![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the following claim, which (although provided with a reference) is incorrect:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)While the provided source probably does say something along those lines, an article in Business Mexico is not an authorative source for this kind of information. Just when the Mesoamerican calendar system was first developed is not known, but the earliest-known examples date from around the (mid-) 1st millennium BCE; a number of other calendar systems (eg Egyptian calendar, Babylonian calendar) are attested at least a thousand years before this.-- cjllw | TALK 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
(copie from user:talk pages) You reverted my edit to Mesoamerican Calendars. This article is pretty bad and repeats information in the other articles about the Maya calendar, Long Count Calendar, etc. Also it repeats information in the same article. You comment that there's "no need to correct something that isn't wrong". If you want to use the phonetic spelling of "coatl" as "cohuatl" that's OK but it's not pronounced that way in the areas of Mexico where I've been and listened to Nahuatl, such as Cuetzalan, Puebla or in literature about the Mexicans, place names, etc. As for the addition of the zero date of the Mesomerican calendars in Julian, the Julian calendar was in use until 1582. It really is important to carefully state what calendar you are using when discussing the Mesoamerican calendar because astronomers, historians and in fact everyone except mayanists uses the historically accurate Julian calendar rather than the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is important because the study of the maya calendar is an interdisiplinary one which for example includes astronomy. The use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar has caused a huge amount of confusion for people studying the Mesoamerican calendars and obviously continues to do so today. In addition the paragraph entitled "52 year cycle" is absolutely wrong in its assertion that the calendar round wasn't wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. Furthermore the calendar was never reset for political purposes. An example of this is that the Aztec calendar Tonalpohualli is consistent with the Tzolk'in which was 1 Chicchan on the date of the conquest of the Aztec empire. The year given for the conquest in the article is a year bearer (starting date of the Haab'). This is the only aspect of the mesoamerican calendar that is inconsistent. There were several year bearer systems in post-classic civilizations. This whole paragraph should be removed. The Long Count IS a modified base 20 system because there are only 18 Winals, not 20. Senor Cuete ( talk)Senor Cuete
it is writen : "The 260-day period was divided into periods of 13 days called in Spanish a "trecena" (no indigenous word for this period is known). The days of a trecena were counted from 1-13 (except in the Tlapanec area where they were counted form 2-14). The first day of the trecena, and the god who was its patron, ruled the following thirteen days. If the first day of a trecena was auspicious then so were the next twelve days."
PLEASE : where is the source and the proof of the settlement "in the Tlapanec area where they were counted from 2-14" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.73.236 ( talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The article says: "the calendar usage wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica." Munro Edminson studied this and came to the opposite conclusion. Senor Cuete ( talk) 15:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
The new illustration titled "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is stupid. It add nothing to the article, is redundant and it should go. Senor Cuete ( talk) 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
The citation needed tags in this section have been there since 2012, 2008 and 2013. Since nobody can provide a reliable source for these extremely dubious claims, this whole section should go. Senor Cuete ( talk) 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This article mostly describes the Aztec calendar. The 260 day calendar was universal but the Mexica altered their 365 day calendar sometime during the post classic period so it doesn't coincide with the Mayan Haab'. This is a pretty bad article. For example the correlation section is really wrong. 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
These edits mostly cite Miller and Taube. In my opinion, Miller and Taube is a horrible source for articles about Mesoamerican culture. If it were up to me, It would be considered an unreliable source. Consider what it says about this in the Tlaltecuhtli article: "Miller and Taube provide an extensive bibliography but use no footnotes so it's impossible to know what sources identify Tlaltecuhtli as a female figure. They identify their main source for Aztec mythology as the Florentine codex however Book 1 of the codex, the Gods, does not include this god.[5] In order to be a reliable source a publication has to be a primary or secondary source. Since Miller and Taube does not refer to either of these, it does not qualify as a reliable source." There is more in the article as well. The article in Miller and Taube about the Mesoamerican calendars suffers from the same problems. In addition Miller and Taube give two dates in the Long Count and some western calendar (possibly the Proleptic Gregorian calendar) and neither one is correct. The Maya calendar, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Aztec calendar articles are pretty good and cite much better sources than Miller and Taube. The Mesoamerican calendars article is pretty bad and needs a lot of work, but hopefully it can cite reliable sources, not Miller and Taube. Senor Cuete ( talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the following claim, which (although provided with a reference) is incorrect:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)While the provided source probably does say something along those lines, an article in Business Mexico is not an authorative source for this kind of information. Just when the Mesoamerican calendar system was first developed is not known, but the earliest-known examples date from around the (mid-) 1st millennium BCE; a number of other calendar systems (eg Egyptian calendar, Babylonian calendar) are attested at least a thousand years before this.-- cjllw | TALK 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
(copie from user:talk pages) You reverted my edit to Mesoamerican Calendars. This article is pretty bad and repeats information in the other articles about the Maya calendar, Long Count Calendar, etc. Also it repeats information in the same article. You comment that there's "no need to correct something that isn't wrong". If you want to use the phonetic spelling of "coatl" as "cohuatl" that's OK but it's not pronounced that way in the areas of Mexico where I've been and listened to Nahuatl, such as Cuetzalan, Puebla or in literature about the Mexicans, place names, etc. As for the addition of the zero date of the Mesomerican calendars in Julian, the Julian calendar was in use until 1582. It really is important to carefully state what calendar you are using when discussing the Mesoamerican calendar because astronomers, historians and in fact everyone except mayanists uses the historically accurate Julian calendar rather than the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is important because the study of the maya calendar is an interdisiplinary one which for example includes astronomy. The use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar has caused a huge amount of confusion for people studying the Mesoamerican calendars and obviously continues to do so today. In addition the paragraph entitled "52 year cycle" is absolutely wrong in its assertion that the calendar round wasn't wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. Furthermore the calendar was never reset for political purposes. An example of this is that the Aztec calendar Tonalpohualli is consistent with the Tzolk'in which was 1 Chicchan on the date of the conquest of the Aztec empire. The year given for the conquest in the article is a year bearer (starting date of the Haab'). This is the only aspect of the mesoamerican calendar that is inconsistent. There were several year bearer systems in post-classic civilizations. This whole paragraph should be removed. The Long Count IS a modified base 20 system because there are only 18 Winals, not 20. Senor Cuete ( talk)Senor Cuete
it is writen : "The 260-day period was divided into periods of 13 days called in Spanish a "trecena" (no indigenous word for this period is known). The days of a trecena were counted from 1-13 (except in the Tlapanec area where they were counted form 2-14). The first day of the trecena, and the god who was its patron, ruled the following thirteen days. If the first day of a trecena was auspicious then so were the next twelve days."
PLEASE : where is the source and the proof of the settlement "in the Tlapanec area where they were counted from 2-14" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.73.236 ( talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The article says: "the calendar usage wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica." Munro Edminson studied this and came to the opposite conclusion. Senor Cuete ( talk) 15:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
The new illustration titled "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is stupid. It add nothing to the article, is redundant and it should go. Senor Cuete ( talk) 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
The citation needed tags in this section have been there since 2012, 2008 and 2013. Since nobody can provide a reliable source for these extremely dubious claims, this whole section should go. Senor Cuete ( talk) 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This article mostly describes the Aztec calendar. The 260 day calendar was universal but the Mexica altered their 365 day calendar sometime during the post classic period so it doesn't coincide with the Mayan Haab'. This is a pretty bad article. For example the correlation section is really wrong. 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
These edits mostly cite Miller and Taube. In my opinion, Miller and Taube is a horrible source for articles about Mesoamerican culture. If it were up to me, It would be considered an unreliable source. Consider what it says about this in the Tlaltecuhtli article: "Miller and Taube provide an extensive bibliography but use no footnotes so it's impossible to know what sources identify Tlaltecuhtli as a female figure. They identify their main source for Aztec mythology as the Florentine codex however Book 1 of the codex, the Gods, does not include this god.[5] In order to be a reliable source a publication has to be a primary or secondary source. Since Miller and Taube does not refer to either of these, it does not qualify as a reliable source." There is more in the article as well. The article in Miller and Taube about the Mesoamerican calendars suffers from the same problems. In addition Miller and Taube give two dates in the Long Count and some western calendar (possibly the Proleptic Gregorian calendar) and neither one is correct. The Maya calendar, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Aztec calendar articles are pretty good and cite much better sources than Miller and Taube. The Mesoamerican calendars article is pretty bad and needs a lot of work, but hopefully it can cite reliable sources, not Miller and Taube. Senor Cuete ( talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)