Talk:Aztecs/2006-2

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)

Vandalism

I wanted to point out that under the the section pertaining to the Aztecs movement to Tenochtilatan that "Bobby Hickson" is inserted into the paragraph. I'm not an editor, so I'm not sure how to do it properly and I wanted to point it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.243.225 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for reporting the vandalism. It appears that the problem has been resolved by another editor. I would urge you to be bold and revert vandalism yourself. Better yet, be even bolder and expand articles with your knowledge. If you need help, feel free to leave me a message on my Talk Page. I will leave a Welcome Message on the talk page of your IP address (72.10.243.225). I invite you to open a Wikipedia account (it's free) and join our community of editors.

--Richard 18:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tenochtitlan vs. Tenochtitlán

Some editors keep changing "Tenochtitlan" to "Tenochtitlán". Can someone explain why we use "Tenochtitlan" instead of "Tenochtitlán"? --Richard 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We spell it that way because that is the standard spelling for the city. There are some towns in Mexico which are spelled "Tenochtitlán", like San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, in which case we use the accent. But the Aztec capital is not spelled that way in neither Spanish (see es:w:México-Tenochtitlan) nor in Nahuatl (see na:w:Mēxihco Tenōchtitlān). I believe we need to resist the temptation to spell it with the accent just because it seems right. Madman 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the general case, the rationale goes something like this: if a placename comes directly from a Mesoamerican language which does not ordinarily mark accented stress, then there'd be no need to mark it with an accent when using it in english prose (which also does not mark stress this way, other than in some fossilised terms). The accent in such placenames is a requirement/practice of spanish orthographical conventions. On the other hand, in cases where the placename comes from spanish, or from a Mesoamerican language originally but with some 'hispanicised' modification, then (depending to a degree on whether or not the familiarity of the place to english-speakers has led to a spelling convention for it) the placename may be written with the accent if it occurs.

The above is not consistently applied,at least at present.--cjllw | TALK 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Aztec calendar

Please check out Talk:Aztec calendar for a question I have about that article. I think there is some bogus information in the lead paragraph but I want some other opinions before I fix it.

--Richard 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the article on Techichpotzin

An anonymous editor changed the text in the Techichpotzin article to put an anti-Spanish POV spin on the article. In an attempt to incorporate the points rather than reject them outright, I tried to merge his points with the ones that were in the article prior to his edit. However, not being an expert, I think it would be good if someone who was more familiar with the subject area took a look at the article and reviewed its accuracy. Thanx. --Richard 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the Siege of Tenochtitlan article

I found this text which looks highly dubious to me. Is any of this worth keeping?

Still, this phase of the campaign was arduous and brutal. Spanish foot soldiers helped kill Indians for their allies to "dress out", but also rescued many of the women Cortés planned to brand on the face as slaves. They hid the pretty ones in the bushes, sleeping with them during the night, and setting them free in the morning (or marrying them, now that their husbands had been devoured). Some of the women were ravaged so ruthlessly that they could not speak of the atrocities committed and how their virginity had been taken from them.

--Richard 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Some vandaalism makes inteeresting prose. Strike it. Maunus 08:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the Aztec calendar

I have noted some issues with the current revision of the Aztec calendar article. Please read my comments on the Talk Page and share your thoughts on the issues that I have raised. Thank you.

--Richard 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)