation.
• Clarification of terminology. After having read the article, I, as someone who has only a basic knowledge of Aztec history, am not entirely clear on when one should use the terms Mexica, Aztec, or Nahua, and I'm not sure if their usage is consistent throughout the article. The Nomenclature section makes an attempt to clear this up, but simple guidelines for usage seem to be lost in complex etymology descriptions. The section could probably be a little more clear to assist reader comprehension.

The article is in good shape, and has come a long way recently. I'm comfortable with GA status, and think that, with continued effort and the resolving of core issues (like the name of the article), the article could contend for FA status. Keep up the good work. Phidauex 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations to everyone! Piet 09:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Recreation

In recreation there are some points that i found interesting. I offer them here so you considered to inlude them.

The fortunate player that could throw the ball in the stone ring, have the right to take the fine blankets of the public, so a point was ussually followed by general laughter and running of the public. (The sacrifice of the lossing team was only present in the ritual game of the Tajin culture, and ocasionally between the Mixteca).

Betting on the results of the ball game and in the game of patolli was common. People cold bet anything, including his/her liberty. The patolli game seem to had been very adictive and was critisized by the elders.

The aztec enjoyed dramatic representations, they were staged representations of their legends, and ussually included singers, dancers, acrobats, clowns and dwarfs. There was two dedicated spaces for this.

During their monthly festivities for their gods, there were several contests, which include dance, songs, declamations, runing, wrestle and acrobacy. Also there was profesionals hired for the festivities (acrobats, dancers and clowns).

source: La cultura Azteca by Orozco y Berra.

Nanahuatzin 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting of Aztec history by Tlacaelel

I am confused by this sentence: "This rewriting led directly to the education´s content of scholars and promoted the believing that the Aztecs were always a powerful and mythic nation; forgotting forever a possible true history of modest origins."

I'm pretty sure I know what the author was trying to say but I'm confused by this phrase "forgotting forever a possible true history of modest origins."

What is meant by "a possible true history of modest origins"? Specifically, what is the meaning that the word "possible" is intended to convey in this sentence?

If it helps to write an equivalent sentence in Spanish, please do so. It may help us to understand the intended meaning.

--Richard 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

mmhhh.. it seems is the result of too much cleaning, i don´t remeber what was the original...

While not all historians agree on this , Tlacaelel reformed the aztec state, he create a lot of the institutions, and the order to burn their history books (from Tenochtitlan and provinces under aztec ruling). He claimed (acording aztec sources) that they were full fo lies and because that people had been considered gods, when they were not. After that he had the oportunity to rewrite azte history, so instead of being the most poor and ignorant the the original nahua tribes, they could claimed to be the inheritors of the Toltec culture.

The problem is that we do not know if the legends, that claim they arrived as the last and poor of the "nahuatlaca" tribes are true, since there is no archeological record of it.

In the spanish wikipedia is a "posible" protohistoy of the aztec http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_del_origen_azteca , but i am not certain of it. Nanahuatzin 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I dont like the sentence because: 1. Tlacaelel didnt write anything, at least not anythingn that we would consider writing. He may have retold the history of the aztecs but he probably didn't at least not succesfully because: 2. aztec sources from after the conquest remembered and retold the stories of the aztecs humble origins. Maunus 08:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern view

Laurete sejourne, antropologist has written some beatifull books about aztec and mesaomerican spirituality, unfortunatelly, some people has transformed it (without her aptoval) ina religious movement, the most notorious is Antonio Velazco.

Antonio Velasco Piña wrote three books, "Tlacaelel, El Azteca entre los Aztecas", "La mujer dormida debe dara a luz", and "Regina". When mixed with the currents of the Neopaganims, these books resulted in a new rreligious movement called "mexicanista". This movement, called for a return to the aztec spirituality, with this return, Mexico will became the next center of power... I mixes mesaomerican cults, with hindu esoterism. This was very popular in the 90,s. and while i have not hear about then recentrly, i am shure are still here.

This movement takes Tlacaelel as profet, and sya taht "the kundalini snake under the earth, will move to Mexico city, so i will became the next center of power". In his book Regina, trnasform the studentds masacre of 1968 in Mexico in a religious movement, and REgina, a "fake) lider of the movement is called a dakini...

there is little writen about this, but some can be find in http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2003/08/18/004a1pol.php?origen=index.html&fly=2

Nanahuatzin 04:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

—This information is very inaccurate. Velazco and mesoamerican is misspelled, Antonio Velasco Piña has written at least twelve books, he didn't write "La mujer dormida debe dar a luz" (also misspelled), he wasn't trying to create a new religious movement, the link doesn't provide good information, and the "mexicanista movement" is practically non-existen. There has been, however, a lot of interest in aztec spirituallity, in what is called mexicanidad. The text should center in this topic.

201.141.99.61 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (Itzcuauhtli)

Velazco claims the books "La mujer dormida debe dar a luz" and "Tlacaelel" were given to him by his spiritual guide "Ayocuán". But since nobody have meet Ayocuán, is generally acepted that Velazco is the author. Velazco claims the story of Regina is true, something that has angered many of the people involved in the masacre. In the 90s, I met several members of the "movimiento mexicanista", and personally i things it´s good it is practically non existant today. While there is a modern interest in "aztec spirituallity", there is so little material surviving that i always will be a mix of modern ideas and ideals.

here is an interview with Velazco, about his book "la mujer dormida debe dar a luz". http://www.milenio.com/semanal/191/mil2.htm

a fragment in english based on "Regina" can be found here: http://www.identicalsoftware.com/rpg/wod/settings/mexico/1968.html

Let's discuss orthography

Let's discuss any wholesale changes to spelling (orthography) beforehand. In particular, the name of the Aztec capital is "Tenochtitlan", which is not only the name of the article in English, but Spanish as well. I have never seen "Tenochtitlān" used by anyone - I will occasionally find "Tenochtitlán" but none of the established sources (e.g. Michael Coe) use that.

I did open a discussion on orthography on the Nahuatl talk page some time ago, but without resolution.

Thanks, Madman 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I did suppose that those orthography changes wouldnt be accepted without further notice. However there are reasons for applying them, and I did also not apply them "wholesale". I changed the instances that wreent linkns and where the name was passed of as being a classical nahuatl word, normally indicated by "in nahuatl ..." or by using italics. I didnt try to change words where a nahuatl word was used as an english word or placename and an english style orthography would be expected, I also didnt change titles or hyperlinks.

I am of the opinion that when we represent classical nahuatl word we should use a transcription that

• 1. represents all phonemic information about that word when it is known. (That means that it sshould include vowel length and saltillo/glottal stop.)
• 2. represent the phonological reality of the wordsas consistently. (That is that it uses the same symbols for the same sound every time.)
• 3. is close to the transcription style used in classical nahuatl documents. (e.g. doesnt use w and k etc but use the classical, spanish style letter combinations)

The only orthography that satisfies these conditions is the one developed by Michel Launey based on Horacio Carochis conventions. Carochi indicates vowel length with a macron and glottal stop with a grave accent over medial and initial vowels and a circumflex accent over final vowels (so that the ccent m ark can be seen to be different from the stress mark). This orthography makes it possible to immediately recognize word although you have seen it used in an orthography that doesnt mark vowel length or glottal stop, something that would be more difficult if using completely different letters (e.g. <h> for glottal stop which is also misleading because classical nahuatl had a glottal stop and not an h, or double vowels for lentgh or similar). Carochis transcription is in fact the only historically used transcription that shows both vowel length and glottal stop in a consistent manner.

This means that in my opinion Tenochtitlan could be spelled <Tenochtitlan> when used as an english word (and <Tenochtitlán> when used as a spanish word which is pretty unreasonable on this wiki) but it should be <tenochtitlān> with a long a when used as a nahuatl word because not representing the long vowel would simply be passing of something as nahuatl which isnt. And likewise <tlatoani> should be <tlàtoāni>.

Classical Nahuatl is a dead language and nobody is governing the transcription standard but I think we have a responsability to convey its sounds as faithfully as possibly (even though most modern scholars don't).Maunus 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

mhhh.. I have a problem with this. How many people know Michel Launey based conventions?. I think for most of the readers the "ā" does not represent a long vowel, unless we put a section explaining how to pronounce it. For me this is the first time i see it. A least one reader has asked for a guide on how to pronounce nahuatl names. Nanahuatzin 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not many people know his conventions. Most people do not represent vowel length and saltillo at all. But the good thing about it is that even though they don't they can still read it because it doesnt throw in any additional letters in the words (something that the transcription using <h> for saltillo does). A description of Launeys orthography can be found at Classical Nahuatl grammar.Maunus 04:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

After having thought about this for a while, my major concern is that I know of no other sources which use this orthography. Portilla, Coe, Nigel Davies all use unaccented vowels, as does Encyclopedia Brittanica and Encarta. A review of the first 150 (non-Wikipedia) Internet hits for tlatoani show nothing but unaccented vowels.

This is not to say that the heavily-accented orthography you propose is incorrect, Maunus. In fact, from your remarks, it would seem that it might indeed be preferrable. However, as you noted recently on Nanahuatzin's Talk page, we are consensus driven and should employ the standards that are in use -- and the heavily-accented orthography is too obscure for us to use it as our standard.

How about the other Mesoamerican editors? Your thoughts? Madman 14:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(Coe and Nigel Davies do not know Nahuatl; Leon Portilla is not known for his rigid scientific standards nor his general linguistic mastery [Note from Madman: yes, I agree that Portilla is less than rigourous! : ) ]. Any source that deals with the Aztec language at an reasonable level does somehow explicitly and motivatedly take a standpoint regarding how and whether to show long vowels and saltillo. Wikipedia should do as much and not just accept the lowest common denominator Maunus 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

Interesting topic. Maunus asked for my opinions, fwtw. My major opinion is that everybody should use an orthography that everybody else will like. Since that is impossible...

It really comes down to a question of what is being written, for whom, for what purpose(s). If your purposes center around historical documentation and the Classical variant I can see why people would want to keep something close to the traditional orthography. But even then I would see little value in perpetuating some of the oddities that have been perpetrated under that orthography (e.g. o for /w/, i for /y/ and y for /i/, cuh for syllable-final /kʷ/ leading Mexicans to pronounce their sons' name Tecuhtli [teˈkutli] instead of [ˈtekʷtɬi], and so forth.

I agree with Maunus' criteria 1 and 2 (represent all the phonemic info, and do it consistently), and am not particularly motivated by criterion 3 (make it look like Classical Nahuatl), partly because that so easily contradicts criteria 1 and 2. Having two different types of accents to mark the saltillo, for instance, or c/qu, hu/uh, cu/uc/uhc/cuh, z/c and so forth, is really unnecessary. Launey's system is not the only one to meet criterion 1 and do pretty well at 2 and 3: Karttunen's in her 1983 Analytical Dictionary or J. Richard Andrews' very similar one in his 1975 Introduction are reasonable and easier, for me at least, to read. (They use the macron for length, h for saltillo, keep cu/uc, hu/uh, c/qu, c/z, etc.) Carochi/Launey's accents for saltillo don't work well typographically with the macron for cases where saltillo and length coincide (they *do* occur.)

My background is not in Classical Nahuatl, and I have little emotional attachment to the traditional orthography; my impression is that it is clunky and gets in the way for a lot of things. I'd just as soon use univalent and simple symbols, such as k, s, w, macron and so forth. I even like using such unitary symbols as č, ¢, ƛ, kʷ, for the (unitary) complex phonemes; you can see the CVC syllable structure so much more clearly. But it's not a great big deal to me; one does get used to different systems and to switching among them. In representing data from modern variants my preference is to follow whatever orthography is currently most used for each of them, but I recognize that for some purposes it is far from ideal to have different orthographic systems mixed.

In any case one must realize that if data from different variants are represented accurately, you won't always see the same word looking the same. The root 'arrive' was [aʔsi] in Classical (and is [ahsi] in Orizaba); it is [asi] (definitely no saltillo) in Tetelcingo. Length is particularly variable and elusive. Doubled consonants are saltillo-consonant in a number of variants. And so forth. If everything must be written uniformly such differences will not be represented.

I don't see any easy answers. If I were the boss I'd probably set up something with w, k, s, h and macrons and shove it down everybody's throats, but (it's probably just as well) I'm not the boss.

--Lavintzin 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider (with interest in but little knowledge of the subject), I see the value of having a consistent orthography that well-represents the language in Classical Nahuatl. I also see the value of consistently using familiar spellings in the other articles, lest someone wonder whether Mexihcah, Mexìcâ, and even Mexiʔcaʔ or Mexi'ca' are the same word (remember who reads encyclopedias). IPA pronunciations can be given in the other articles (and even in Classical Nahuatl).--Curtis Clark 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Curtis Clark that the reason a "classic style" orthography is necessary is that then words are recognizable both from documents and from the most common everyday uses. However I only propose this orthography for classical nahuatl and for the modern dialects I very much agree with Lavintzins ideas of having a phonemic script. But this sproposal was only for representations of classical nahuatl words, and nahuatl words in historical contexts. Maunus 09:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we need to use the most familiar spellings in Wikipedia. In the books and encyclopedia articles dealing with the Aztecs, the orthography of Classical Nahuatl words (when they are used at all) is unaccented. Therefore, I believe we need to use the unaccented orthography for Nahuatl words when we use them in Aztec Wikipedia articles.

For the Nahuatl and Classical Nahuatl articles, we may want to use a different orthography. I am not very familiar with the source materials there and so I'll abstain from an opinion on that.

Thanks for listening, Madman 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Aztec army

Can you look at this article and give an opinion as to whether or not the information in it is reliable? There is a lot of skepticism on the Talk Pagethat suggests that the information is not reliable. I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the reliability of the article. Thanks. --Richard 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is bad. See my comment on the talk page.Maunus 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion... unless someone takes the time to write about it, the article shold be erased... Nanahuatzin 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of primary sources

Nanahuatzin,

I hope you don't get frustrated by the high standards that we are trying to establish for this article.

After reading the discussion above about primary sources and "No Original Research", I started thinking that even the "discussion of primary sources" section could have "original research" in it. By this I mean, even your opinion about the credibility of the primary sources constitutes "original research". For us to put in a critique of a primary source, we need a citation of a secondary source who makes the criticism of the primary source. (Technically, a citation is not absolutely necessary but it would be a great help.)

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:

1. The possibility of Spanish influence poses potential problems for those studying the post-conquest codices. - Better to put this comment in the mouth of a historian. "WHO sees Spanish influence as a problem?"
2. His (Bernal Diaz del Castillo) account is colorful, but his work is considered erratic and exaggerated. - Once again, "WHO considered del Castillo's work "colorful but erratic and exaggerated?"
3. His (Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl) account of Netzahualcoyotl, an ancestor of Ixtlilxochitl's, has a strong resemblance to the story of King Solomon - "WHO sees the resemblance?"
4. Some (Diego Muñoz Camargo) parts of his work have a strong Tlaxcala bias. - "WHO says Camargo's work has a strong Tlaxcala bias?"

Once again, I recognize that this pickiness is probably a higher standard than is observed at many Wikipedia articles. I don't think these deficiencies would draw heavy criticism but, since Maunus brought up the general topic, I thought I'd point out the need for citations in this section as well.

--Richard 07:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the comment on Bernal Diaz should not be hard to source: that is a pretty universal verdict on his work. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I'm not saying that any of the above assessments are wrong (I'm not qualified to say that they are or are not). All I'm saying is that it would be far preferable to put these pronouncements in the mouths of a reliable source rather than to have them appear to be the opinions of Nanahuatzin or any of the rest of us. --Richard 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

don´t worry, I like this article to have high standars, The first time i saw this article, about two years ago, it was a little more than a resume of the point of view of Prescot. And while my english it is not the best i felt a lot could be do about it. Finally i think it´s a reliable source on the aztec thanks to the help of a lot of people. In the process i have learned a lot, specially when trying to verify sources, i found that a lot of my preconceptions were wrong. My main problem is that i am not a schollar, but an enginner, that means that i am used than an argument is more important, than the people who said it... And while i can remeber a lot of cites and facts, i always forget to put who, and where people say it.

Recently I have participate little, because my job requieres now a lot of my time. But fortunatelly there is people who know much more than me, and currently the article requieres a higher level of englosh thatn my. So i prefer to participe now in the talk page.

Let my a couple of days and i give you "the sources" on the "source" comment. Nanahuatzin 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by map at beginning of "History" section

In the green and white map, what is the extent of the Aztec empire. Are the Chichimecans, Tarascans and Mixtecs all inisde the Aztec Empire? If not, then the "white areas = independent chiefdoms" is confusing because some white areas are independent AND OUTSIDE the Aztec Empire whereas others are independent and INSIDE the Aztec Empire.

If I'm getting this wrong, then please enlighten me as to what I'm not understanding correctly.

--Richard 07:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have confused you but its really not my fault, the aztecs made it that way ;). The white pockets within the green area are citystates and territories that the aztecs failed to conquer. The nature of the aztec empire was not the classical one dominating entire territories with large armies, rather they had lose armies, went and defeated a town and demanded tribute and went home. For this reason sometimes they simply couldnt conquer a city although well within the empires reach and scope, this is the case with the white are of tlaxcala, cholula for example successive aztec emperors fought against the tlaxcalans but couldnt win, so the tlaxcalan state remained independent as a pocket within the area dominated by the aztecs.Maunus 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Other than that I would really like to see some SVG images liek the nice ones they have in the Inca empire article. But I dont know how to make those. Someone should make some based on all the nice and useful maps that can be found in Ross Hassigs "Aztec Warfare" Also if someone could make a map based on the one I made but which doesn't look fuzzy it would be great.Maunus 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that I am not expressing my confusion clearly. The problem is that there are white areas inside the green areas AND there are white areas outside the green areas. My confusion is whether white means the same thing for all the areas on the map.

Specifically, my confusion is whether every white area outside the green area (labelled or not labelled) is within the Aztec Empire but not conquered. Specifically, was the status of the Chichimecans, Tarascans and Mixtecs the same as that of the Tlaxcalans and the Cholulans? I don't think so but my knowledge of the Aztec Empire is not that strong so I seek clarification.

One way to dispel the confusion is to add another color such as yellow. If there were only yellow areas inside the green areas and some yellow areas outside the green areas, then the reader could conclude that yellow areas were unconquered cities that were part of the Aztec Empire and that white areas represented areas that were not part of the Aztec Empire at all.

--Richard 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The status of the tarascabs chicimeecs mayas etc were the same as the tlaxcallans and cholultecs. They were not part of the aztec empire at all. using a different colour would be misleading. It must be understood that the aztec empire were not a "classic" empire of connected and controlled territory. It may even be an exaggeration to draw the empire as amass of dominated territories because there m ay not even have been an aztec presence at any other time than when they defeated the city in a battle. Maunus 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So... my understanding based on something that Nanahuatzin wrote a while ago on a Talk Page is that there were Nahuatl-speaking cultures who were left unconquered but who were required to provide victims for human sacrifice. There were also cities that were conquered and paid tribute but who were not eligible to provide victims for human sacrifice (except to the extent that those victims had been captured in battle). What I'm asking is which category includes the Chichimecans, Tarascans and Mixtecs and other peoples living in the white areas outside the green area? These are presumably unconquered peoples that paid no tribute to the Aztecs whereas the green areas are conquered peoples who did pay tribute. The white area in the heart of the green area presumably represents the Triple Alliance. If I have understood this correctly, there are three categories of peoples: Triple Alliance, conquered peoples and unconquered peoples. And thus, there should be three colors on the map, not two.

I fully recognize that my knowledge of the Aztecs is very limited so please educate me if I have misunderstood something.

--Richard 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin is wrong about this, or he explained it in a misunderstandable way. War prisoners were sacrificed no matter from what city they came from. The difference is that the nahuatl speaking polities of Tlaxcala and Huexotzinco and Atlixco were very close to Tenochtitlan and for this reason and because it was growing an ever greater embarrasment to the aztecs not being able to conquer them the aztecs kept a continous state of war against these cities with frequent battles resulting in many victims. The idea of "flowery" wars between tlaxcala and the aztecs as a mutual agreement or a submittance of the tlaxcallans to the aztecs is false but somewhat widespread. Ross Hassig and Nigel Davies pretty much disprove this idea however. The aztcs war against the indenpendent nahua speaking kingdoms was simply a continous state of warfare between two independent states one trying to conquer the other and the other just trying to survive. Green areas are tribute paying areas and as such parts of the "empire". All of the white areas were at war with the aztecs and paid their tribute in soldiers. So saying that tlaxcala was required to pay sacrificial vitims to the aztecs would be like sying that the english were required to pay the lifes of their soldier to Hitler. (UTC)They were but it was not through an agreement but through a state of war.Maunus 20:13, 22 August 2006

Hi, if i remember, my comment was that: the victims for Huitzilopochtli and Tezcatlicpoca were required to be nahuatl speakers since they were considered mesenguers to their gods. (Portilla - Los antiguos Mexicanos pp 97), While the Flowery wars started as a mutual agrement, by the time of the conquest it was a close to be an open war. While the aztec always mantained that they could conquer Tlaxcala if they wished... The tlaxcalteca (acording to Muñoz Camargo) claimed they participate, because they chose to. Proud words from both sides to pretend they had the control and one of the reasons the Tlaxcalteca allied with Cortez.

Manus, From what i see we have learned diferent version of the history. Probably because most of me readings and sources come from mexican schollars where the influence of Portilla is dominant. I will be interesting to compare our point of view. Just las month i was reding an article in the "Anales de antropologia UNAM" about the rituale of the flowery wars...

Nanahuatzin 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I havent ever read that Portilla should have written that the tlaxcallans were subdued to the aztecs in anyway. And lets remember that the tlaxcallans also sacrificed their captives when they won (something that often happened)(Tizoc for example lost battles with the tlaxcallans and was shamed for it). Any way All maps that I have seen of the axtec empire are drawn with holes in it representing tlaxcalla and the other independent citystates. My map is based on the one in Muriel Porter Weavers "The aztecs, maya and their predecessors" Third edition, 1993, map 8.4 pp 478. If some of you want to make a better map feel free, as long as its based on a serious scholarly map.Maunus 07:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if i explained it wrong. Portilla wrote that the aztecs claimed they could overrun Tlaxcala when they wished, a claim that Portilla comment with some skepticism  :) . Tlaxcalteca and Azteca, share a lot of things in comon, like most nahuatl people. I comment some time ago that we should speak of the nahua civilization, not the aztec civilization, although probalby this would confuse most readers... Nanahuatzin 05:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I realised there was a betterlooking albeit less accurate map further down on the page, so I cut out the map we are discussing. It is still found on Aztec History though.

OK, I think I understand a little bit better now (I'm still a little confused but not about the map anymore). I think the above discussion was useful and I do not think the above is well-explained in any Aztec-related article. We should work to get a unified explanation that covers both Maunus' and Nanahuatzin's perspectives. I'm not sure how much of this belongs here and how much belongs in the Triple Alliance article. Please think about it and let's discuss.

--Richard 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

check out my edits at History of the Aztecs, I made a new map and described the conquests of the different Aztec rulers. I suppose some of that could be incorporated into the history section here. Maunus 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aztecs liked Spanish food

Woohoo! Have you guys seen this? Aztecs killed, ate Spaniards --Richard 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! You certainly have a wicked sense of humour, Richard. And this certainly supports the claims of cannibalism. Madman 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good finding. I wouldnt trust it until a scientific article come out though. News are looking for News not truth. Those claims may well have to be severely modified in order to be true.Maunus 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I think we can accept at least some of the news -- for example, that hundreds of individuals' bones were found, and that they had knife (and teeth?) marks, and that they were ritually sacrificed. However, like you, this article makes me a bit uneasy. For instance, how did they know that "The prisoners were kept in cages for months while Aztec priests from what is now Mexico City selected a few each day at dawn". They certainly couldn't have determined that from the archaeological record. The researchers would have had to have non-archaeological evidence (Cortes' letters? Some codex or another?) for much of the "news" such as:

"The caravan was apparently captured because it was made up mostly of the mulatto, mestizo, Maya Indian and Caribbean men and women given to the Spanish as carriers and cooks when they landed in Mexico in 1519, and so was moving slowly."

Maybe I've been a Wikipedia editor for too long . . .  : ) Madman 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree a certain amount of skepticism is appropriate here. As Maunus pointed out, some of the details could not have come from archeological findings and had to come from other accounts or just plain erudite supposition. As we already know, accounts written by the Spaniards are suspect because of the potential for bias.

It seems hard to separate the "hard" facts from the more "sensational" details for public consumption. I'm sure the reporters were egging on Enrique Martinez and he was basking in his "15 minutes of fame."

I agree that we need to be careful not to "swallow" the whole thing uncritically. Nonetheless, this provides more support for cannibalism and possibly for human sacrifice. I believe some editors (including Nanahuatzin?) have been arguing that the concrete evidence of cannibalism and human sacrifice is scant and that reports of human sacrifice might have been a kind of "black legend" concocted by the Spaniards.

--Richard 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Less sensationalistic article have been preciously published (in spanish): http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/08/02/a04n1cul.php , http://www.conaculta.gob.mx/saladeprensa/index.php?indice=6&fecha=2006-08-04 but i have been waiting for a more complete report.

My point about canibalism and Human sacrifice is that the numbers have been grossly exagerated, not that they have not ocurred. Even those 500 hundred bodies of people and animals pale under the claims of 250,000 victims a year. It is interesting that what happened in the place was so special that it deserved a special name. "Tecuaque" the place where people was eaten. So far we have very little of the post conquest conflicts. A full report is expected at the end of the year, when the archeological zone will be opened, probably it will be worth an entry in the wikipedia. Nanahuatzin 05:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I misrepresented your point. --Richard 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for splitting

Could we not split the Aztec article into an article on Aztec civilization and another on the Aztec Empire? The Aztec empire article should then comprise some of the aztec article and some of the History of the Aztecs article. I think it would be more easy to structure that way. Maunus 13:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, there is an article called Aztec society which arguably could be renamed to Aztec civilization (that would be my preference). The Aztec society and History of the Aztecs articles exist to keep the Aztec article relatively short. I don't quite understand how you want to reorganize things and what the improvement would be. --Richard 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just think this article with the less than informative name "Aztec" seems to be a mishmash of: 1. Historical information about the aztec empire and its evolution and fall, 2. Aspects of aztec culture, 3. Etymological musings about the different nomenclatures. 3. Rather irrelevant references to New Age philosophers and their (mis)use of aztec mythology and religion. And to top it it is presented in a completely illogical sequence and with almost no internal coherence. I think it could be partly mended by chucking the different sections out in their own articles. and restructuring the present artcile to function more as a disambiguator to point to the different uses and meanings of the word "Aztec". I don't think that it currently comes even close to deserve GA status.

I would make an article called "Aztec Empire" that would deal with the geopolitical evolution of the aztec empire (it might be done by combining material from Aztec Triple Alliance and History of the Aztecs) And I would have another called Aztec culture or Aztec (or maye Nahua)civilization. I may be the only one who thinks so but I do find this article in pretty poor shape right now. Maunus 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that the article's organization needs improvement. I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the article as a "mishmash" but maybe your standards are higher than mine.

Let me explain what I understand to be the rationale for the current structure of the article since I did some heavy reorganizing of the article earlier this year. If you think it is a mess now, it was worse before I started. (Well, I think so anyway)

My sense of it is that there should be a primary article. At the moment, it is called Aztec although I could imagine it being called Aztec civilization instead. There is a subsidiary article called Aztec society although I could imagine it being called Aztec culture. There is another subsidiary article called History of the Aztecs.

This sort of structure is common in many articles about countries. I'm not so sure about articles about ancient civilizations. (Quick aside to Nanahuatzin: In the U.S., anything older than 300 years is a candidate for being called "ancient". We have a very strange sense of historical perspective because we are such a young country.)

The primary article, currently called Aztec should be a comprehensive overview of every Aztec-related topic with references to "main" subsidiary articles that provide additional detail. In other words, the primary article SHOULD be a mishmash of stuff about the Aztecs but the mishmash should be well-organized and the narrative of the article should flow well so that the reader is engaged and never quite reaches the point of boredom. Boring the reader is a task that should be left to the subsidiary articles.  ;^)

If you are proposing to rename History of the Aztecs to Aztec Empire, I understand your motivation but I think that the average person would think that Aztec Empire was the primary article about Aztecs, not an article about the geopolitical evolution of the Aztec Empire. So, I worry that your technically reasonable proposal will serve to confuse the average reader to whom Wikipedia should be targeted.

--Richard 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"The primary article, currently called Aztec should be a comprehensive overview of every Aztec-related topic with references to "main" subsidiary articles that provide additional detail. In other words, the primary article SHOULD be a mishmash of stuff about the Aztecs but the mishmash should be well-organized and the narrative of the article should flow well."

- Agreed, lets try to achieve this first then. By your suggestion this article should however be renamed Aztec Empire because it is the main article. I think we might use Inca Empire as a guideline since it is somewhat better organised. It puts historical and geopolitical info first and later the cultural stuff in short sections pointing to a main article. Maunus 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this article to Aztec Empire

There is a proposal to rename this article to Aztec Empire. Please comment on the proposal in this section. If there appears to be a consensus to do this, we will take a straw vote to confirm the existence of the consensus.

--Richard 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to start, I think it would be as well to notify the rename proposal at and as per WP:RM process, since the target Aztec Empire has a non-trivial edit history and will in any case require administrator powers/action to make the move (if that is the outcome of the discussion).--cjllw | TALK 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism in Mexico:The Aztecs and the Mayans

Check out this article. Should we expand it or delete it? If nothing else, the title is too long. It should be Cannibalism in pre-Columbian Mexico. However, I'd like your opinion on whether that is a promising topic for an article or if this should just be treated in the Aztec and Maya articles.

--Richard 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It contains no information beyond what is already in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture so I decided to "be bold" and REDIRECT it there. Madman 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found it just as I was about to log off and go to bed so I didn't have time or energy to really think about it. I figured it had to go but I wasn't sure exactly what to do with it.

--Richard 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Help needed providing sources for Human sacrifice in Aztec culture

A few months ago, I factored out Aztec religion from this article and then subsequently factored out Human sacrifice in Aztec culture from Aztec religion. Well, in reality, it was a more complex operation than that because of the existence of Aztec mythology but this serves to describe conceptually what happened.

The problem is that I was working primarily with the content and didn't move the sources around because I am not familiar with the sources and didn't know which sources supported which assertions.

User:NoraBG has charged rightly that Human sacrifice in Aztec culture lacks primary sources. This is true because of the reasons explained above. We now need people that have familiarity with the sources to review all of the above-mentioned articles to make sure that they are adequately sourced.

Thanks.

--Richard 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)