Hello "Nanahuatzin" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages.
You can experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump.
Happy wikipediaing, -- Infrogmation 13:51, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello..

I think I became too exited to read the "intructions" first :) I love this, i will try to calm down and learn a little more before writting more

Thanks a lot:

Nanahuatzin 15:51, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)Nanahuatzin (Javier Delgado)

what level of Nahuatl do you speak? can you show me how?

Enormous thanks for your comments at Talk:Aztec. I am (slowly) working them into the article. -- Jmabel 21:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin 18:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thanks jmabel. The article has now a much better cohesion, and sense, i am leanrning how to sustain the info, I need to work more on that :)

And i just notice how mucho the article is mirrowed on other parts... I cound how important that all the information is acurate and testable.. And i sitll nedd to undestarnd how to work well in the wikipedia :)

Thanks to bring me the atention on the article of portilla.. It was a lazy cut and paste of mine, that i will try to correct. (and i will re-read the parte on copy right ) (Javier Delgado) Nanahuatzin 07:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks, and don't take it personally! Keep up the good work. –Hajor 12:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Don,t worry... I was in a hurry to created an entry.. I must take time to create content... no to copy :) Nanahuatzin 07:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Oye wey, seria bueno que tradujeras gran parte de la información de wikipedia en español, para que la información del de Inglés sea buena, y se considere un buen artículo, lo intentaría hacer pero mi inglés no es tan bueno :/, si te interesa, ponte en contacto conmigo porfavor, y es que ultimamente han puesto mucha información basura, sobre el crimen y lo de chiapas, lees la información y ves que es bastante estupida y fomenta la creencia de que en mexico solo hay violencia. Mexxxicano

Hola. En realidad lo estoy haciendo alreves... estoy escribiendo primero en la wikipedia en ingles (ve todo lo de aztecas y temas relacionados con mesoamerica) y poco a poco lo voy pasando despues a la wikipedia en español. No estoy seguro de que informacion me hablas, pero es bueno que estemos en contacto. En general me parece que el articulo sobre México es bastante bueno, aunque he intervenido muy poco en el. Estoy a tus ordenes, en lo que mi tiempo me lo permita. Tenemos muchisimo trabajo con lo de aztecas :) Nanahuatzin 05:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok gracias we, si me ayudas cuando tengas tiempo te lo agradeceria, me gustaria representar y demostrar a todos como es relamente mexico, y si, el artículo de méxico esta completo, pero quiero que entre en la categoría de buenos artículos, espero que em escribas después para mejorar esa seccion , por cierto muy buen artículo el de los aztecas, ya lo leí :D

Mexxxicano

Porque no te unes a "Proyect:mexico"... Hay varios usuarios que nos hemos dedicado a los articulos sobre Mexico, pero somos muy pocos. Nanahuatzin 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Si, ya lo cheque y me voy a unir, pero aunque la pregunta sea estupida como me uno nadamas escribo mi nombre ahi y ya?

Mexxxicano

Pudes apuntar tu nombre, pero mas bien ver la lista de pendientes y comentariso y ver si peudes ayudar .. Ademas de aportar con comentarios y sugerencias. Nanahuatzin 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buenisimo el artículo de los aztecas, lo de ejercito es bastante interesante

El articulo del ejercito creo que aun necesita trabajo.. se aceptan sugerencias.. Que bueno verte de vuelta por aca... Nanahuatzin 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mira encontre este foro en el se mecionana varios aspectos de los culturas prehispanicos, incluyendo lo del ejercito, no se si escribas en el o ya lo conozcas pero te dejo un link para que lo cheques si quieres. http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4827

¿Sí se trata del Templo Mayor, verdad? Por cierto, todavía no hay ningún artículo sobre el Templo Mayor... Un saludo, –Hajor 16:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Si asi es, la referencia anterior estaba basada solamente en Prescot, aun falta mucho material, como Tlacaelel, mas sobre Sahagun, Sejourne, AngelMa. Garibay etc, mas informacion sobre cuahutemoc, explicar mejor lo de las guerras floridas y terminar lo de aztecas... Afortundamente hay gente que me esta ayudando con mi redaccion en ingles... Nanahuatzin 07:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Perdoname para escribir en ingles. User:Hajor said "There isn't an article on the Templo Mayor". I think Nanahuatzin said "Yes, there is, the earlier reference was based solely on (William H.) Prescott".

The point is, there is an article on Templo Mayor but it is very short and needs expansion. Any help we can get would be much appreciated.

(en español) Lo que quiero decir es "Sí, hay un articulo sobre el Templo Mayor pero actualmente es demasiado corto y tenemos que aumentarlo. Cualquier ayuda que recibimos sera muy agradecida."

Hope I didn't murder the Spanish too badly. I don't think I missed any accents but accents are not my strong point. )Any advice on improving my diction would also be much appreciated.)

--Richard 04:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Órale, pues a seguirle dando. Yo seguiré metiendo mi cuchara con lo que pueda. –Hajor 13:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias, ya vi las corecciones de redaccion que has hecho. Estoy aprendiendo mucho tambien con esto. Nanahuatzin 06:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Leon Portilla

I just finished cleaning up the grammar of this article. Please make sure that I didn't introduce any errors. Also, I have a question about Bernardino de Sahagún, which you wrote. In the article on Portilla, you said that the Historia General is a modified version of the Florentine Codex, but in the article on Sahagun, you say that it's the same thing. --Smack 19:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it,s much better now, i have to write in full about sahagun, maybe next month, there is a lot to sya about the florentine codex, it was supose to be the same thing, but Sahagun did know that spanish autorities would not like it,s content :)

Nanahuatzin 20:17, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nanahuatzin and Yizzerin: I am working on adding citations to various articles. Please help me with the article about Miguel León-Portilla. Thank you in advance for all of your help in this matter. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aztecs, again

Would you please look in on [[Talk:Aztec#War_captives.3F|this discussion on Aztec war captives? Resolution of confusion could use your superior knowledge. -- Jmabel 17:51, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

It,s a good question, but there is no clear answer... Nanahuatzin 09:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nican Mopohua

Could you weigh in on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nican Mopohua? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Aztecas, otra vez

Feliz año nuevo. I'll be glad to help with either editing or translation. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Indicating vowel length in Nahuatl

If you have a moment, please take a look at Talk:Tenochtitlan and share your opinions. Thanks, –Hajor 14:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afro-Latin and Afro-Mexican

Saludos desde Arizona.

I don't know what is going on with SqueakBox that wants to delete the Afro-Latin American and moved the Afro-Mexican article to the first. Is it because his girlfriend is an Afro-Latin American? But anyways, I see that you have been participating in the same articles I am and wanted to stop and say hi.

I see that you haven't voted against deletion, but at least you are willing to improve the article.

Cheers,

--Vizcarra 8 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Hola, saludos desde el DeFectuoso.

I just found the article, and i think is worth enough. I just have voted against deletion. I Think SqueakBox has not given the real motivation to try to delete the article. But it seem too personal. Anyway, i will triyin to improve it. Thanks for comming :) Nanahuatzin 8 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

DeFectuoso... haha. Yeah, now he's trying to delete Afro-Mexican too, even after my improvements. Some people have issues. :) --Vizcarra 9 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Of course I don't have personakl reasons for putting a Vfd on the article. Vfd's can have a very positive influence on an article, andf that was my motivation as these article are crying out for a positive influence. My black partner just means I knowe something about the issue, but I can assure you she has nothing to do with why I placed the Vfd's. Please stop thinking a Vfd is negative, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 01:31 (UTC)

Then can you help us to make it better?, I undestand that speak of black people is a delicate subject, but there is a lot of history that need to be known. Nanahuatzin 9 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Chicano

Me suena sumamente dudoso esto en el artículo Chicano, y también bastante mal planteado. Si tienes un momento, ¿te podrías asomar, a ver qué opinas? Eso te pasa por ser el experto. Gracias, –Hajor 13:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. hice unos cambios bastante drasticos. La cultura azteca no tiene que ver.. excepto que a sido re-adoptada en el movimiento chicano como una busqueda de sus raices, pero eso es reciente. No tiene que ver con el origen de la palabra. Nanahuatzin 16:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atinados, creo. Gracias. –Hajor 01:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor tome el tiempo para explicarme como no hay conexion con los Mexicas y los Chicanos de ahora. Y si puedo, la palabra Chicano representa algun movimiento que trae de la raiz pensamiento de las civilizaciones que Uds habla en la pagina Aztec. No veo porque se necesita que eliminar la referencia hacia los Mexicas en cuanto el origen de la palabra Chicano. Si por favor me lo puede explicar. Muchisimas Gracia!!! Marcelino 22:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC) pan y vino[reply]

Me parece bien lo que dice. Pero hay que tomar en cuenta que este moviemiento que resulta en 60 o 70s solamente trajo la palabra Chicano de la cultura Mexica. O sea para reconstruir basado en lo que quedo de la preciosa culturas. Claro este movimiento no esta excluiyendo a las demas indigenas que existen todavia en partes de Guatemala como San Jorge de Panajachel o en el sur de de lo que se llama hoy Mexico. Yo pienso que esta pagina de Chicano esta informando de donde vino la misma palabra. Yo por supuesto no creo que venga de los mismo Mexica, claro que no. Pero en vez vino de los muchachos que aprendieron que todavia existe el indigena en nuestros tiempos y han sido explotados por todo este tiempo, comensando con la conquista de los españoles. Mas aparte no hay communicacion de la gran historia o relato de esa cultura. Ya casi todo esta relacionado con Europa (ejemplo LatinoAmerica) y casi nada esta reconocido del nuestras raizes indigenas. Entonces para poder reconstruir o mobilizar el movimiento presente se tiene que retomar el nombre. Y al fin solamente pienso que relatar la poquita historia de la palabra Chicano abre las puertas para entrar dentro del mundo mexica, maya, y aun mas. Ojala para entender los mismos Olmeca. Mil disculpas si no me hago claro y muchas gracias por su repuesta. Espero que sigue pasando el ojo de critica sobre la pagina Chicano. saludos y salamm ay lakum, Marcelino 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tenochtitlan

I'm guessing you might be able to answer the question at Talk:Aztec#Age_of_Tenochtitlan. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Mexico

Hi, there. I thought you might be interested in hearing about the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico. Please take a look, sign up or not as you feel fit, but please keep it on your watchlist. Regards, –Hajor 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano Wikiproject

I notice you're a fairly active on Mexico-related articles. I don't know if you know anything about Mexican-American topics, but some of us are putting together a Wikiproject and you might want to check it out. You can see the discussion on my talkpage.--Rockero 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huitzilopochtli

Thanks for your input, I've copyedited some of your stuff, hope you don't mind. :) - FrancisTyers 10:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.. my entries ussually need some copy edit, but i still try to improve my english:) The article still need work, i will try to dedicate more time to it Nanahuatzin 11:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec human sacrifice

Hey, just wanted to thank you for all your contribs to the Aztec article as a whole, and specifically for the sections on Human sacrifice! I think we could make that section a lot better, there are so many conflicting stories of the act of human sacrifices among the Aztec floating around, it would be awesome if we could turn Wikipedia's sections on the subject into one of the most accurate, accessible and NPOV sources available! Let me know if you would be interested in collaborating on something for the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture section, and thanks again for your contribs! --Fxer 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i would be glad to do it. I started that section about a year ago, and i had been adding slowly, trying to search first, as you say there a los of conflicting histories. Some conlficts cannot be resolved, by lack of data, but we can keep the most trustworthy sources. Nanahuatzin 23:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was automatically reverted

Your recent edit was automatically detected to be vandalism. If you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked. If you feel you have recieved this notice in error, please contact contact us at Tawkerbot2's talk page. Tawkerbot2 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were literally cutting the article in half. Sorry about the autorevert, I've fixed it so that will never happen again. Thanks for your patience. joshbuddy^talk 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a duplicate secction, and it seems several people had tried to correct it.. only to be acused of vandalism... why??? Nanahuatzin 09:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Memin numero1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Memin numero1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Juan de Grijalva

Hi Nanahuatzin,

I have a question about Juan de Grijalva. Maybe you can help me.

I'm working with this text...

Grijalva's expedition of four ships sailed up the coast to the Tabasco region, a part of the Mexica empire.

In the Juan de Grijalva article, it says

"He arrived on May 1, at the Cape of Guaniguanico in the South of Mexico."

I'm confused... "up the coast" implies north. How is Tabasco north of anything relevant? Is it north of Cuba? That's where Grijalva would have sailed from.

- Tabasco is at the south of Cuba.

I would think he sailed "down the coast" (i.e. south) from Cozumel to the eastern border of Tabasco.

Second, where is the "Cape of Guaniguanico"? Is it in Tabasco?

- Guananico is in Cuba, it,s the most occidental point, It is also called cape San Antonio. (San anton) I check in goggle and seems most of the references have this wrong. in guananico was the state of the governor of Cuba.

- This is the original acount by Bernal Dias del Castillo http://pge.rastko.net/dirs/1/2/3/2/12325/12325-8.txt

All our preparations being made, we set sail on the 5th of April 1518, after hearing mass with great devotion, and in ten days doubled the point of _Guaniguanico_, which the pilots call Cape St Antonio. In eight days more we came in sight of the island of _Cozumel_, the currents forcing us farther down than we had been in our former voyage. On sight of our ships, the natives fled from a town on the island, but our people found two old men concealed in a field of maize who were unable to follow the rest. Our interpreters, Julianillo and Melchiorejo, whom we had made prisoners in the former voyage, understood the language of these people, as the island of Cozumel is only four leagues from their country. Grijalva treated these people well, after which he gave them some presents and dismissed them, being in hopes to induce the natives of the town to return

Finally, was Tabasco part of the Mexica empire? Who lived there?

- There lived some mayan but he main group qhere the Chontal (called tarascos by the aztec), they defeated the aztec once, and even under aztec ruling they remained higly independent of them. Nanahuatzin 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx.

Richard 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. I have not used all of it but I have used some of it to make some corrections to the Juan de Grijalva and Spanish conquest of Mexico/Temp articles.

Richard 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

modern aztecs

hola nanahuatzin, i was wondering if you knew any sites or books where i could get good info on modern aztecs(en Inglès, if theres any?) i would like to know about the status of their culture and how they are integrated into Mexican society,Domsta333 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help to provide in-line references for Aztec article

Piet has emphasized the need for in-line references to make the Aztec article a featured article. I believe that you are the best person to do this. Can you help?

--Richard 11:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, i am already gathering what i can find :) Nanahuatzin 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo safari?? Great.

You said at Talk:Aztec: I am planing a "photographic safari" at the "museo de antropologia" and "Museo del templo mayor". I hope it will be useful Nanahuatzin 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo safari?? Great. Wonderful news. I would only ask that you continue to document your images with contextual information, the way that you did your recent codex uploads (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ahuiani_FlorentineCodex.jpg).

As a bad example, here is an image of an Aztec mask in the Commons, but the picture is slightly blurry and there is absolutely no information concerning this mask, like when it was made, where it was made, what it was used for, etc. So, I am reluctant to put it in an article. If you can gather that sort of contextual information, I would be very grateful. Muchas gracias, mi amigo. Madman 17:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i will try to put whathever may be usefull, spcially, since i don´t know where it will be used :) Nanahuatzin 20:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "bad example" is being used in the Aztec mythology article. I recognized it right away. --Richard 20:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went out and found some detail on that Aztec mask, and added it to that image page, as well as to the Aztec mythology article. While I was there, I moved the image to a better spot, increased its size, and added two more images to go with the list of deity names. More could be used. All for now, Madman 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Florentine Codex

I took all the nice, new material you added to the Florentine Codex section of Aztec codices and moved it to its own article. You really added a lot of interesting information that helps untangle all the various versions. Good work.

In this new article, I included the image from the Florentine Code that you just uploaded to the Commons. The two drawings that we have from the Florentine Codex, though, are quite different in style, and that's a little worrisome. I'm going to research the Aztec Warriors more thoroughly, to ensure that it is from the Florentine Codex.

Thanks again, Madman 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How well do you know User:Mexxxicano?

Hi Nanahuatzin,

I'm confused. User:Mexxxicano has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Visit his user page to see the reasons why. However, my experience with him has generally been positive although he tends to delete text he doesn't like without explaining why he doesn't like it. I also noticed that he had a short conversation with you on this Talk Page.

See Talk:Mexico for my comment about vandalism to Mexico attributed to User:Mexxxicano. Then see User talk:Drini for my comment to User:Drini about his indefinite block of User:Mexxxicano.

I'm confused by all this. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on this matter.

Best regards, --Richard 06:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard.

Besides the short conversation i had with him i don´t know anything about him. Except that it seem he is a bit overjealous on his nationalism. Probably he had managed to confront some people because of this, but his actitud seems positive to me.Nanahuatzin 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mixe and Mixtec ???

Nanahuatzin, I am wondering whether the Mixe and Mixtec are the same peoples/culture. They would seem like it to me, reading through both articles. However, before I merge them I thought I'd get your insight. Thanks, Madman 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While they live roughly in the same area, the Mixe-Zoque languages, Mixe, Zoque, and Popoluca, have not been definitively linked with any of the larger Mesoamerican language families. It is believed they are the descendents of the Olmeca . There still are 90,000 speakers of Mixe language. .Nanahuatzin 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/meso/meso/olmec.html

http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/meet/1999/meet99dicenzo.html

http://www.iisd.org/youth/ysbk113.htm

Thanks for the Olmec links. I spent a lot time editing the Olmec articles here this past winter. It's hard to believe, sometimes, that the Olmec flourished up to 2500 years earlier than the Aztecs.

Did the Mixtec speak Mixe?? Are the Mixe descendents of the Mixtec?? Do you think I should merge the articles?? Let me know, and thanks, Madman 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not related. The mixtec speak mixteco which is a diferent family of languages. There still about 350,000-400,000 speakers of Mixteco. The confusion probably arises because the aztec named the mixteco which sounds like mixe. The mixteco is one of the oldest, civilizations in mesomaerica, besides de olmec, which are tought to be the ancestors of the mixe.

Yes, the aztec were the "new kids on the block" off mesoamerica.Nanahuatzin 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Méjico vs. México

The History of Mexico article has the following text:

A cultural side-effect of the fact that Mexicans use México /'mexiko/ and Spaniards sometimes use Méjico is the occasional boiling-over of negative sentiment towards the old colonial oppressor. The mere act of using the j spelling is interpreted by some as a form of colonial aggression. On the other hand, some Peninsular scholars (such as Ramón Menéndez Pidal) preferred to apply the general spelling rule, arguing that the spelling with an x could encourage non-Mexicans to mispronounce México as /'meksiko/ (as is generally the case in the English-speaking world). Méjico on the other hand could easily be mispronounced as well, because the letter j stands for /ʒ/, /dʒ/ or /j/ in other languages.

Being an estatdounidense, I've always written "Mexico" but I've always said "mejico". Is that politically correct in Mexico or should I be saying "Meshico"?

--Richard 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. by tradition it is prononuced as "Mejico", and we also say Tejas instead of Texas... It has became a mater of national pride... no matter what the original pronunciation was... But don,t worry, most mexicans only complain about the spaniard, not the american, or other people.. :) Nanahuatzin 19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WP:AZTEC

¡Hola Nanahuatzin! A query has been recently left at the WP Aztec discussion page, concerning the 'original' geographical scope of the term mexico. I was wondering whether you'd be able to take a look and offer your insights. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 07:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of Mexico map in Aztec article nominated for Featured Picture

Hello, Nanahuatzin! Hope things are well with you. I am writing because I self-nominated the Valley of Mexico map in the Aztec article for Featured Picture. You may vote on it &/or offer your comments here. Keep up the good work, Madman 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of sources

Hi Nanahuatzin. Looking over your contributions I have noticed that you like using primary sources when contributing about mesoamerican and aztec topics. This of course is good, but not unproblematic, and I have noticed some problems in the way you use these sources. While primary sources are much closer to the historical information they also require of their user a much greater care in interpretation and criticism. Historical source documents cannot be used simply as "historical accounts" like a historybook they require interpretation and a critical attitude. Who wrote them? Why? When? What were their motives? What do other documents say about the same event?

For these reasons it is often much safer to use secondary sources because these are mostly written by scholars who have dedicated huge amounts of time to interpreting and understanidng the sources and their historical contexts, something that few of us who are not proffesional historians have the time or skills to do.

Also another thing to take into account when using primary sources is that they are hardly ever truly primary, you are almost always dealing with a a facsimilie, a transcription or most often a translation. This means that referring to the specific source you use is necessary: whose translation says this? Which transccription or which facsimile, published where and when and edited by whom? When for example you quote the florentine codex is it the spanish or nahuatl version that has been translated? By whom? Also primary sources need to be shown just like secondary and tertiary sources in a references section at the bottom of the article page. Also while we may know more about a background and what the sources are the reader does not and he is likely to uncritically ascribe any source a truth value that they do not hold up to.

When in the article about Cuauhtemoc the florentine codex is used to quote direct speech between Cortés and Cuauhtemoc(I dont know if you wrote this but ill use it as san example) a reder may think that this means that these are the exact words used by the two persons, whioch of course they are not. The florentine codex is written down some 50 years after the events by people who were not eye witnesses to the events, and also while the persons are quoted in english we know that Cuauhtemoc spoke nahuatl and Cortés spanish, they simply couldnt have a personal conversation. The reader will not know this and so it is our duty as editors to tell the readers what is really known about an event. Which is why it is often better to rephrase and interpret the facts rather than handle over the sources to the readers. And why it is often better to seek help in secondary sources on how to understand and interpret the sources.

respectfully.

Maunus 09:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... You have a very good point, and i am glad that you have noticed that i prefer to cite primary sources. And i hope you will understand my reasons.

I live in Mexico and history usually has been the victim of many sins. For example I have read many acounts of aztec canibalism by many specialist.. and then i read in "the man eating myth" and found that Arens claims there only 3 primary sources, after searching a lot, i found actually there are only five, and none specially strong. So i became very suspicious of the acounts that DO not refer to primary sources. And there is the custom of portrait Cortez as an evil, and Cuahutemoc as an heroic man (he was just an adolescent). Sejourne and others put the aztec as an spiritual people, and were taken so seriously that soem people made a new religions based on her books. Portilla, specially in his first writtings also idealize the aztec.

Now... that does not means i am uncritical of "primary sources"... that is why i wrote the "disclaimer" about the sources in the aztec article.

The cse of the Florentine codex is speciall. The codex is really three booksin one. A nahuatl text, an spanish and a pictoric text. WE know,ofr example, that Sahagun put censorship on the spanish text (he ven comented that he had to rewrite some sections, becuase"Habia cosas que callar, porque estaban mal calladas"... and is precisly that text, that has been the main source of aztec history since the nahuatl text was not published until 1973 and there has been only partial translation of the nahuatl part. So I have been recopilating the direct translation of the nahuatl part made by Leon Portilla in his many books, and when i can, i try to check other available sources so cross check.

How trusworty is the Florentine Codex?.. Portilla says that the info theer was cross checked from three independent sources , from Tetepulco, Texcoco and Mexico(tenochtitlan) by his trilingual students and that some of the sources were recopilated "only" 38 years after the conquest (tetepulco, 1559) adn were preserved by people used to oral tradition. Florescano, also has very high opinions.

But i agree that i may convey the impresion that they are exact dialogs, and surely they are not. But at the same time they are the most reliable source we have. A curious dilema..

So, i will try to take care of your considerations. I thinks some direct cites, would give help the reader a better "flavor" of the history. For Example, i think the litle poem i put at the end of "flowery word" would help the reader to understand what the aztecs feel about it. I depend of people like you to keep my entusiasm from overflowings :)

Nanahuatzin 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point when using primary sources is that it is very easy to be doing original research without knowing it. If you interpret the sources in a new way and write this interpretation on Wikipedia you are in fact contributing original research. This means that if you cannot document that some scholar has understood a historical document the way you understand it, then you may be violating the "original research" policy. I therefore suggest that you primarily use secondary sources and cite from these while at the same time keeping the primary sources in mind in order to explain to the readers on which basis scholars draw their conclusions. Also when adding new material it is good to alway supply precise quotations. Writing for example "Leon Portilla states that ..." is a useless information without knowing in which of his hundreds of works and where in it he states this. So please try to use more and more precise citations of where you obtain your knowledge. Currently mesoamerican and aztec related articles as a whole is sorely lacking good references and citations and many articles have failed nominations for featured article and good article on that account. We are few editors who contribute in this field but I feel that if we work together we can make some good results and probably reach those nominations.Maunus 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point User:Maunus makes about being careful to avoid doing original research while working with primary sources. We are not a group of amateur experts writing about things. We are a group of amateur editors writing about what the experts say about things. This is an important difference. It's not important what WE know. What's important is what we know about what the EXPERTS know. --Richard 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mhhh..I agree. I would bew more careful whith cites, to avoid it looks like an original research. In general , i have been careful to used primary sources in the context used by researchers, specially when they can help to clarify some points.

There is onnly one exception: The puppet aztec rulers under the spanish authorities. The only referece i have found so far about them are in the "anales de tlatelolco", do you thinks this requires a disclaimer of som sort?. Currently i am searching more info about then, since there is so little known about them. Nanahuatzin 15:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find much mention of the puppet Aztec rulers in either Aztec or History of the Aztecs so I presume your question is concerning future contributions rather than past contributions. Despite what Maunus says above, I think it is OK to cite a primary source IF AND ONLY IF no other secondary source has discussed the topic. However, you want to be really careful not to come up with a "novel interpretation of history" that would amount to you doing Original Research. If the assertion is really remarkable, then it is worth calling the reader's attention to the fact that the assertion is made in only one source. If, for example, one source claimed that the puppet Aztec rulers consumed peyote but no other source mentioned this, then it would be important to point out that the claim was constrained to that one source. If the assertion is not particularly remarkable (i.e. not likely to be questioned), then it's probably OK to just cite the source without making an effort to say that the info only appears in that one source. You might discuss the scope of the source in the "Sources" section saying something like "This source is the only one to discuss the puppet Aztec rules in any detail. Most other sources focus on the history of the Aztec before the fall of Tenochtitlan." (assuming that the foregoing is true)

--Richard 07:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec army

Can you look at this article and give an opinion as to whether or not the information in it is reliable? There is a lot of skepticism on the Talk Pagethat suggests that the information is not reliable. I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the reliability of the article. Thanks. --Richard 07:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mhhhh. i Agree with Maunus. The information does not seems to be reliable. The article should be written from scratch. Nanahuatzin 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Talk:Aztec

Please check out the discussion thread "I'm confused by map at beginning of "History" section" on Talk:Aztec. Am I mistaken in my understanding of the relations ships of the Chichimecans, Tarascans and Mixtecs?

--Richard 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Flowers hoax

Hello, I wonder if you could please help sort out whether The Nine Flowers of Christmas article is a hoax or not? Perhaps leave a comment on its talk page? KZF 16:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reciente capítulo

Hola Javier:

Acabo de terminar y subir a la red el capítulo sobre La ciudad más bella del mundo, mi admirada Tenochtitlan (ciudad de la que quisiera hacer una película con el virtuosismo visual de un Kubrick). Pensé que quizá podría interesarte:

http://antipsiquiatria.org/libro_4/ciudad_mas_bella.htm

—Cesar Tort 08:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola lei con gran gusto tu texto, pues tambien parte de mis sueños es pdoer hacer una recontruccion fiel de lo que fue esa gran y poco conocida ciudad. interezante sitio, me voy a seguir con lo demas.

Nanahuatzin 05:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur and the Minimoys

Always glad to help a fellow Wikipedian! --Tenebrae 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Portada416.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Portada416.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DetalleforoJovenJun2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DetalleforoJovenJun2005.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Kaliman promocional.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kaliman promocional.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliman

I was going to upload a picture of Kaliman but you were faster. :-) I have borrowed an English language book on Mexican comics and I plan to add some references to articles on Mexican comics. Cloveapple (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nanahuatzin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nanahuatzin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fotografia PrimeraPelicula Kaliman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fotografia PrimeraPelicula Kaliman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nanahuatzin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ahuiani FlorentineCodex.jpg

The file File:Ahuiani FlorentineCodex.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]