Talk:Huei tlamahuiçoltica

message: Welcome to add, amend, correct, and delete as necessary to create a good article.  I only ask that if you delete something, save it on the talk page for the benefit of the community.
Gracias,
Rockero 02:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have discussed the possibility of a merger on my userpage and in discussions with other editors, but I have never gotten around to actually placing merger tags on the articles.  I favor a merger, as long as all the information is retained and redirects are made.  The problem, of course, is that while the Huei tlamahuiçoltica is the actual name of the work, many scholars, priests, wikipedia articles, etc. refer primarily (if not only) to the Nican mopohua.  So many redirects will have to be bypassed or many articles will have to be edited if the proposed merger is enacted.--Rockero 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: The title at the top of the illustration reads Nican mopohua, motecpana inquenin yancuican huei tlamahuiçoltica monexiti inçenquizca ichpochtli Sancta Maria Dios ynantzin toçihuapillatocatzin, in oncan tepeyacac motenehua Guadalupe.  If this is the title of the book, it should be given in the article (with its translation).  It is, um, strange to have an article about a book that gives only a piece of its title (and not a very informative one, at that)... Jorge Stolfi 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "illustration" is not the title page, but you are correct, the article's title is abridged from the actual title. I've been meaning to add an image of the actual title page, too, which is much more attractive. So I'll see what I can do.--Rockero 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it would be better to remove the elipsis from the article name since it is commonly refered like that anyway. The elipsis just make the title look akward and don't quite follow MoS guidelines, if memory serves me well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the policy is, but you may be right about the ellipsis being unnecessary to indicate the abberviation of the title. Compare A Modest Proposal.--Rockero 19:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I've reverted this recent insertion in the article of an english translation of the document. Wikipedia is not the place for reproducing the full texts of documents, it should instead be put at en.Wikisource and the  template used to link to it from here.
The source of the inserted translation was not identified, as far as I could see- this would need to be done before reproducing it at wikisource, since although the original text of the document may be in the Public Domain, any translation of it is quite possibly copyrighted. Unless the translation was published quite some time ago, it most likely is still under copyright, and in which case we'd be unable to republish it at wikisource or elsewhere.
The source of the translation also needs to be identified for verifiability purposes. It could conceivably be someone's own translation not published elsewhere, in which case there'd be problems under WP:NOR.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed english translation 

message: Two quotes which I don't understand:
* "These facts, including the Montufar-Bustamante debate of 1556, and all arguments debated since have been thoroughly studied by de Guerrero Osio y Rivas."
: What statement is this meant to support?  By itself, that the scholar has studied the material, leads to no conclusions and imparts no information.
* "Together with many other writings in Nahuatl (all thoroughly studied by experts) make a formidable verification, especially when they are considered together with many codices and writings in Nahuatl using Latin letters and drawings."
: I don't get this at all... verification of what?  
The points mention study, consideration, verification... but in support of what position or statement?  I want to make sure I understand what these sentences are trying to impart.  Cleduc 06:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The context is not clear: it is not evident what debate the quotes refer to, nor what question they answer.  If you cannot clarify these statements, and provide a verifiable source for them, they will be removed.  Cleduc 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: I've removed the paragraph about the image; it has nothing to do with the Huei tlamahuiçoltica, which is what this article is about.  I found a better place for it on Our Lady of Guadalupe. Cleduc 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inexplicable image" 

message: There have been multiple reverts recently of edits by Luisosio and other users.  The most recent version has several problems.
* In the first section, there is an unsourced assertion that scholars who do not support a divine origin are "ignorant" of a infrared photograph.  This is pure opinion and cannot be proven, unless a reliable source states that those authors profess such ignorance (unlikely), or that the authors died before it was published (demonstrably untrue).
* The second section added ("Brading's quip") cites Valeriano, but does not make clear what Valeriano says and what statements are being made with what I suspect is improper synthesis; it is unlikely that De La Torre (1982) refutes that specific quote from Brading (2002).  Furthermore, the style of this paragraph is persuasive ("?" "!") and not encyclopedic.
These edits are not encyclopedic, do not cite reliable sources (at least not in any plausible way), and represent opinion rather than fact.  Cleduc 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits and reverts 

message: An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct.  All interested parties are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio. Cleduc 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on Luisosio's conduct 

message: The evidence, Cleduc, is in these very same pages of Huei. No one will have to travel far to certify your attempts to mislead Wikipedia readers and impoverish its contents.
Right under Recent edits and reverts (above) you stated:
§	“In the first section, there is an unsourced assertion that scholars who do not support a divine origin are "ignorant" of a infrared photograph. This is pure opinion and cannot be proven, unless a reliable source states that those authors profess such ignorance (unlikely), or that the authors died before it was published (demonstrably untrue).
I now paste what CJLL Wright with Cleduc’s complicity cut off from the following paragraph:
Some contemporary scholars have written skeptical or critical texts about the origin of the image and the texts. Sousa, Poole and Lockhart concluded that Laso de la Vega's narrative was based on Sánchez's Image of the Virgin Mary..., and that the icon was most likely painted by human hands, possibly those of Marcos Cipac de Aquino, an Indian painter from the school of Fray Pedro de Gante.[6] These scholars, however, remain ignorant of the infrared photograph taken by Cataño for the Basilica in 1946.
Yes, to call him shameless is an awesome euphemism. Where, to begin with, is the “unsourced assertion that «scholars who do not support a divine origin are ignorant of an infrared photograph»?” «Scholars who do not support a divine origin of an infrared photograph» could refer to hundreds of scholars, even with the possible exception of “Sousa, Poole and Lockhart”. You’ll have to ask them! In other words: Where do the words ‘divine origin’ appear in my brief sentence? AND where do they relate ‘divine origin’ to photography ―infrared or otherwise? 
What they do refer to, is the fact that if the three above mentioned had known professionally of this photograph they would not have attributed an awesome image to a youngster called Marcos who never painted anything we know of, of similar quality, or even of much inferior quality! For there is nothing of similar quality in Mexican or European art! Furthermore, there has never been a famous painter by the name of Marcos ―least of all an Indian― in all Mexican history! A single question has been used to settle this comical issue: Where’s the second work of art Marcos painted? I hope someone will break this news tactfully to Souza, Poole and Lockheart.
The other thing it does refer to is obviously that if Sousa, Poole and Lockheart had known of this infrared and hid the information from their readers, they would be the most dishonest trio amongst American Scholars!
Now just think, where from the above can any one come to the startling conclusion that “this is pure opinion and cannot be proven?” And worse: “unless a reliable source states that those authors profess such ignorance (unlikely), or that the authors died before it was published (demonstrably untrue).” ???
Where has this left our Wikipedia readers? Totally misinformed on the issue, of course!
After being incessantly accused of incivility, to the extreme of having “An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct”; you’ll have to agree with me that shamelessness will have to be redifined in Wikipedia’s pages to begin with; as shamelessness is something clearly surpassed on these pages by Cleduc, Katsam and Wright (who signed the infamous clipping).
I, after all, out of good manners didn’t clip out all the foolishness of Sousa, Poole and Lockheart. I duly balanced it with a phrase for the benefit of our readers.
Let’s go to another case, so said Cleduc:
•	“The second section added ("Brading's quip") cites Valeriano, but does not make clear what Valeriano says and what statements are being made with what I suspect is improper synthesis; it is unlikely that De La Torre (1982) refutes that specific quote from Brading (2002). Furthermore, the style of this paragraph is persuasive ("?" "!") and not encyclopedic. 
These edits (he refers to both) are not encyclopedic, do not cite reliable sources (at least not in any plausible way), and represent opinion rather than fact. Cleduc 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any new arguments here, just further original research.  It is obvious you disagree with the research cited, but you must cite a verifiable source on the matter.  You can't just make it up, or synthesize it out of multiple sources.  That's called improper synthesis and is against official policy. Cleduc 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's your answer Cleduc