Talk:Aztecs/2007-1

message: The last sentence in the history section called "Spanish Conquest" states:
"All this changed rapidly and the native population were soon forbidden to study by law..."
'Were' should be changed to 'was', since 'population' is singular.
24.218.175.211 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Mistake

message: When are thinking, intelligent people going to relegate the false term Aztecs to the recycle bin and return the rightful and historically correct name "Mexica" ( Meh shee ka ) back to the Mexican collective. The  "coined " name A*^@#% is not only a fabricated term but even more insidious, is the manner which it is used to rob the modern Mexican of his/her cultural soul and link to an acient time of accomplishment and achievement. Rather, it used in tandem with those childlike crude pictographs, (now determined to be painted on Spano/European parchment ) to bash the Modern Mexican relentlessly to codify the Spanish invasion of a people whose level of human endeavor was the equal of the worlds- thought to be "Great Civilizations". I would agree that the primary responsiblilty lies with their namesake but first things first. We must begin with the first step.The term "Ancient Mexicans" MUST become the norm when speaking of Pre-Euro America. Remember, America, Canada the Mexican Border are historically speaking nascent terms. The ancient Mexican language Nahuatl was at one time used as a common language and second language by Native and Tribal peoples from Central America to the Oregon border and beyond.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.197.134.210 (talk • contribs).
:Stop being so hysterical.  Apparently this is the Amerindian version of Afrocentrism.  The term Aztec for those you call Mexica is as valid as calling the Japanese Japanese rather than Nippon-jin.  The word for the empire and culture which was based in modern day Mexico City is AZTEC.  Get used to it. 
:P.S. The same way Turin, Italy should be Turin, not Torino any more than Italy should be renamed Italia in English.  Chiss Boy 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wikipedia, at its best, reflects scholarly consensus. It does not attempt to enforce a particular view. The claim that some consider "Aztec" to be an insidious fabrication should be researched, incorporated into the article, and properly cited. The claim should not be used as a basis for changing the article unless scholarly consensus among anthropologists makes the change desirable. --Dystopos 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The modern use of aztec, versus mexica is explained in the article. More than a  fabrication, it has to do with the search of identity of a nation. Portilla has an interesting reflection on this: Miguel Leon Portilla. (2000). "Aztecas, disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio". Estudios de la cultura nahuatl. There si nothing insiduous, in it. Nanahuatzin 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm quite certian you're right. But if the idea that it is insidious is a significant minority point of view, the facts surrounding those claims should be addressed in the article. --Dystopos 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly corrupt term of AZTECS 

message: --71.196.227.118 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: plea

message: I think the area of the Aztec empire at it's greatest should be included in the article? Does anyone know the area of the empire in sq km or sq ft??? Thanks. Mmace91 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Aztec empire wasn't a territorial empire but a tributary empire and so didn't have actual borders or a connected territory at any point in its development. The territory seen in the map is really the extent of  it's political hegemony - not land that was directly under aztec control.Maunus 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: Can we get a lock on this page? The same User IP's keep vandalizing it Mogg flunkie 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I semi-protected in response to this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The section on Aztec diet states "Getting drunk before the age of 70 however was forbidden.", but a few lines down you find "A study by Montellano[12] shows a mean life expectancy of 37 (±3) years for the population of Mesoamerica."
Could someone confirm that first number? The reference given is not very convincing. Milosj 17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do know that only elderly people who were no longer supposed to contribute to society were allowed to drink. I don't know if there was a specific age and if so what it was exactly. I have also read that there were very differing rules for commoners and nobles. I suggest to leave it as is - it is definitely closer to the truth than the edit of the anonymous user who inserted 20 years as the aztec drinking age. As for the life expectancy 27 isn't that low for a preindustrial society (in fact 37 was the life expectancy of a western european around 1900)- and taking into consideration a probably high infant mortality many people would live to more than 70 years of age.Maunus 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A mean life expectancy of 37 does not preclude that some individuals get to live longer. 
Today in the US the expectancy is about 70 years, yet it has 71,000 individuasl over 100 years old.
Aztec were strict people, while drinking alocholic beverages was allowed, to get drunk was only allowed to those that had been able to survive to old age, and therefore were worty of it. Nanahuatzin 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are Russian centarians and probably some sub-Saharan Africans over 100 years old, too, even though there average lifespans (for men) are around 50 years.  Average lifespan is AVERAGE lifespan.  Chiss Boy 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aztec drinking age wrong? 

message: I've turned off the semi-protection, as the vandalism mini-storm on related articles seems to have abated. At least, until the next time some class somewhere is assigned to write an essay on the topic...--cjllw | TALK 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not. ffm 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection removed

message: I was very much surprised not to find a reference to Rudolf van Zantwijk: The Aztec Arrangement (U. of Oklahoma Press), which has the most thorough discussion of Aztec social structure ever published. I believe it should at least be added to the bibliography.86.87.62.150 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing reference 

message: I'd like your opinion on these edits to the Siege of Tenochtitlan article by User:24.60.246.211.  I'm reverting his edits but I wanted to get some corroboration that the edits in question should be reverted. --Richard 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  none of the versions are very good. But his version is in fact better. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check out this diff 

message: What the hell does "Aztec" mean?
The first line of the article states:
:The Aztecs is a collective term used for all of the Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican peoples under the control of the Mexica, founders of Tenochtitlan, and their two principal allies ...
But the Nomenclature section makes it seem like "Aztec" and "Mexica" are synonyms, and the empire was populated by more than just Mexica. It then says that:
:In this article, the term "Mexica" is used to refer to the Mexica people up until the time of the formation of the Triple Alliance. After this, the term "Aztecs" is used to refer to the peoples who made up the Triple Alliance.
If that's the case, then why does the article focus so much on the Mexica, not pointing out anywhere that the other two thirds of the Triple Alliance were not Mexica: Texcoco was an Acolhua city and Tlacopan was Tepanec.
Finally, we have this line: 
:In 1810 Alexander von Humboldt originated the modern usage of "Aztec" as a collective term applied to all the people linked by trade, custom, religion, and language to the Mexica state and the Triple Alliance.
Which sounds like he probably means Aztec to refer to the Nahuas. (I'm not sure if he would've included the Tlaxcalans though.)
So which is it?
*Aztec = the inhabitants of the entire empire?
*Aztec = the Triple Alliance?
*Aztec = Mexica?
*Aztec = Tenochca?
*Aztec = Nahua?
I'd almost suggest ditching the term, not because it's "scholarly corrupt" as someone else said, but because it seems too vague to be useful. We really need to get our definitions sorted. --Ptcamn 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term doesn't have one single definition, that doesn't mean the term should be ditched however it just means that its different uses should be mentioned. Etymologically aztec should be used for the tribes from Aztlán, this includes the Tlaxcalteca. However due to the usage where the Triple alliance has been equated with the aztec empire it has also acquired the meaning of denoting the primary members of the alliance. The cities under their control are not usually called aztec although it is often said that they were under aztec control. I think the prevalent usage in modern times is to refer to 1. in history/archeology when referring collectively to the members of the triple alliance 2. in linguistics when referring to the languages of the aztecan branch of uto-aztec (synonymously with Nahua). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd definitely keep the term. "Aztec" has a nice ring to it. But what have they ever done for us?
I read somewhere that some spaish guy said that all people that were linked to Tenochtitlan by religion, trading, or language, were Aztecs. Must've been ALOT of Aztec then... 219.89.43.227 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I don't want to wheel war, but unprotecting this doesn't seem to be working out that well (9 instances of vandalism, from separate sources, in 7 hours). As much as not everybody being able to edit is unfortunate, I think the most practical option is for the page to be re-semi protected. What do other people think? Picaroon 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, lets leave it for a day and see what happens. If the vandalism is bad on the 30th then I think we'll have to reprotect before April 1. Picaroon 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, with the first instance of vandalism occurring literally within five minutes of the semiprotection being lifted. It's just one of those topics where it's odds-on that on any given day there'll be some class of bored kids out there supposed to be 'researching'. However, the article is reasonably closely monitored by a number of folks and most inappropriate edits are quickly reverted, although it is an ongoing pain. While personally I can see the evident convenience of leaving semiprotection on, it should probably be left in reserve to be applied for brief periods when there's a mini-storm in progress.--cjllw | TALK 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: Although this article is rated as a "good" article, I feel that some citations are needed, particurly in aztec society. Some of the citations are sparse from eachother. Like one section will have the appropiate citations, while the one below it has none.
Xuchilbara 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed & lacking

message: User:Havermayer just made three edits to Spanish conquest of Mexico.  The first is unobjectionable but the following two should be checked.  I know that there is some doubt as to whether or not Moctezuma considered Cortes to be a god.  I don't know what Sahagun said on the topic.  Please review Havermayer's recent edits and comment or edit accordingly.
--Richard 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to [[Spanish conquest of Mexico]]