Talk:Chiapas

message: "Migrants from Chiapas are being joined by Guatemalans fleeing the Civil War."
According to the linked article, that war finished in 1996 - 14 years ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.232.143 (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated reference to Guatemala's Civil War

message: THe statement that Marcos was the spokeperson for the EZLN
"since he could speak many indigenous languages and had been a successful organizer for the EZLN for years" needs to be sourced.  I have spent a lot of time researching the EZLN for my thesis and this is the first place I have seen it.  My guess is that it is another bit of Marcos folk lore that exists on the net.  I'm deleting it for now unless someone can source it.
Dklangen 18:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EZLN

message: Many parts of this article read like political propaganda. Make particular note of the demograpic section, which makes numerous political pronouncements with the same sources. I'm not up for an edit war, so I won't be making any changes, but I thought I'd put this out there for discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.10.221 (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of Article

message: First, college anthropology papers and encyclopedia articles generally have different purposes, audiences, and styles, so copy/pasting from one to the other is seldom effective.  Second, these particular two papers lack context, are non-neutral, and are not particularly relevant to Wikipedia in general.  Third, they deal with subjects *far* too specific to belong on the page about Chiapas.  The second (if it didn't rely wholly on Vogt’s uninformed book from the 70’s, and actually gave a complete treatment of the subject), would belong at some sub-page of Zinacantán, while the first has some parts which could be worked into various articles, but almost none of which belongs on this page.
The parts about the Zapatistas and Marcos are far too long for the general page about Chiapas, and should be NPOV-ized, and slimmed down.  But that is a less obvious or urgent task than removing these other two sections.
Also, “murals” as a top-level section?  Gimme a break.
Cheers!
jacobolus (t) 21:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I’ve done a quick clean-up job, mostly chopping out superfluity, tedium, & POV passages, & then rewriting blatantly ungrammatical sentences.  The prose is now less bad, but it is a bit choppy in many places, and still needs some work.  The article in general could use significant expansion, but I don’t have time to write much more now. —jacobolus (t) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections on alcohol and rituals inappropriate for this article and for wikipedia 

message: Should the Chiapas Media Project be included in the "Social development policies" section?  Molibdeno (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add link 

message: Should this article have a flag inside the infobox? There is a discussion about it at WikiProject Mexico, where you can join and discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag RFC 

message: It's fine that you have a source and it's from some university's passion project, but it's rather patently wrong. 
I know I shouldn't remove it without a more authoritative source but the Nahuatl suffix -pan simply means "on", "place of...", or "place of the..." There's no "growing" involved or implied. There was never an Aztec or Nahuatl city in the area, ancient or otherwise. The name actually derives from the two Spanish towns of Chiapa de los Indios (now Chiapa de Corzo) and Chiapa de los Españoles (now San Cristobal de las Casas). The Chiapas/Giapas. The Indian Chiapa was the first encomienda in the area and the Spanish Chiapa was the first major settlement and regional capital under Spanish rule. Those were based on the Nahuatl name for the ancient and medieval settlement in the rich Grijalva bottomland near the encomienda (good authoritative source here) but they were never conquered by the Aztecs and the local name was different. It's possible the Aztec name was a calque for the local one and the city was some version of "Chiatown" but it's just as likely it was the place of the Chiapanecas, whose name might've come from -pan ("place") but might also have come from -apan ("river"), like this source and this one and this one and this one claim. Then, presumably, it would've been named after the older name of the Grijalva or one of its tributaries. This guy somehow gets "hills" involved. -apan meaning river seems legit; hills seem to involve the Aztecs transcribing Chiapaneco words but may involve contemporary sourcing. It's also probably worth mentioning that chia isn't a proper name: it's literally just "oily" or "oilseed".
In any case, the one thing that seems certain is the current etymology this page is claiming and spreading to other sources in a vicious cycle is wrong as stated. — LlywelynII 16:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology