Talk:Aztec society

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mesoamerica (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MachinaExDeo. Peer reviewers: Enniks, Smp5gd, Checkerstar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence

This sentence ("Probably this was one of the first societies that required education for all its members, without regard of gender or social status. ") was removed by User:129.2.183.21 without explanation. If the truth of this sentence is disputed, please state that and explain why.

Thanx.

--Richard 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article tagged? Why are there no discussions about it?

Also, the above-quoted sentence is accurate. León-Portilla says it was the first society that required education for (almost) all its members.

Minor point: I would enlarge the “Modern chinampas” photo: it gives the picture how the canals close to Tenochtitlan looked like.

—Cesar Tort 07:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the above sentence with a citation from León-Portilla so that we can counter the next person who wants to delete it. --Richard 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{disputed}} tag

OK, but why on Earth is the article tagged??? —Cesar Tort 07:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CJLL Wright tagged it back on January 14, 2007. I'll ask him to explain his reasons. --Richard 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps one issue is that there are a number of uncited statements in this article (actually, at times, whole paragraphs) - without those, one might be inclined to question the validity of the statements - Now I know off-hand that most of this information is true, but as I'm not really an Aztec guy (more of a Mayanist), I don't know what sources are cited for what statements. Getting those in order first would probably be a good start in getting that tag removed. On another note, this article needs an intro paragraph. Anyway, I'll see what I can do to help out. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dan. CT is right, I probably should have noted on the talk pg more explicit concerns, over and above what I put in the edit summary when I added the tag (also add {disputed} since there's quite a bit of inaccurate info here, combined with roughly-accurate info which could be better phrased).

Other than the lack of cites and somewhat haphazard structure -this article has essentially been stitched together from a couple of others-, there are a number of over-simplifications, generalisations, and some misleading or outright wrong statements. The prose in places is also sub-par, more like a highschool essay (indeed the Daily life in the Aztec Empire article from where some of this text was taken seems originally to have been some student's essay).

Some examples:

All the Aztec temples resembled the Egyptian pyramids, as they were built upwards to bring the people closer to the gods -a not-very-apt comparison
The Aztecs put such a high emphasis on religion and pleasing the gods, that they most likely did not feel that they should put forth time or energy on art for any other purpose -v. doubtful
2 deer 0 pop - Pop is from the Maya calendar
Basically all of the Aztec art...are based on Mixtec artistic principles -there are other influences at work
...sculptures, mosaics, and wall paintings were also an integral part of Aztec daily life and have often been overlooked by historians - material remains are hardly "overlooked"
The Aztecs also believed there were “natural” causes for ailments. Such a cause might be war, falling and breaking a bone, a headache, nausea, pimples, chest pains and various infections. -eh?
black magic, white magic - not very appropriate terminology
...the "house of the eagles", where in peacetime Aztec captains could drink a foaming chocolate, smoke good cigars, and have poetry contests - reads more like a good night out at the Garrick Club.

Perhaps another, gentler, cleanup tag could be used, and through the efforts of others it has improved quite a bit since it was applied. You can remove the present one if you wish, but I still think it needs some type of cautionary device.--cjllw | TALK 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the present tag is ok for the moment, though the “unreferenced” tag may apply as well. It is much easier to do the clean-up here than it was in the sacrifice article. I am busy in real world and hope that other editor(s) will undertake the job. —Cesar Tort 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the silliness of Egyptian and Aztec temples being similar and pointed out some of their many differences.--12.152.181.160 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major reworking under way

I am about to drastically rewrite this article. I think it contains several sections that are of marginal or dubious relevance to the topic. I think the article should focus on the political, social and economical organisation of the aztecs. I think topics such as architecture, art, medicine, calendar, literature and recreation belong somewhere else. For example in the article about Aztecs or aztec culture. I understand that "society" could be so broadly defined that it could include almost all expressions of Aztec culture but I think that is not very useful and that it results in large amounts of repetition between this article and articles such as Aztec, Aztec calendar, Aztec history, Aztec cuisine etc. If you want to discuss this approach before I implement it then now is the time. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Before going too far we shld probably finalise our usages of the terms "Aztec", "Nahua", Mexica", etc so we can be more consistent across the board than is the case now. Maybe finish nutting it out at WT:MESO, then take proposal forward.

As for proposed scope of an "X society" article, think that "political, social and economical organisation" wld be just about right.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipiltin vs Tetecuhtin

Hello,

It seems to me that the word pilli can only be applied to the sons of the tecuhtli (see Google Books). Why this article doesn't mention it and doesn't explain anything about the tecuhtli? You can find the main references about it in the Britannica article and in CAT.INIST. (and probably in JSTOR).

El Comandante (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Calpolli vs Calpulli

so there are multiple spelling types of the word for the political family groupings in aztec socity

I have reviewed several Nahuatl dictionaries adn found the general consensus to be a 'u' insted of an 'o' in the word 'Calpulli'

However since i am not an expert in the field i do not wish to tamper so if you have a definite knowlege please correct the discrepency

New Sections

There should be information added on the religion, family dynamics, and the roles that women played within the society. Are there many available sources that cover this material? Kmmy47 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Structure/Adding Info

I will be reorganizing the article as well as adding a couple of small sections. The original article was unorganized and somewhat hard to follow, so hopefully the new layout works a little better. There have been some changes or additions to existing sections but the majority of the information is staying the same. Tdbdh4 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Tdbdh4 and MachinaExDeo will be undertaking a significant set of revisions to this article from 16:52 Central time until 20:00 Central Time. In this time, we will be moving content over from both of our sandboxes in small, bite-sized chunks, and we would really appreciate it if any users who are checking over our work would wait until we finish with this series of edits before attempting to revert or offer constructive criticism. Happy editing MachinaExDeo (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MachinaExDeo and I have just revised the original article to give it a new structure, new information and section names. We would appreciate it if we could be made aware of missing sources or incorrect information before the article gets reverted to its original state as we have put in a lot of time and effort into improving this article. We will be more than happy to find sources and add them where needed. Tdbdh4 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small reorganization

I will be moving the education section to behind the economics section. I feel this helps the overall organization and flow from most impactful on society to least impactful on society. I will also be reorganizing the economics section and moving the agriculture subsection to the end of that section. Once again, I feel that this helps the overall flow of that section. Tdbdh4 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]