Talk:Tenochtitlan

message: The article presents the idea that the Aztec may have considered Cortes to be a god to be nothing more than a "persistent myth" that Camilla Townsend's article has (triumphally) "put to rest". I just finished reading her article. She acknowledges that a great many historians have claimed this (and gives citations). She acknowledges evidence for this claim comes from the very earliest indigenous accounts, as well as earliest European accounts (barring Cortes's letters during the conquest).
So in other words, Townsend is offering a "new perspective" against the entrenched claims of the literature.
The article should be updated to reflect that the god claim is (1) deeply entrenched in the historical literature, (2) present in very early sources such as Codex Florentino, and (3) is disputed by some scholars, such as Townsend. Nettyl (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucie Johnson's study is an unpublished thesis, seemingly at under grad level. Could you point to some recent peer reviewed studies that accept the Cortés=Quetzalcoatl myth as a likely reality or argue against Townsend? Certainly you are right that it is deeply entrenched in the literature and continues to be repeated by scholars (Note however how Restall's influential "7 myths of the Spanish conquest" includes it - showing that Townsend's view is widely accepted among current historians of the conquest). The Florentino is hardly a very early source, and it is certainly not free from influence from Franciscan milennarianist ideology. But of course the myth is present in very early sources, such as Cortés own letters, and repeated in many other sources. It is interesting to compare the Aztec/quetzalcoatl/Cortés case with the Sahlins/Obeyesekere debate about Lono and Cook, but it is not my impression that the Aztec case has generated any similar degree of controversy. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I am not even sure why we need to describe this in the article about the city. It would make more sense to have this issue described in Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire or some such place.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Townsend's own article contains many citations of important histories containing the claim. I think that's enough demonstration. Her article, no matter how highly one may think of it, is arguing against the grain, and is no refutation as the article previously claimed. We would need a source that claims that the historical field was swept by Townsend's article and it has become the dominant view. Or, several recent surveys that accept her thesis. Regardless, I agree, the whole subject doesn't really belong here. There is already a more nuanced discussion of the topic in the article about Moctezuma.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.254.23 (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camilla Townsend & the Cortes-Quetzalcoatl returning god claim

message: The article on the Aztecs is getting huge, 59k at last count, and we should probably start doing something to break it up into smaller pieces, ala the History of Greece, Inca Empire and a bunch of otherwise large historical pages. Merging the info about the Aztec capital seemed a good place to start. --Fxer 02:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is actually quite a bit of information in Aztec that should probably be here.--Curtis Clark 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from the [[Aztec]] article 

message: "There were also specialized tianquiztli in the other central Mexican." What does this mean to say? - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea culpa.  I accidentally erased the word "towns".  Thanks for the catchin the error. Madman 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  un-sentence 

message: The following was listed in the references:
* "Tenochtitlan" Great Tragedy for the theater, in Spanish by Santiago Sevilla  in Liceus El Portal de las Humanidades 
Clearly a fictional play was not a reference used in the writing of the article, given that the play itself is not mentioned. I've brought it over here to talk instead of just cutting it in case there is something worth following up. I didn't even follow the link, myself. - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously not a reference 

message: He is referred to in this article as "Bernal". Isn't that like calling Cortés "Hernán"?
MaxwellPerkins 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I fixed it by using his full name.  --Richard 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernal Díaz del Castillo 

message: A good illustration can be found on flickr under CC-By licence here. I'm really not an expert of Tenochtitlan so I just bring the link :). Léna (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: It says it's on Lake Texcoco, but no map.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuubiSeal (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . El Comandante (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No map 

message: This article states that the ruins of Templo Mayor were first reached during the construction of a metro line, but the Templo Mayor article states that an electric company project was responsible. Since I don't have access to the references in either article, I wonder if someone can clarify. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with Templo Mayor 

message: Did the Aztecs call the city Mexico Tenochtitlan or just Tenochtitlan? This is unclear. (I wonder about what the Aztecs called the city and not the Spanish conquistadors. --Oddeivind (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico Tenochtitlan or Tenochtitlan? 

message: about the inhabitants it was falsified by no strong backing or citing.
Alexis2003 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Alexis2003, 29 August 2011 

message: The following text seems to be copied verbatim from www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Aztec_civilization --or they copied it from here.  (If the licensing is OK with this, please ignore this comment.)
Sahagún reports that the city also had beggars (only crippled people were allowed to beg), thieves, and prostitutes. At night, in the dark alleys one could find scantily clad ladies with heavy makeup (they also painted their teeth), chewing tzicli (chicle, the original chewing gum) noisily to attract clients. There seem to have been another kind of women, ahuianis, who had sexual relations with warriors. The Spaniards were surprised because they did not charge for their work, so perhaps they had other means of support.
The last part of the final sentence, "so perhaps they had other means of support," is omitted in the Wikipedia article.  Other instances of possible plagiarism may exist, but I've not checked for them.  This is my first post on Wikipedia, so please go easy on me!  Dmutters (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you scroll to the bottom of that site you will see that it is based on wikipedia content. They copied from us.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Ah.  I hadn't realized that the New World Encyclopedia is affiliated with a religion, rather than being a more academically-motivated encyclopedia (not that I think religions are inherently bad, just to be clear).  I can see how a joke of this sort would end up there and be erroneously transferred here (or perhaps the other way around).  Thanks for pointing it out, Prettyprinting.  Dmutters (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected Plagiarism in "Inhabitants" Section 

message: "Inhabitants" section is a mere offensive joke. Should be deleted completely
Prettyprinting (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 13 February 2012 

message: In the section on Cortès it is written that the Mexica saw Cortes as Quetzalquetl. Only references seem to be dating to 1972. On another Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan) on the fall of Tenochtitlan however it is written: "It once was widely believed that the Aztecs first thought Cortés was Quetzalcoatl, a mythical god prophesied to return to Mexico—coincidentally in the same year Cortés landed and from the same direction he came. This is now believed to be an invention of the conquerors, and perhaps natives who wished to rationalize the actions of the Aztec tlatoani, Moctezuma II. Most scholars agree that the Aztecs, especially the inner circle around Moctezuma, were well convinced that Cortés was not a god in any shape or form.". There's a primary source to this information that is more recent than the one on this page, so anyone with more knowledge on the issue than me might want to correct this page. There might be additional primary sources in the book 1491 by Charles Mann.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.140.62 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with other page 

message: I've been trying to find this ancient Mexican city whose inhabitants all seemed to vanish at one point (after being an extremely prosperous, overpopulated city) and whose architecture was so huge that the people who came to the city after the inhabitants left thought that it had been built by giants. This is the closest I could find to it. Does anybody know for sure if Tenochtitlan is the city I'm looking for? If not, do you have any idea what city I might be thinking of? Thanks in advance for your help.--50.89.225.132 (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: .·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land of the giants? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tenochtitlan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historiang.com/articulo.jsp?id=1606479
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Leaving a post in Vera Cruz, the officer left in charge received a letter from Qualpopoca, the leader of Almería, asking to become a vassal of the Spaniards."
I believe that this is an error, but am not sure what to change it to/if to remove it.
Almeria is a city in spain, and Qualpopoca's page does not mention that he is a leader of Almeria, or Almeria at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.230.147 (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion era - Reference to Almeria (is this an error?) 

message: The paragraph about the siege of Tenochtitlan seems to have edit confusion at the moment.  It speaks of the siege, then without speaking of the end of the siege, it talks of Cortez remodelling the city- THEN it talks of "While the people of Tenochtitlan were celebrating the over 60 Spaniards who were captured, sacrificed while living and then eaten by the locals. The skins, Feet and hands of captured Spaniards were sent around the country as a warning to other tribes."
I suggest that it is currently in the wrong order, but I don't understand it well enough to fix it.
IceDragon64 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've gone through and tried to correct what I can, but this whole section would honestly benefit from a complete rewrite. It's just obscure and out of order, and I don't understand enough to fix it either. I'm going to flag the whole section as poorly written.Regicide1 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion Era text confusion 

message: The beginning of the article erroneously gives the Spanish spelling of Tenochtitlan as Tenochtitlán ("Spanish: Tenochtitlán"), which is incorrect, as reference to the Spanish-language Wikipedia article on Tenochtitlan makes plain (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9xico-Tenochtitlan). The preferred Spanish spelling and pronunciation doesn't have an accent on the "a." In fact, the only mention of that spelling in the Spanish-language article is made in a footnote. Mpaniello (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenochtitlan/Tenochtitlán 

message: Should Tenoch (King Tenoch) not be mentioned in the etymology for the naming of the city?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockin sasquatch (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology: King Tenoch 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: While looking at posts on Mastodon, I found these 3d reconstitution of this city by a certain Thomas Kole, that aim to be historically accurate, and looks pretty (and I think they would probably be better for an overview of the city). Those images are licensed under CC-BY 4.0, but I’m not familiar with this subject. Still think you (people familiar with the subject) could be interested. Marius851000 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New free 3d reconstitution image