Talk:Aztecs/Terminology-1

message: I find the Aztec entry very limited in scope, and it would be good to broaden the coverage. Here is what I mean by limited.
(1) consideration is limited mostly to the Mexica of Tenochtitlan, with little information on the other 2 million Aztec peoples in central Mexico. For example, city-states were far more important to most Aztec people than was the Triple Alliance empire, but the entry ignores city-states. In this and other topics, the coverage follows what the Mexica said about themselves (often biased, self-serving, and even incorrect), and not what scholars have managed to reconstruct of Aztec society and culture.  
(2) There is almost no archaeology in the entry, but this is where the major advances are being made in  understanding Aztec life, the conditions of elites and commoners, cities and urbanization, agriculture, and a wide range of economic and social aspects.  
(3) Most of the information is from a small number of texts (the chroniclers), with little consideration of administrative documents or codices.  
The net result is an entry that only covers a small part of what we know about the Aztecs, and only a small part of what is interesting and important about this culture. I'd like to contribute more, but just don't have much time right now. I did make some additions to the bibliography, and I'll try to add some material as I have time.
Michael E. Smith
: Yes,  as stated in the entry, this articles centers about the Mexica, the other peoples, could no be extrictly called Aztec. This is a limited term,  barely used in prehispanic times. What i think we need, and is an article about the nahua in general, Tlaxclateca, Acolcua, Tepaneca, etc..., where the Mexica were just one of them.
: most of the info i have put, is confirmed on archeological findings, but as you say, there is so much to say, that the article has to be broken in sections. I invite you to visit those parts and put from what your perspective is important. I have centered most about the mexica historical sources, since a lot of this info is unknow to most english speaking readers. 
: there are only four aztec codex, while the info is not referer directly, it has been taken as the basis:
: Welcome. Please help us. Any new perspective would be important.  Nanahuatzin 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited perspective of this entry 

message: I have created an RFC linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Terminology to get some opinions on the use of "Spanish" vs. "Spaniard" in referring to those from Spain who conquered and ruled Latin America during the Spanish colonization of the Americas.
Richard 06:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spanish" vs. "Spaniard" 

message: Has there been a discussion about this article's name? Somehow I'm not very comfortable with it. I would prefer Aztec civilization like for the Mayas. I know we should not go lightly over this, but there's no use postponing the discussion. Piet 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's bothered me forever.  I'll try to look to see if there's anything in the archives on this question but I definitely vote for Aztec civilization.  We can move this article and then put a redirect from "Aztec" to "Aztec civilization".
--Richard 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: There is a proposal to rename this article to Aztec Empire.  Please comment on the proposal in this section.  If there appears to be a consensus to do this, we will take a straw vote to confirm the existence of the consensus.
--Richard 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A suggestion to start, I think it would be as well to notify the rename proposal at and as per WP:RM process, since the target Aztec Empire has a non-trivial edit history and will in any case require administrator powers/action to make the move (if that is the outcome of the discussion).--cjllw | TALK 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename this article to [[Aztec Empire]]