Talk:Xibalba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Fragment!!!

No discussion on the nature of the 12 gods, their place in Mayan art, etc, etc, etc. Mayan culture is over 2000 years old; to have the second point be about something that happened 10 years ago is a little silly. Also, except for the bit about the rock band, the whole article is unsourced. Oops.

-adam


I agree, I'm not sure exactly how the rest of the lords are reffered to as 'gods' and than in Mayan mythology they are refered to as demons, so which is it? It either one or the other. They are either feared and avoided and repelled or worshipped, revered, and often honored. Also, the word "Xibalbians" used to describe residents of Xibalba does not sound very Mayan like does it?

The band part has to go because it has nothing to do with the Xiblaba mythology, and should have it's own article.

Xuchilbara 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that despite the reference to D. Tedlock, much of the material here seems to be drawn from the term Xibalba being recycled as a setting for some computer RPG, and as such is not genuinely related to actual Maya accounts. Definitely needs a fair amount of work to separate out/remove the modern fictional/recreational interpretations.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the notion that this was drawn from computer games or some fictional source - it wasn't that hard to come up with multiple scholarly sources to back this article up. Anyway, here you go. Arkyan(talk) 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I object because this article has alot to do w/ Mayan religion, the story of Popol Vuh for example. Its very important, when i get more time I'll update it w/ poper citations. Xuchilbara 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seems Article is Plagiarized

It seems this article is plagiarized directly from http://www.river-styx.net/maya.htm Medlat 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The plagiarism is entirely the other way around, and it seems evident that the river-styx website has taken the text, and in some cases the images, from wikipedia articles - the page you link to, and a number of other pages at that site are mostly (unattributed) verbatim copies of the wikipedia-article equivalents at some point in time. For example, their page on "Mictlan of the Aztec" pieces together text from several en.wiki articles (as well as material from other sources, it seems). The section on that page on Mictlantecuhtli reproduces the text largely as it was after this expansion, and also reproduces a photo added by the same contributor- again without any attribution. If you check the edit histories of the articles concerned it's plain they've been built up over time, and not via a text dump which would be indicative of copyvio problems. And where there have been wiki edits that did add substantial slabs of text, I'd be satisfied that those additions are bona fide ones, not reproductions.
'Plagiarism' may be too strong a word, it's likely that that website's author is just unaware of the obligations to reproduce wiki material under GFDL; I'll look to add the site to WP:FORKS for investigation and a reminder re how wikipedia content forking still needs to satisfy certain license criteria.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)