Talk:Lords of the Night

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centeotl God or Godess?[edit]

Gigette - NO, the wikilinked article about Centeotl clearly states that Centeotl is a god. Now you'll probably edit that article as well to reflect your revisionist views of all things Mesoamerican. Why do you keep citing spanish language references on an English language encyclopedia? They're worthless for this purpose. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

{{cite book|title=Dioses Prehispánicos de México|editor=Panorama Editorial|authorlink=Adela Fernández|language=Spanish|year=1998|location=Mexico|page=131|isbn=968-38-0306-7}}. Now, can't we citing foreign languages references on Wikipedia in English because you are not agree?.--Giggette (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this reference about "Maya mythology" The nine lords of the underworld, in Maya religion [1] it says "God of Maize, Ears of Corn, and Bread/Goddess of Maize", Goddess in green by Bowditch or in red by Thompson. 3 references say "goddess" and just 1 say "god". Do you have the bibliography of this source online?. --Giggette (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adella - for about the third time I ask you to read the Wikipedia article about Centeotl. This is an article about AZTEC mythology, not Maya. The article you cite at Pauatun says god. Your book in Spanish is not a reliable source and you can't speak English. Stop citing your book - to do so is original research.Senor Cuete (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Exactly, your reference says "maya mythology", but my references are AZTEC mythology, understood?. --Giggette (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a passing comment or two, or possibly three. Most English-speaking editors use English-language sources for building articles on the English-language Wikipedia, but that's a courtesy to Anglophone readers, and is preferable but not mandatory. Non-English language sources are allowed, as long as they're accurately represented and have been judged acceptable by experts in the field; of course, this applies to all sources. In my own area of editing, I often use non-English sources if English sources of comparable standard can't be found. And scholarly sources often disagree; If disagreement's substantial, it should represented in the article; not so a minority or fringe opinion or interpretation, especially one found in a low-quality source. And sometimes, high quality sources contain outright error. If sources are in dispute, take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll just add that while most of the works in my google-search results for Centeotl yield "god" and "male", Google scholar has this search-snippet: "Centeotl has generally been accepted as the male god of maize, but the Spanish version of Sahagun speaks of the white Centeotl as a goddess. It is reassuring to note that the Aztec text says nothing about the sex of this deity." Tantalising. The rest is in Wiley online, to which I've no access.
Are you (Senor Cuete} saying that Giggette is the author of one of the books s/he cites? Is that what you mean by "your book" and WP:Original research? We can't cite works we've written ourselves, even if they've been favourably peer-reviewed, because that would represent a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're implying. Haploidavey (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not her, if I was her I wouldn't need to write in a public encyclopedia, BUT I want to clear that "my bibliography(ies)" it refers to all "my" 9 books I cite in aztec mythology, not only Adela Fernández, otherwise talking about English-language sources I also have, there is on page 61 "Centeocihuatl, Maize goddess. Aztec (classical Mesoamerican) [Mexico]. Represented at various sites including Tula [Hidalgo]. According to the codices Borgia, Cospi and Fejervery-Mayer, she is also one of fourtemple deities. Also Centeotl." by Michael Jordan in his book "Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses" ISBN 0-8160-5923-3. So Haploidavey, I'm not Adela Fernandez, I'm not using only her book and I'm incluing more references in Spanish, English and French. --Giggette (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove but I believe it to be true. In one of Gigette's posts to a user page she says here is "my" bibliography and lists the bibliography of the book that she is using as the only reference (sometimes with one of the sources in its very limited bibliography) to completely rewrite all of the articles about Aztec mythology. She first created a great many redirects so the articles would reflect the outline of her book. Now she is rewriting all of the articles to reflect the content of her book. In some of the articles she is removing all of the earlier references in favor of her book. If anyone reverts any of her edits and asks her to discuss them she reverts their edits, threatens them with blocking for the edit wars that she is engaging in. Owning an article is not allowed so how about owning a whole area of Wikipedia? Even worse, the book that will now become the only source for all articles about Aztec mythology is not even in English - a language that she does not really speak very well. Is this a reliable source for an English language encyclopedia? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Gigette is Adela Fernández. She is citing her own book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.233.152 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look above, you'll see Giggette denies that outright. And unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, we assume good faith. The rest seems a WP:content dispute, plus a WP:reliable sources dispute, with a touch of WP:Own somewhere in the mix. If you guys can't resolve your issues and differences on talk--pages, you might consider taking them to the appropriate notice-boards. But I have to say, the sources I've glanced at seem to support something like "Centeotl, god (or goddess)" plus an explanatory footnote. Haploidavey (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of who Giggette is the claim in Adela Fernandez' book is not generally shared by specialists. Giggette has previously been caught claiming that references support her claims which on inspection of the sources in fact do not. This is difficult to reconcile with assuming good faith. Furthermore several of her sources are not authoritative, but written by minor figures, sometimes in a genre mixing fact and fiction, and frequently without citing primary sources. Claims should be based on recognized specialists in Aztec mythology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really?, Adela Fernandez' book is not generally shared by specialists? who says? then can I see please your books shared by specialist?. --Giggette (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her claim is not shared by specialist, her book is not cited by specialists either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see where?, you have to prove that affirmation. --Giggette (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the burden of evidence falls on the one who wishes to claim that she is an authority in the field.
I completely agree. I can't think of any reason to use minor figures as sources. I also do not see Fernandez as a reliable source by our criteria and ask Giggette not to use it unless she can show that she is a major recognized scholar in the field and will support any editing needed to fix anything sourced to her. I am on a slow connection now but may say more in a day or two. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have ordered the English translation of Fernandez from the library, the translation is from 1984 so the 1998 version must be a second or third edition. A lot of scholar ship on Aztec mythology has come out since Fernandez' book was first published in English - we should use that scholarship for this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.A. Robelo (1905) "Diccionario de Mitologia Nahuatl" writes: "Habia un dios llamado cinteotl varón, distinto de la cinteotl mujer". That is he argues that there were two Gods of masculine and feminine aspect with the same name. (p. 64) He argues that centeotl is sometimes seen as masculine and cinteotl as feminine. (this argument is incorrect since the choice of cin or cen is dialectal, both means dried corn cob). He describes that in Codice Tellier y Rios cinteotl is the husband of Xochiquetzalli. Sahagun describe cinteotl as the son of toci. This was written more than 100 years ago and we should check how newer sources describe the relation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C.A. Robelo (1905) "Diccionario de Mitologia Nahuatl" on page 71 Centeotl says "Goddess of maize" and page 86 Cinteotl says "God of maize". --Giggette (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as you see below newer sources has not found this gender-confusion to be warranted. It also seems that his main reason to posit a female deity was that a female was sacrificed at the centeotl temple for the deity's feast.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think your insinuation or affirmation is disrespectful to historians and to people who actually care about the truth, is more important a new source than old one?. Well if you want a newer source so then. Michael Jordan, "Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses" (2004) on page 61 "Centeocihuatl, Maize goddess. Aztec (classical Mesoamerican) [Mexico]. Represented at various sites including Tula [Hidalgo]. According to the codices Borgia, Cospi and Fejervery-Mayer, she is also one of fourtemple deities. Also Centeotl". --Giggette (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is how scholarship advances Giggette, by correcting mistaken claims of past historians. Now Jordan doesn't write that Centeotl is a goddess he writes 'CenteoCIHUATL Cihuatl means "woman". This effecively proves that centeotl is a man, because the female version is formeds by specifying the gender. The male form of the god is unmarked. Centeocihuatl is the female form of centeotl. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I know cihuatl means "lady" as tecuhtli means "lord", totally wrong because "cinteotl" is a man as "centeotl" is a woman, do you have this comparative in a single source?, no you don't but I do, and of course you NEED to read what Jordan write in the end. "also Centeotl". --Giggette (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many Aztec deities have both male and female representations, but then are usually referred to as -tecuhtli (Lord) and -cihuatl (means "woman", but is usually translated as lady when referring to Female deities). However you are twisting Jordan to say the opposite of what he is clearly saying - he is saying that Cinteocihuatl is a Godess, not Cinteotl.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unlike Gigette, Maunus is Wikipedia's resident scholar of Nahuatl, a linguist and a fluent speaker of the language. You can't prove a negative, only a truth by a preponderance of the evidence. You criticize him because he can't prove that cinteotl and centeotl aren't different genders but you can't prove that they are. You are engaging in an edit war and citing un-reliable sources. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Unfortunately I am not a fluent speaker, I have to admit, but I know plenty of them that I can ask when I am in doubt.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jordan was a great basketball player. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
  • Read & Gonzalez, "Handbook of Mesoamerican Mythology" (2000), p. 175. "Cinteotl was the Nahua Maize God comparable to Yum Kaax".
  • Taube & Miller, 1993, "The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya" p. 62 "Cinteotl", "Also known as Centeotl, this deity is the masculine Central Mexican God of maize. According to the Florentine Codex Cinteotl is the son of the aged earth goddess Toci. IN the Codices he is protrayed asa young man with yellow body coloration."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jordan is an author of a variety of books, but not a scholar. All I can find so far is this[2] at Amazon, which says "Michael Jordan has written widely on the anthropology of religions. Before his writing career, he was a broadcaster for the BBC, Granada, Anglia, Channel 4, Radio 4, and the World Service. He lives in England." And [3] which amplifies that a bit, "Michael Jordan began his writing career after spending ten years as a successful broadcaster working for the BBC, Granada, Anglia, Channel 4, BBC Radio 4 and World Service. He has pursued two avenues of deeply personal interest - the anthropology of religions and natural history - which have produced more than twelve published works, including Gods of the Earth, Myths of the World and The Pagan Encyclopedia. He is also the author of Cults, a study of religious sects through the ages (Carlton, 1996), and Eastern Wisdom, a study of Eastern religion". So I would say that we shouldn't use him, we should use the scholars that his books depend upon. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piltzintecuhtli god of the Temporals?[edit]

Piltzintecuhtli god of the Temporals???

My dictionary defines "temporals" as:

temporal 1 |ˈtemp(ə)rəl| adjective 1 relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular. 2 of or relating to time. • Grammar relating to or denoting time or tense. DERIVATIVES temporally adverb temporal 2 |ˈtemp(ə)rəl| adjective Anatomy - of or situated in the temples of the head.

So temporal is not a noun. What does this mean? Also the footnote says "Acording Boturini". What the heck. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Centeotl & Cinteotl[edit]

As we can see, there are contradictory claims from different sources/references in English, Spanish or French; references describing Centeotl as goddess or god, in the same way with Cinteotl, but there is an important clarification in the book "Diccionario de Mitología Nahua" by Cecilio Agustín Robelo on page 86, it says in Spanish "Centeotl is considered as a goddess, representation of the Earth, as deity of agriculture and Cinteotl as god representative of the god Tonacatecuhtli in the order of the fruits" according to Sahagún and Paso y Troncoso. --Giggette (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That book is 107 years old. Scholarship has advanced since then. His claim that there is a gender difference between cin and cen is clearly a misunderstanding - it is two dialectal pronunciations of the same word having nothing to do with gender. There are no contradictory claims in recent professional scholarship.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, who are you for judging?, you should respect all sources and of course there are still contradictory claims in recent professional scholarship, by Michael Jordan, "Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses" (2004). --Giggette (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting Michael Jordan, who is also not a specialist in Aztec mythology, and who says the opposite of what you claim. I am not judging - I am simply acquaited with the relevant scholarship, and know that they do not cite Fernandez, Meza or Robelo, and that the general consensus in the contemporary mainstream literature is that Centeotl is generally referred to and depicted as a masculine deity. for example Miller and Taube refer to him explicitly as the masculine maize god.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You won guys, I won't bother you again with all my unrespected old minor sources, goodbye. --Giggette (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation on process, as I know nothing of this topic. Giggette, Wikipedia policies are quite clear that we don't have to, and indeed shouldn't "respect all sources", give them equal weight, or use them at all. Mainstream, specialist sources and opinions carry more authority and weight than minor sources. If the latter haven't been cited or subjected to peer-review by scholars in the field, we shouldn't use them. Wikipedia material should be based squarely on the predominant scholarly viewpoint. Haploidavey (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aristocracy.--Giggette (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the Night & Day?[edit]

Most of the gods rule both, Night and Day: D1=N1 (Xiuhtecuhtli), D3=N6 (Chalchiuhtlicue), D5=N7 (Tlazolteotl), D6=N5 (Mictlantecuhtli), D7=N4 (Centeotl), D8=N9 (Tlaloc), D10=N2 (Tezcatlipoca) – Why aren't this different sets? --176.5.22.82 (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lords_of_the_Night&oldid=1208332160"