Talk:Aztec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aztec article.
Article policies
Good article Aztec was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Mexico Collaboration This article is a candidate for the Mexico Collaboration. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.

[edit] Talk archives

Archive
Archives

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.

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, pronunciation, etc.

Contents


[edit] Removed text on New Spain & slavery

In restoring the article to an earlier, unvandalised version & to recover some deleted passages, I (intentionally) also removed one non-vandal recent addition[1] that had replaced an earlier para, without however restoring that original para.

The original para read:

The "New Spain" of the 17th century was a depopulated country and many Mesoamerican cultures were wiped out. Because of the fall of their social structure, the population had to resort to the Spanish to maintain some order. In order to have an adequate supply of labor, the Spaniards began to import black slaves; most of them eventually merged with the local population.

while the replacement para read:

Mexico was so densely populated, however, that a need was never felt to import slaves. As Spanish subjects, Indians could not be enslaved, and a system of required but paid labor was eventually worked out between the Crown and greedy encomienderos. Mesoamerican tribes had been organized into autonomous states, and when the invaders finally realized this, they used the pre-existing Indian boundaries during colonial rule. Today the United Mexican States is only 9% white and 1% black, with the rest either purely Indian or mixed with Spanish — and only Spanish — according to the NIH genome studies, which can be seen on the NIH website. Today, mainland Spanish-America, North and South, is not the melting pot that the rest of the Americas are.

I don't think that either of these versions are useful here- apart from factual concerns in each, they are really more concerned with the post-conquest / early-colonial era in general, and are not specific or meaningful to the Aztec narrative (ie, this article). "New Spain" in the Americas was more than just the former Aztec territory, and although neither of these provide sources for their contradicting statements, it's clear they are attempting to debate a much wider —and later— framework than the reasonable scope of this article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i wrote the first sentence, about... i think three years ago, if i remember. it had a reference to studies about the "demographic catastrophe". http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no4/01-0175-G1.htm (this is not the original reference.. i forgot what it was..)- Originally this was part of some sort of epilogue, explaining that the fall of the aztec empire did not imply the fall of mesoamerican cultures. That was a diferent process. Probably it get orphaned. while i think it is an important point, i leave to you if it falls or no into the scope of the article. Just i wanted to coment it was not unsourced. About the second sentnce, acroding to the "proyecto mexicano del genoma humano" the population in Mexico has about 65% of amerindian components and about 15-20 of african componentes, in total about 35 races are part of the racial make up of modern Mexico. But this is does not belong to the aztec artivcle...  :). Nanahuatzin 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexicas is the real name of the aztecs!!!

Mexicas was the real name of the "aztecs", from which Mexico and Mexico-Tenochtitlán have their origins. "Aztecs" was just a peyorative name, used by their enemies, meaning "the ones without face", so i suggest to leave the article with the same name as it is now. You don't believe me, check on any onjective place and you will found the truth (not just subjective and "history" places that many can consider subjective). Mexican-Sir10

  • According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the English term "Aztec" originated in the late 18th century, derived from the Spanish "azteca", which is a transliteration of the Nahuatl "aztécatl", used by the Aztecs to identify themselves to the Spanish, and meaning "person from Aztlān". --Dystopos 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We've been down this path before, and I sincerely doubt there will be any change in consensus to move this away from Aztec, a name so firmly established ever since the historiography of the 19thC. All the various demonyms and autonyms can be (and are) cross-referenced and linked/redirected. Am sceptical about the supposed pejorative connotations.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What we must do is merge Mexica to this article. Otherwise the information is redundant. --the Dúnadan 23:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
CORRECT! "Mexica" is the actual name of the so-called "Aztecs". The articles should be merged. Using "Aztec" just continues the misinformation. The term "Aztec" wasn't popularized until Europeans came, and especially by Von Hagen and Lord Kingsborough of England. Just because people have an emotional attachment to the sound of the word does not make it acceptable to continue along with false information. --Dropmeoff 12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of "emotional attachment", but one of naming the article in accordance with wikipedia's naming conventions. It can hardly be disputed that the term "Aztec" has an extremely wide currency, both in specialist and non-specialist literature.
Any concerns over "false information" can readily be addressed by noting in the text (as this article does now, albeit imperfectly) any differences and alternatives in nomenclature. The article title alone, whatever it is, is not going to resolve or provide clarity on what is 'correct' or not.
If you wanted to be even more specific, then it should properly be noted that what autonym applies varies and depends on the source, the context, the specific point-in-historical-time, and the intended scope that any particular autonymic usage applies to. "Mexica" is not the only possibility on record; others include culhua-mexica and tenochca. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly an emotional attachment. Based on naming Wikipedia's naming convention, the title should be Aztec. Thank you very much, Madman 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And pray tell, what is Wikipedia's naming convention based upon, but 'concensus'. That is itself a green light for emotional attachment to the usage of "Aztec". The term Aztec has nothing to do with the facts. It has everything to do with lazy thinking and an emotional attachment to a "that's just the way we've always done it!" mentality.Dropmeoff 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree, Aztec should be the title. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 04:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the term does not exist in English, if you type in MS Word, "Mexica" it thinks it's a mistake, if you research in Google, it corrects you as well, I myself don't really see the problem, things have different names in different languages, in Spanish there might be a distinction between the two terms but in English there isn't, basically everyone knows then under the name of Aztecs, if we merge the articles (which I hope we do), the name of the article should be Aztecs or Aztec Empire with a note saying that in Spanish there is also the term Mexica, but again by far most people refer to them as the Aztecs. Supaman89 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By your own logic, the majority of the world's languages and words do not exist because they are "not in MS Word." The term "Aztec" should actually be a disambiguation of the correct term, Mexica. Ever wonder why Mexico is called Mexico and not "Azteco?"Dropmeoff 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of Mexico

I'm not sure where the best place is for this question so I'm putting it here.

In the State of Mexico article, another editor wrote: "There were different ethnic groups including otomies, matlazincas, mazahuas and chichimecas." All of these groups are redlinks except for the Chichimecas. Anybody know who the other groups are and whether they merit an article of their own? Or is there an article of broader scope that mentions (or should mention) these groups?

--Richard 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. We have articles on these peoples at Otomi and Mazahua, and also Matlatzinca (this latter is misspelled above). There are also some articles on their languages. True enough, these groups and their related langs. are historically connected with the region now defined by the State of México. Probably, those alternate/plural names and misspelling should be turned into redirects to the existing articles.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Now, how about these emperors: Tlalmanalco and Opochihuacan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And how about this text from the Toluca article?
The god Tolotzin was supposed to had his principal temple in the volcano: Xinantécatl, now known as the Nevado de Toluca, because the volcano's form suggests a sleeping god.
Who is Tolotzin and do we hae an article on him?
--Richard 07:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I see now these edits are associated with a Wikipedia schools and universities project, which looks to be a fine enterprise I hadn't personally been aware of.

Re the current sentence in the State of Mexico article that you are referring to:

Some of the more important Aztec emperors were Cuauhtitlan, Tezozomoc, Azcapotzalco, Tlalmanalco, Opochihuacan and Xaltocan.

All except the second of these are actually placenames of Nahua city-states (altepetl) or localities, not the names of individual rulers (and "emperor" is probably not the most appropriate title to use in this context). There are individual rulers known for these altepetls, mentioned in sources like Chimalpahin. Some are only mentioned in passing and there's not much more known about them then their names. Others prob could have at least a short article's worth of material.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

Given both the persistent naming issues and the polysemy of the name "Aztec", I think it would be a good idea to turn Aztec into a disambiguation page. Information about the empire itself can be moved to Aztec Empire; information about Aztec culture/society/civilization can go to Nahuas or Nahua people (which is the term now generally preferred by scholars); information specific to Tenochtitlan and the Mexica can go to Mexica.

As it is, this article and others alternate between using "Aztec" to mean "Nahua" and using to mean "Mexica Tenochca", in which case the Tlatelolca and the non-Mexica get left out, and this is guaranteed to be misleading to the reader.

Thoughts? --Ptcamn 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal makes a lot of sense from an academic's point of view but I am sorry to say that I oppose it on the grounds that it runs counter to the intuition of the lay reader (of which I am one). Rather than a disambiguation page, this title should be a summary article which "gets it right" relative to the use of the words "Aztec", "Mexica" and "Nahua". If the current version doesn't get it right, then let's fix it.
If you think that Aztec society should be moved to Nahua society with a redirect, I can see that as long as Nahua society explains why Aztec society is the same as Nahua society.
However, since the average lay reader knows nothing about Mexica and Nahua, it is unreasonable to throw a disambig page at him and expect him to understand what is going on. A summary article here will be much more what he/she is expecting and we can gently lead him/her to the other pages in the course of providing the summary.
--Richard 05:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "summary"? A summary of the use of the words "Aztec"/"Mexica"/"Nahua"? That would essentially be a verbose disambiguation page. --Ptcamn 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean a summary article which covers the range of what people usually associate with the word "Aztec". It would be a short and concise article along the lines of what you might expect to find in some of the more lightweight encyclopedias. In the course of covering the topic, the article would educate the reader as to the "correct" usage of the words "Aztec"/"Mexica"/"Nahua" and directed to more detailed articles on each topic via the {{main}} article tag.
There's a principle or guideline somewhere that says that the first page a user sees should correspond with what they would expect to see. Putting up a disambig page is technically correct but, in practice, frustrating to the average user who doesn't really care about these technical fine points.
--Richard 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I was too lazy last night to try to find the Wikipedia guideline. It's one of the first sections in WP:DISAMBIG.
"Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they expect to find information on comedians? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band? When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page."
My argument is that the average reader will expect an article on what is commonly known as the Aztecs, not a disambig page. In the case above, "Joker" does not have a single domininat meaning the way "Aztec" does.
--Richard 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of "correct" usage. I'm not arguing against the organization of the current Aztec article because it's "incorrect", but because it's misleading. Talking about "the rise of the Aztecs" and then going on to talk about "Aztec culture" makes it sound like the Mexica brought the Nahua culture with them. Likewise it's misleading to talk about the Spanish conquering the Aztecs, when there were "Aztecs" fighting on both sides. I'd rather frustrate the average user than misinform them. --Ptcamn 07:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that splitting the article will address these issues as much as rewriting the text would. Consider this, whether we split the article or not; the article will have to be rewritten to address these issues; why not start doing that now while waiting for others to respond?
I'm just one voice. Feel free to wait and see how other editors feel. I will abide by the consensus. (I know that this page is watched by much more knowledgeable editors whose opinions I respect)
--Richard 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So, the proposal is such that when Joe Averageuser types in "Aztec" and hits Go then they are taken to a disambiguation page? I agree with Richard "Your proposal makes a lot of sense from an academic's point of view but I am sorry to say that I oppose it on the grounds that it runs counter to the intuition of the lay reader (of which I am one)."
I would still like to merge the "Mexica" article into "Aztec" since the "Mexica" article just duplicates what's there and there seems to be a definite consensus to do that.
These are noble attempts to provide shadings, but do not suit our clientele. Madman 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this issue obviously grabs you, Ptcamn, why don't you write an article describing and detailing the differences in these 3 terms (Aztec, Mexica, Nahua), with all the appropriate footnotes, citations, etc etc? Certainly that would help crystalize the matter and be a very useful addition to our body of Mesoamerican work here. Madman 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If Mexica is merged into Aztec, then the non-Mexica information should be separated out, and "Aztec" only used in the sense of "Mexica", not "Nahua". Why should the other Nahua groups (Acolhua, Tepanec etc) get separate articles while the Mexica are merged into the general article? --Ptcamn 21:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
A separate Mexica article would be nice if it contained information not already in the Aztec article. It presently does not, and that is why it needs to be merged. Madman 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there three groups unified in the term that has become 'Aztec'; the Mexica, Acolhua, and Tepanecs? I think they fall under "Nahua culture", but are still not the same. i think if Mexica becomes merged w/ the Aztecs, then the other two groups should as well. Xuchilbara 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a simple question. I am just as dismayed as Ptcamn by the misleading and confusing nature of the term "aztec" and its use here. While there is no doubt that it will be easier for the "lay-reader" to find and understand an article called "aztec" but there is reasonable doubt as to how far considerations of the lay-readers needs can be allowed to distort and overrule current scholarly understanding of history. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That was not my intent. The "lay reader" should find an article which educates him with the current scholarly understanding of history. What I fear is that a disambig page will require him to understand the current scholarly understanding of history and most lay readers will not have that understanding.
--Richard 08:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Nor will be lay reader care much. Madman 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Which then begs the question: are we more concerned with educating the lay reader, or coddling his/her apathy? A disambig page serves to stimulate thinking in this case, whereas the lack of one discourages it (and quite bluntly, removes facts). Which is the nobler cause to serve?Dropmeoff 22:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that an article about "aztec"s ideally should first and foremost enable the reader to distinguish between the different groups that have been subsumed under this term - and understand why such distinctions is necessary. This can be done in two manners. One is a disambiguation page - but that will not further the readers understanding of the need to distinguish I fear, but it will be by far the easiest for us as editors. Another way is to clearly and explicitly in the article text distinguish between the groups and qualify all statements as to which of the groups they refer to. I think this second option is the best - but it is a long way away - as it is the present article and all of the "aztec" related articles simply assumes the existence of a unified aztec culture and makes sweeping generalizations about it without distinction and without citing the sources the statement is based on and to which groups they might or might not be applicable. This strategy will cost us all a huge effort in introducing responsible scholarship in the articles and pulling out swaths of unsourced, undersourced or badly sourced general statements about "aztec culture".·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Your second approach is what I favor and what I was proposing above. Let's start by inventorying all the Aztec/Mexica/Nahua related articles and then critiquing them relative to Ptcamn's concern. Then let's come up with a plan to fix all the articles, one-by-one.
I'm OK with creating a disambig page as long as Aztec links to a real article first with a link to the disambig page at the top of it.
--Richard 08:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As suggested above, I think a properly detailed and referenced article detailing the differences between the terms "Aztec", "Mexica", and "Nahua" would be a good place to start. This article could then be linked to by any number of other articles without re-inventing the wheel.
Using this standard Wikipedia technique, we won't burden each and every Aztec-related with a long Aztec/Mexica/Nahua exposition, expositons which would be difficult to keep in sync and up-to-date. Madman 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to favour a split and a verbose disambiguation page at Aztec because the opposite is simply a daunting task. We are talking about scores of articles that should be completely rewritten.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me. And I am not opposed to a verbose disambiguation page to explain the subtleties of the distinction between topics. --Dystopos 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I can live with a verbose disambiguation page per PTcamn, Maunus and Dystopos. In fact, this may be the best way to start. But I must emphasize the word "start". I don't see how having such a page would relieve us of the necessity to rewrite the existing articles. Either the use of Aztec/Mexica/Nahua is correct or it isn't. If it isn't, the disambig page won't fix the problem. It would wind up just advising the reader of the correct usage and then leave him/her to wade through the articles that will still use the terms incorrectly.
--Richard 04:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's true.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

In light of the naming discussion and proposed split I have been thinking of a way to organize aztec related articles in a new and better new way. I think "Aztec" should be an article dealing with the term "aztec" and its various applications with sections describing different aspects of the word each with a referral to a main article with a non-aztec name. For example a section called "Aztec language" should refer to the Nahuatl language as its main article. This will require that the material in the current aztec article is moved to other articles that are in turn renamed.

I suggest that the current Aztec Triple Alliance becomes the main article for the content of the current Aztec article. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I continue to think that such an article "dealing with the term 'aztec and its various applications with sections describing different aspects of the word each with a referral to a main article" is a good idea. However, titling this article "Aztec" would be a disservice to the readers looking for information on what is universally known as the Aztecs. There are over 1000 links to the present Aztec article, and the folks clicking on those links are not looking for a disambiguation page.
Remember the Wikipedia guideline WP:DISAMBIG:
"Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" Upon typing in "Aztec", every reader will expect an article on what is commonly known as the Aztecs, not an article on the use of the term "Aztec".

We can and should have a link at the top of the present Aztec article pointing to this disambiguation page, but let's not force readers to pick thru a disamig page to get to where they want to go. Madman 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is it that the word "Aztec" commonly refers to? What is it that a reader would expect the Aztec article to be about? Nahua people? The Triple Alliance? Mexica-Tenochca? Late Postclassic Central Mexican Civilization? The problem here is that the entity commonly known as "The Aztecs" is not an entity at all.(Maunus writing from work) 87.54.13.116 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the answer is that "Aztec" commonly refers to a mish-mash of all of the above. Thus, the answer to your question is probably the last option "Late Postclassic Central Mexican Civilization". Whether that's a what people should think of when they hear "Aztec" is debatable. However, the real point is that most people (including me before I read about it on Wikipedia) have never heard any of these terms. The word "Aztec" is burned into our minds since we learned about them in school as children. It is a deeply ingrained concept or misconception. IMO, the article Aztec must correct this misunderstanding by explaining that "Aztec" refers to different things in different contexts and then explain what the correct terms are to describe each aspect (e.g. Nahua people, Nahuatl language, Triple Alliance, Mexica). That way, by the time the reader is reading a subsidiary article, he/she will know why the article is not titled Aztec language, Aztec Empire, etc. The lead of each subsidiary article should explain the relationship between the topic and the term "Aztec".
The lead of the Nahuatl article does an OK job of doing this except one wonders what the relationship is between Aztecs, Mexica and Nahuatl-speaking peoples. Are the Nahuatl-speaking peoples called "Nahua" of which the Aztecs are the group that dominated central Mexico? So who are the Mexicas? I believe they were the ruling subgroup of the Aztecs. Did I get that right?
--Richard 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the best place to start would be a "verbose disambiguation statement" that provides the best set of terms available for us to use in improving these articles. That statement could be rather lengthy, and should be cited where necessary to account for evolution of terminology and contemporary scholarly disputes. This could remain an essay at Talk:Aztec/Use of terms (or at Wikiproject:Mesoamerica, or wherever makes the most sense). Editors could be referred to that essay during discussions about article improvement. Then, assuming some consensus is established, it would be summarized in the introduction to Aztec. In the meantime, we can work on addressing ambiguous or misplaced information in the articles as best we can. --Dystopos 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been bold and rewritten the lead - I have tried my best to consider the layreaders needs and expectations while not compromising factuality, clarity and readability. I was suprised at how bad the lead actually was when reading through it after removing some vandalism. Please feel free to add and change where you might have good reasons to do so. I feel that if the rest of the articles were written in such a fashion the problem would be smaller.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely looks better. If I find some time, I'll try to resolve redundancies with the intro and the "nomenclature" section. (I'm guessing it would be best to "introduce" the problems with nomenclature as briefly as possible in the intro, and then expand on them in the separate section) --Dystopos 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job, Maunus. I did some minor copyediting, primarily making a bullet-list out of one paragraph and fixed some capitalization. I also took Dystopos' advice (kinda) and moved a late "nomenclature" paragraph out of the lead and put it into the ==Nomenclature== section. Thanks, Madman 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colhua-Mexica

Was Colhua-Mexica actually used? AFAIK it's a name that was proposed by Barlow, not one that's actually attested. --Ptcamn 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am 97% on it being attested in either Cortés' letters, Bernal del Castillo or both. I'll check tomorrow.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Colhua-Mexica were used bu both Cortés and Bernal Diáz (both writing culuas) as the main nomenclature for the inhabitants of the triple allaince. Cortés writing in 1523 only refers to "culuans" and not mexica.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "cul[h]ua" may also be mentioned in Duran. In Cortés' 1st and 2nd letters, as well as Diaz, they seem to identify "culua" as what they were told the 'country' was called. According to Diaz, when they interrogated the locals on the Tabasco coast where all the gold and jewels came from, their responses were "culua" and "mexico". When later Alvarado makes an inland sortie to dependent villages of Cotaxtla, Diaz says that the "culua language" was spoken there, which was "common to the allies of Mexico and Montezuma, just as Latin was formerly common to those of Rome. Whenever Culuan is mentioned..in connection with this country, it must be understood to refer to the subjects and vassals of Mexico."
I dunno whether the specific "culhua-mexica" phrase is reported, it may indeed be a novelty of Barlow's. Even so, I'd say culhua's amply attested as a near synonym, in use at the time. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Aztec" is just lazy thinking

Per Wikipedia's naming convention, I understand that the usage of Aztec is employed due to "consensus" (read: emotional attachment to a particular term) and an attitude of "but that's just the way we've ALWAYS done it!". This "consensus" seems to be based upon what "this 19th century European" or "that 19th century European" wanted to label the Mexica. But funny how none of this "consensus" is based upon the self-definition of the Mexica themselves! Hello? This Aztec term is very lazy thinking and Eurocentric thinking at that. If you're going to stand on the consensus-writings of Cortes and other Spaniards, you'll find that none of them called them Aztecs! What about that consensus?.Dropmeoff 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the term Aztec doesn't just refer to the Mexica but has been used in many other meanings many of which should also be covered in an article about the term.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
True. There should still be an immediate "correction" or clarification for the term (i.e. it's really Mexica, folks). For example, when I type in Burma, the article immediately let's you know that it is officially called Myanmar. Again, if this is a history article, then historical sources show that not even the Spaniards ever referred to them as "Aztec." Perhaps the term Nahua might better serve to undo the confusion between the Mexica and the other Nahuatl-speaking peoples in the region.Dropmeoff 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So just for clarification, does the term Mexica encompass all groups who are now collectively referred to as Aztec? Or does it only represent a subgroup? Regards, AlphaEta T / C 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Most usual interpretation of mexica in historical context is restricted to the group which founded Tenochtitlan, & the descendants and institutions thereof. "Aztec" may sometimes be used in that sense, but is often intended with a wider scope, in particular (& prob. most commonly) as shorthand referring to the political "empire-like" entity and its people(s) that took form in Late Postclassic central Mexico. There are probably at least five or so distinct meanings that the term Aztec has been applied to, depending on context.
For that matter, I've also seen sources which appear to use mexica in some wider sense too, so there can also be inconsistency in the other direction. But my own assessment would be that most often, "Aztec" incorporates "mexica", rather than the other way around. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
CJLLW's understanding closely coincides with mine.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While I think we must eventually fix all the articles to use the terms according to current usage in academic circles, I propose we start with a single article that does nothing other than describe the usage of "Aztec", "Mexica", "Nahua(tl)" and other related terms. There should also be some historiography describing who used which terms and when. If the Spaniards didn't use the term "Aztec", what word did they use? Who introduced the word Aztec? (I think it was some British Prussian historian in the 19th century but I forget the name).

OK, I decided not to be lazy. I dug this up from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology...
The modern usage of the name Aztec as a collective term, applied to all the peoples linked by trade, custom, religion , and language to the Mexica state, the Triple Alliance, was suggested by Alexander von Humboldt and adopted by Mexican scholars of 19th century, as a way to distance "modern" Mexicans from pre-conquest Mexicans.

Maybe what I'm proposing is the "verbose disambiguation page" that we've been talking about. Maybe it's just an article in its own right.

By the way, there's a lot of good stuff in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology that could form the basis for whatever we put together.

Let's get a draft going so that we have something concrete to discuss. Once that is stable, we can formulate a plan to fix the rest of the articles.

--Richard 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, being the impatient sort of guy, I'm going to start a draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology.

Please take a look at it and critique it.

--Richard 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative Richard, I think we may in the end need to head in that direction & have an article on Aztec-related terminology (something similar to Native American name controversy, only with a better title). That's a good start, and worthwhile; I'll probably not be online much the next couple of days, but when I get a chance I will look into it more.
I was thinking to start off with, to list the various meanings that the label aztec can be applied to. It's likely each of these properly demands their own article (some have them already), and whether or not one of them becomes the "main" article with the title Aztec, or we make Aztec a disambig page, we can assess as we work through what those terminology options are.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aztecs were sorta the nazies of the pre-colombus americas

Don't you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.92.103 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

hmm. No?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because a society is evil, doesnt mean the people in are. Take the nazi's - there were brilliant german minds mixed in with the genocidal maniacs. Same for the Communists - the Romans - the Persians - the Greeks. All were brutal in their own ways, but not neccessarily evil. The Aztecs simply had nothing else - that was how they were told they should live their lives by their ancestors. 125.238.88.119 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aztec article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --Ptcamn (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the visual arts?

The "arts" section is entirely about literature and drama; nothing on the visual arts, on which we seem to have no other article. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting as GA

I don't think the article currently deserves its GA status. It has an incredibly messy structure that seems to be almost arbitrary - several sections don't seem to justify their own inclusion. Several important topics are cursorily treated or left out: art, social organisaton, geography, politics. And other weird topics receive too much attention such as the section on modern views. It is severely under-referenced. It has a huge linkfarm. It is poorly written, with choppy prose, sections that read like essays. It also suffers from the same problems that many published accounts of the Aztec civilization suffer from, namely an excessive reliance on the truth value of the ethnohistorical sources and a preference for presenting anecdotal material. Many images are not well chosen. In short, it is a B-class article. Being a major contributor I cannot nominate it for delisting myself - and I hereby request someone else to do it for me.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of its delisting for much the same reasons, & agree a period back in the workshop for some repairs is in order. By my reading of the WP:GAR process description, although involved in its development we ought to be able to still list it there and request a reassessment / recommend its (temporary) downgrading until it can be fixed up. GAR also says "It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a disagreement about the article's status", thus far there is none but someone may have a contrary view. Either we cld leave it a couple days and see if anyone disagrees, or alternatively just put it up on GAR anyways and see what happens. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec terminology revisited: a proposal

In order to improve the quality of coverage of Aztec related topics a major issue to resolve is the ethnic nomenclature. I hereby intend to start a discussion in order to achieve consensus about the usage of aztec related ethnonyms - this I will do by puttingforth a proposal, which can serve as a starting point for discussion. The major questions to be resolved are: choose the defininition of "Aztec" that we want to use. Construct guidelines for the usage of "Aztec", "Nahua", "Mexica" and other specific ethnonyms. My proposal is as follows:

Aztec - to be used when referring to common expressions of precolumbian Nahua culture - i.e. when referring to precolumbian nahua culture as a whole. This would mean that only things that were common for all nahua speaking groups before the spanish conquest could be called "Aztec", it would also mean that both Mexica, Tlaxcaltecs, Tlatelolca, Acolhua can be called Aztecs but only when stressing their unity with other Nahuatl speaking ethnic groups. The precedents for this usage comes from James Lockhart who uses Aztec about the precolumbian Nahua, the usage has also been adopted by Aztec specialists such as M.E. Smith.
Nahua - to be prototypically used about the colonial and modern Nahua, but also about the precolumbian culture when referring to them in capacity of speakers of the Nahuatl language.
Mexica - to refer to the inhabitants of Mexico: the island. That is the combined group of Tenochca and Tlatelolca. Also to refer to the specific group of migrating chichimeca that eventually settled in Mexico.
Tenochca - to be used when referring only to the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan, but excluding those of Tlatelolco.
Tlatelolca, Tlaxcaltec, Texcoca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Huexotzinca, Chololtec etc. To be used whenever stating something about a specific ethnic group.
(Aztec) Triple Alliance to be used instead of the "Aztec empire" when referring to the expansionist political hegemony centered in the valley of Mexico.

This usage would mean that we could say that the organisation of Altepetl into Calpultin, and the venerance of Tezcatlipoca where typical of the Aztecs. That the situation became difficult for the Nahua with the decree of the royal cedula of 1770. That the Mexica were the dominant group in the triple alliance. That the Tenochca were dependent on the market of the Tlatelolca. And that the Tlaxcaltecs were at war with the triple alliance, and that the Chololtecs paid tribute to it.

Anyone interested please comment at : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mesoamerica#Aztec_terminology_revisited:_a_proposal instead of here.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AZTEC

I Think this page needs to talk more about the Aztec Emperors and what each one of them did to help or mess up the Aztec Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisco Aztec (talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of these so-called Emperors has their own article, and so it would be best to have detailed information there and allow this article to focus on the broader areas. Madman (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ornament?

The ornament of the turquoise double-headed snake has often been interpreted as Quetzalcoatl or one of its forms. I was confused when I saw that it was described as simply a chest-ornament. Does anyone know if there is truth to the idea that this creature is Quetzalcoatl? I have heard it several times HopieG (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, HopieG. Of course, Wikipedia requires references and citations, and we're not allowed to speculate, so we'd have to find some authority who would refer to this particular serpent as Quetzalcoatl before we could label it as such here. Thanks, Madman (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)