Template:Did you know nominations/Macuahuitl

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Macuahuitl

(

)

Modern recreation of a ceremonial macuahuitl

... that there are accounts of a macuahuitl, a Mesoamerican weapon made from wood and stone, decapitating a horse? Source: Díaz del Castillo, Bernal (1956) [ca.1568]. Genaro Garcia (Ed.), ed. The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico 1517-1521. A. P. Maudslay (Trans.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy. Pg. 126 ISBN 0-415-34478-6. In support: "Offensive and Defensive Arms", page 23 The Anonymous Conqueror. (1917). Narrative of Some Things of New Spain and of the Great City of Temestitán The Cortés Society: Chapter 4. New York and Gonsalves, Kiran; Ojeda, Michael S. (2010-05-11), Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior

Reviewed: QPQ up to date. See here.

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 12:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC).

Review Tisquesusa (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Article

New – within the past seven days, the article has been promoted to good article status
Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters
Within policy –
Comment - the replica contains jade, a common stone used by the Aztec, though it is never mentioned in the text, use convert temps in the infobox (abbreviated) and in the text, I thought this was even a GA requirement, in general it is a good habit to do it everywhere where applicable.

Hook

Format –
Content - interesting to a broad audience I find a tool decapitating a horse not too interesting, that happened more often in the battles against the Spanish Empire. What is more interesting is that no originals of this unique weapon survive, I would write such a hook.
QPQ – 3 credits given
Image -

ALT1: ... that the uniquely Mesoamerican weapon the macuahuitl can only be studied via images and replicas, as no originals have survived?

@Tisquesusa: Something like the above? I am not really happy with the wording, can you see a way to tweak or improve it? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the macuahuitl, a unique obsidian-wood Mesoamerican weapon used by the Aztec, can only be studied through images and replicas as no originals survive...?

@Gog the Mild: Yes, I see what you mean, maybe like this? Tisquesusa (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: Good. Thank you. I would prefer one of these:

ALT3: ... that the macuahuitl, an obsidian and wood weapon unique to Mesoamerica, can only be studied through images and replicas as no originals survive?

ALT4: ... that the macuahuitl, a unique obsidian and wood Mesoamerican weapon, can only be studied through images and replicas as no originals survive?

ALT5: ... that the macuahuitl, a uniquely Mesoamerican weapon used by the Aztec, can only be studied through images and replicas as no originals survive?

I feel that ALT2 tries to get too much information in and loses its hookiness. Personally I have a mild preference for ALT3. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

yes, approved and go for it! Tisquesusa (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating article, but the claim for the hook (no specimens exist) comes from a 1988 source, while you have a 2006 source claiming that one may, in fact, exist; the discrepancy needs to be resolved if we're using this hook. @Gog the Mild, Tisquesusa, and Cwmhiraeth:. Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, Tisquesusa, and Cwmhiraeth: Good spot. On rechecking, the article seems to accurately reflect the sources. Obregón, one of the leading experts, states in a 2006 paper that "This unique example is supposedly in the archaeological vaults of the National Anthropology Museum." (My emphasis.) This "supposed" specimen has never been described, much less formally, despite allegedly being unearthed in the 1960s. In 2009 Obregón writes of it, as noted in the article, "a specimen hypothetically lost from the excavations of the meter". (Google translation.) Note that the excavation was over twenty years before Hassig categorically stated that the Madrid specimen was the last extant specimen.
Obviously it is difficult to prove a negative, but given that it is now 50 years after it was supposedly unearthed, that no sign nor description of what would be a fabulously rare artefact has emerged since, that a leading expert has explicitly written it off and another has used the words "supposedly" and "hypothetically lost" it seemed reasonable to profoundly doubt its continuing existence, or arguably if ORably whether it was ever what it was purported to be.
If it is felt that this debate should be better reflected in the article and/or the hook that could be done in 20 minutes. When submitting for GAN I felt that that would be WP:UNDUE. I still feel that, but don't insist that I am correct. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with what's in the article, because it explains this debate (though you could afford to provide in-line attribution for the 1988 source). I just don't think we can be so definitive in the hook. We could try to explain the debate in the hook, but honestly I think you'd be better off with a different fact; there's plenty in the article. Even something like "the last definitively known specimen was destroyed in a fire.." would be okay, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:

@Vanamonde93: Your call. Assuming that ALT0 is still out, a couple of suggestions below.

ALT6 ... that the macuahuitl, an obsidian and wood weapon unique to Mesoamerica, can only be examined through images and replicas as no originals are available for study?

ALT7 ... that the macuahuitl, an obsidian and wood weapon unique to Mesoamerica, was both used against the Conquistadors and by their allies?

ALT8 ... that the last definitively known specimen of a macuahuitl, an obsidian and wood weapon unique to Mesoamerica, was destroyed in a fire?

PS If we were to go technical, the possibly extant version would be, if it exists, a mācuāhuitzōctli and not a macuahuitl. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This nomination has been hanging around for much too long. Approving ALT6 as factually correct, and I also like ALT0, which I find interesting enough even if the original reviewer does not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)