Talk:Inca Empire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

How Unfortunate

It seems somebody really fucked up this article. As I recall it was actually pretty good as of 2 months ago. The information on Incan agricultural techniques and policies was especially significant. I ask that such a section is included in the rewritten version of this article which I hope is being compiled even now. -bordergroves

"Cusco" or "Cuzco"

Cusco seems to be used much more often than Cuzco. Perhaps all mentions of "Cuzco" should be changed? -- (left unsigned by Dynamax)

In Spanish, and most European languages Cusco is correct. However, in English, Cuzco is correct, I've made this mistake myself. Please change any instances of "Cusco" that you see to "Cuzco". -- Zenyu 02:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This would also include the Wikipedia page on the city of Cusco/Cuzco itself; currently it has been blown up and is currently under construction. --Bletch 02:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not an important enough issue. You are attempting to assign Latin characters to the Quechua language, which was never written. On a trip to Peru I had the pleasure of visiting the capital of the Inca Empire and saw many signs reading "QosQo." This being said, it is true that in Spanish it is more common to use "Cusco" and in English more common to use "Cuzco." Rafajs77 12:34, Aug 11, 2006 (PST)

As a Peruvian I can attest, Kosko, Cosco, Cusco and Cuzco are but few of the possible variants... However as time has passed and more rules have grown around Spanish (Back then there were no formalities within Spanish) Cuzco and Cusco have grown to become the only correct spellings... But either works just as fine. Herle King 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that for some reason Cuzco is preferred in Spain and Cusco in Peruvian Spanish. --Error (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As in Mexico and Texas, the historically accepted name for many centuries was "Cuzco", even in Peruvian Spanish. In 1976 this was changed arbitrarily and on shaky grounds by the city mayor (cf. Cusco), based on a movement started by the Academia Mayor de la Lengua Quechua.

*Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo (1997) Cuzco y no Cusco ni menos Qosqo in: Historica vol.21, pp. 166-170

*Carrión Ordóñez, Enrique (1993). "Cuzco, con Z". Histórica (Lima) XVII: 267–270. --Ronny

"Inca or "Incan"

The use of "Inca" or "Incan" as adjective seems inconsistent. For instance, the article has "Incan Emperor" and "Inca planned economy". Should everything be changed to "Inca"? Or is there some kind of rule to determine usage? WpZurp 16:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In Spanish, the adjective for something Inca is "incaico". My Collins Spanish-English dictionary translates "incaico" as "Inca", which corresponds with my hunch. I think we can get rid of "Incan" as an adjective.

Use Inca or Incaic. "Inca" is the most popular adjective. "Incaic" is used more in academic sources.-unsigned

Inca is a sustantive and an adjective depending on use, in Spanish "Ciudadela Inca" is the same "Inca Village". In English the preference of one over another seems the same rule that makes "an apple" and "a banana" have two different words (banana and apple) and one word that is the same in a different contact... That it is Incan before words beginning with a vowel and and Inca before words beginning with a consonant... With Spanish no fixed preferences exists for "incaico" or "inca".Herle King 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Location at Inca Empire vs Tahuantinsuyu

I think Inca or Incan empire is the proper english name, Tahuantinsuyu is the local name. I think the article should go with the english name. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think both Tahuantinsuyu and Inca Empire are ok, I'm abstaining on this one. But it seems that 'Incan' is not correct. See first comment at top of this page in reference to "Incan". Gsd97jks 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tahuantinsuyu was the name of the country. Westerners called it the "Inca empire" because it was large. Wikipedia's own empire article wouldn't classify the "Inca empire" as having a classical imperial political structure. But of course, the common meaning of empire as a sovereign entity created through conquest and/or intimidation still applies. But even if we think of it as an empire, calling it the Inca Empire is like calling the United States of America, "President Empire". Or calling the old British Empire, "Queen Empire". Or calling the First French Empire under Napoleon, "Emperor Empire"...

More like Pharaoh Empire. But Inca is now used for the inhabitants, not only the top leaders. Also Byzantine Empire#The name "Byzantine Empire" is a modern name, we don't title the article Roman Empire as they styled themselves.--Error 02:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think using "Inca empire" is necessarily wrong when casually referring to Tahuantinsuyu, as in a link. Just like there is nothing wrong with using American Empire or Napoleonic Empire to refer to the United States of America and First French Empire, resp. But we wouldn't write the main page about the United States or America under the title "American Empire". When talking about the 16th century country on it's own page, we should use its name or a well known anglicization (Ísland -> Iceland, Deutschland -> Germany, etc.) The anglicization "Tawantinsuyu" exists but it's used much less often in the English literature than the Quechua and Spanish "Tahuantinsuyu". So Tahuantinsuyu is the proper name for the page, like First French Empire is for the "Napoleonic Empire". But Inca Empire is also a proper alternate way to refer to the empire, just like Napoleonic Empire is a proper alternative way to refer to the First French Empire and should remain as a redirect. --Zenyu 14:31, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer Inca empire, since Inca is much well known in the english language, and give about ten times the google hits than Tahuantinsuyu. But I can live with a majority decision either way. The one thing i insist on is that any move of a page is done properly, and not with a cut/copy from one article to the other. The history of all previous edits should be maintained. The previous move was a cut/copy job and all the edit history stayed with the old redirect. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Tawantinsuyu or Inka Empire are better terms. I would support changing the spelling of Inca and Incan to Inka and Incan in all cases, as well as instances of "hua" to "wa" (Tahuantinsuyo->Tawantinsuyu). This non-Spanish orthography seems to be the preferred one in contemporary history writings. D.E. Cottrell 05:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a bunch of modern and old books using Tahuantinsuyu, both Tawantinsuyo and Tahuantinsuyo seem much less common, and are mostly present on the web (I've seen Tawantinsuyu in a book however, so maybe a change is happening?) And we already went through the whole "Inca" vs. "Incan" as the adjective. Inca seems to sound better to native English speakers and since both are proper we went with Inca. As for "Inka" with a "k", this is hardly ever used in English. What we need is a template explaining why there are all these different spellings, then we can place some standardized explanation at the bottom of each page containing a Quechua terms. --Zenyu 01:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

BTW I'm going to close the renaming debate in a couple days, there isn't enough interest and people seem happy enough with "Inca Empire". We do need to do some work on the article however, not having a map of the four provinces of the empire is terrible. Having a political map with all the different incorporated city states would be even better, of course.... --Zenyu 01:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree (though it is a futile thing, I know). Tawantinsuyu does fit the definition of an empire given in the Wikipedia article in that it was a multi-ethnic state governed from a central location (Qusqu/Qosqo/Cuzco), through various means. It was just as much an empire as the Persian one Alexander conquered. As for the "Inka" with a "k," in National Geographic's most recent issue on the Inka, the fold out map explained that Inka is the preferred academic spelling these days, but they use Inca anyway because people are more familiar with it (which to me is quite lame in that it assumes that its readers not familiar with this spelling are of such a mental calibre that they either cannot comprehend or tolerate the new spelling). It is a matter of taste, but I say why not. We have updated terms in English over the past 50-100 years (ie, "Negroe"-> "Black" or "African-American"), and spelling as well (ie, Rumania->Romania, Servia->Serbia, et cetera).

Basically, I am in favor of de-Hispanized/current academic transliterations and terminology. Sigh. Okay, schpiel over. D.E. Cottrell 07:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The good thing about Wikipedia redirects is that it's quite easy to make sure all of these terms (Tahuantinsuyu, Tawantinsuyo, Tahuantinsuyo, Tawantin Suyu, Inca, Incan, Inka) can be made to lead to the same article. I understand that it's a hassle to get people used to new terms, but since academics favor the spellings closer to non-hispanicized Quechua (ironically, itself hispanicized), I think it makes sense to shift over to Inka and Tawantin Suyu, but with careful redirects. Again, this isn't a big issue. Interlingua 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For some people it is a big issue. There have been edit wars before over the spelling of Quechua words; it's really worth thinking twice before making a lot of changes. I think opposition to the revised spelling is of two types: people who desire compatibility with other reference works in English (which used the traditional spelling), and some Spanish-educated contributors who just abhor the new spellings. Note also that redirects don't take care of searches— e.g. if someone looks for Atahualpa, a redirect would point them to the main article but not to other references (e.g. in the Conquest of Peru article). Zompist 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the limitations of the redirect. Interlingua 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a number of changes from 'Tahuantinsuyu' to 'Inca Empire' before noticing this discussion. I meant no disrespect. This discussion has taken place on numerous articles and the WP policy is to use the most commonly accepted English term (on the English Wikipedia that is). So even if the term 'empire' is inaccurate we must use it until 'Tahuantinsuyu' becomes the common English term. (In the same way that the Germany article doesn't use 'Deutschland'). Ashmoo 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Inca vs. Inka. In contemporary archaeology, the k form prevails. But the average English reader only knows the c form. So, let's have a redirect for the k form (currently, "Inka" goes directly to some-thing about India) on a disambiguation page. Kdammers 03:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Clothing and forced relocation of conquered peoples

Found this in the Clothing section and am moving it here. I don't know who wrote it. Mona-Lynn 09:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- Note: those forcibly relocated had to wear the clothing of their origin so that they would not be integrated into their new community. This should be discussed, but we may need a separate section just on the forced relocation of former enwmies, as avoidance of this was one of the reasons so many people did not fight the Inca army. --

Smallpox

I took out the part about smallpox being Huayna Capac's killer because I found this, http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/, which is an academic investigation calling that theory into question. Mona-Lynn 08:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources give smallpox as the probable cause of Huayna Capac's death. It should go back into the article. The fact that a single student paper questions that conclusion is not sufficient to overturn the conventional interpretation. D. G. Julien 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

'The Inca' or 'The Incas' ?

I know as a fact that most peruvians refer to the Inca civilization as "The Incas" and not "The Inca." Most articles on the web also refer to them as the "The Incas" with an S. Unless anybody has any objections the 'S' should be added in front of "Inca" when used with a "The" throughout this article. -- (left unsigned by Dynamax)

In Spanish you always add an s to a word to make it plural, but English has some words such as "deer", "aircraft", and "Inca" that use the same word for the plural and the singular. Note: Inca is not a word known by most English speakers so, unlike "deer", it has become corrupted so that "The Incas" is sometimes used in English to refer to the people living in the Inca empire (such as the Chimu or the Chachapoyas), to Quechua speakers, to the descendants of people of the Cuzco Kingdom, or to the Inca royalty, as opposed to the Supa Inca. -- Zenyu 02:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

While what you say about pluralization in Spanish and in some irregular English words is true, I don't see the connection between that and your final point, which is about not irregular plurals but the semantic extension of "Inca/Incas" to apply to a variety of groups within the Inca Empire. Nor do I think this semantic extension is something that distinguishes English from Spanish. Spanish speakers often use "Inca" to refer to a range of peoples who would not have been called "Inca" by the Inca themselves. It's often used as a synomym for "Quecha." Similarly, in popular usage about Mexican history, there's a lot of blurring among the following categories: Nahua, Chichimeca, Aztec, Mexica. Specialists, or mOre careful writers, in either language will try to distinguish among these terms. Interlingua 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Incas and Malaria

The Inca made many discoveries in medicine. They used quinine to treat malaria

Can we get a source on this? According to the book Plagues and Peoples by William McNeill, malaria was not present in the Americas until brought over after 1492. Here is a paragraph from the book (p 220):

As far as malaria is concerned, the most telling argument rests on studies of the distribution of human genetic traits associated with the tolerance of malarial infection. These appear to have been entirely absent from Amerindian populations. Similarly, malarial parasites that infect wild monkeys of the New World appear to be identical with those of the Old

Of course, this could mean that had quinine and used it (either before or after the Spanish conquest) to treat malaria when malaria arrived. In that case, some clarification could be warranted. --Bletch 00:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spaniards or Spanish?

I've also been noticing throughout various Peruvian-related articles that some wikipedians have been using "Spaniards" while others continue with "Spanish". I think everyone must reach a consensus as to what word to use in every article, especially those related to the conquest and history of Peru. State your opinions.

I generally hear the term "Spaniard" to describe individuals (e.g. "A house owned by a Spaniard"), whereas "Spanish" is more of a pure adjective (e.g. "A Spanish house".) --Bletch 23:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Spaniard" refers to people, whether individually (in the singular) or in groups (in the plural). "Spanish" refers equally well to people, things, abstractions. I don't think it's necessary to remove the use of "Spaniard(s)" when referring to people. It's perfectly acceptable, as is "Spanish." Interlingua 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pantheist?

There's a difference between having a pantheon and practicing Pantheism.

Spelling in this article

Spelling of Quechua words in this article varies from older Spanish style to more than one form of modern Quechua!

• Mama Ocllo, Collasuyu, Huayna Cápac are examples of Spanish spelling
• Qollasuyu later on is a modern spelling (for the same word represented Collasuyu earlier!); the preferred modern form is Qullasuyu.
• T'oqrikoq (under Political organization) shows the glottalized t' of Cuzco dialect, but this isn't consistent-- if it were, for instance, we should write mit'a.

I don't object to established English terms like 'Inca' or 'alpaca' or 'quinoa'; but it seems to me that for less known terms, we should stick to one system. I can help with this (I have good sources on Quechua), but which should it be?

Zompist 05:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think inconsistency is part of the price of a freely editable encyclopia. The Spanish spelling is the most common in English sources so it is the correct spelling for the English encyclopia according to the Wikipedia spelling guidelines. If it doubt do an 'English only' google search on the Spanish and Quechua spellings, then use the more common one first, and the less common one as an alternate spelling. Zenyu 17:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Inca writing?

Did the Inca have any writing method apart from the k'ipu? This website, http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Inca_Writing.html, alleges so. Do their claims have any merit?

It probably does not have any merit. The Spanish priests interviewed many Inca and burned all their books, if they had contained writing as opposed to pictures and single word symbols someone would have probably noted it. But there might have been some cultures that the Inca conquered that had writing. The Inca had their own system in the Quipu that was better adapted to their climate in the mountains. The Inca would probably have considered writing on paper to be a technologically backward and ignored it. Besides the symbols in that "Inca writing sample" do not look stylistically like Inca symbols, so I would doubt its authenticity as an Inca artifact. Zenyu 17:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Almost every reputable scholar I've read says that only the Maya had a true writing system, ie one that allows the expression of all the words in a language. I wonder what might be the cultures you're referring to, Zenyu, that were conquered by the Incas and which may have had writing. Could you give us some names or citations? Michael Coe's Breaking the Maya Code is one source that argues for Maya exceptionalism. Interlingua 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any cultures. AFAIK none of the people's conquered by the Inca had writing. My point was more that the symbols on the web page did not look like an Inca symbols. I don't think it is impossible that someone invented a writing system for himself that was never adapted by the culture at large. This has happened many times in history and pre-history. Q: When was movable type first invented? A: Thousands of years before it was re-invented became popular. Zenyu 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jarred Diamond for the explanation of how rare an difficult it is to establish a brand new alphabet for the purposes of writing. I think it has only happened 3 or 4 times in human history (the rest are copies or adaptations). Having the Quipu also established would make it that much more unlikely, since once a society chooses a path reversal tends to be costly (Path Dependence). Rafajs77 12:43, 11 Aug 2006 (PST)

However, Gary Urton and others (Ascher) believe that the Quipus could code language.

The word Tawantinsuyu

The name of the empire, Tawantinsuyu, is quite simple in Quechua, but is a little hard to render correctly in English or Spanish, and tends to get confused with people's recollections of imperfect or non-literal translations.

Tawa means "four"; tawantin is a group of four things. The suffix -ntin is used for accompaniment (allqontin "with the dog"), to indicate the totality of a time period (watantin "all year long"), or to indicate a group of a particular size (chunkantin "a group of ten"). It does not mean "united". Tawantin is thus a unit composed of four parts-- an English equivalent would be 'quartet'. For more, see Clodoaldo Soto Ruiz, Gramática Quechua Ayacucho-Chanca or Antonio Cusihuaman Gutierrez, Gramática Quechua Cusco-Collao.

Suyu is "region, province, territory"-- Quechua doesn't really distinguish these concepts. It does not mean "corner", as some sources have it.

Put them together and you get a unit composed of four provinces. "The four regions together" or "the group of four regions" is about as close as I can come to a literal rendering. "The united four regions" is a looser rendering, but it can't be called literal; as I say, -ntin doesn't mean "united".

Runasimita rimankichu? If not, best not to mess with that paragraph! Zompist 03:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern with the proper rendering of Tawantinsuyu, but are not United and Together in the English language largely synonymous? The proverbs "United we stand, devided we fall" and "Together we stand, devided we fall" ean the same thing. Al-Andalus 08:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)".

They're close, but not synonyms. You can say "My father and I went together", but not "My father and I went united." Because Tawantinsuyu is awkward to translate, I don't mind using "united", but I don't think it should be called a literal translation. Best wishes, Zompist 14:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that tetrarchy is not the word. It would mean four regions ruled by four tetrarchs. --Error 00:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Chanca Confederacy

Not mentioned (or found in Wikipedia) is the people Pachacuti defeated... Trekphiler 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) It exists in the Spanish version of the Wikipedia article.

Missed me

Also not mentioned (as far as I saw) are the wheel (didn't have it), alphabet (no), slaves (yes), currency (no), & highway system (24000km worth), plus the fact they did blood transfusions (or so I've read...). Trekphiler 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So what's your point? You want to mention in the article that they didn't have the wheel or the use of writing? That's fine with me, but please also include the fact that despite these lacks of "civilized" ideas, the Inca were the largest empire in the whole New World, and also keep in mind that the entire New World (including the Aztec and Maya of Mesoamerica) also did not have the wheel, and the Aztecs themselves did not have an actual system of writing (it was rebus in form, so not considered an actual system). [[LinaInverse 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]]

"Inca" as an ethnic group?

A number of pages refer to the Inca as an ethnic group. For example, Bolivia states "Bolivian culture has many Inca, Aymara and other indigenous influences in...". In my mind, it would be more correct to use the word "Quechua" rather than "Inca". Comments? --Bletch 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Inca is best reserved, I think, for (in descending order of propriety among academics) the ruler, royal family or empire. It's too narrow to be used interchangeably with Quechua. Interlingua 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the Incas were an ethnic group inside the Incan Empire, they however were very small (but controlled the empire), their numbers were little over 100,000 in an empire with a population of 10 million. Source "The Last Days of the Incas", by Kim MacQuarrie.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Inca (not Incas) and Inca (not Incan) is the more accepted spelling/usage. Especially see modern scholarly work. As an Andean scholar, I find that the added "s" or "n" always grates on my ear and I see it being used more and more in the popular media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nauset24 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Inca Stonework

To the best of my knowledge, the method by which Inca archtects placed stones together has not been definitively determined. The article states with seeming certainty that stones were moved several times as they were placed and areas of compacted dust needed to be worked more. This method may have been used, but it is likely that they may have used a different method with large boulder-size stones which would have been very difficult to place more than once.

Rainbow flag

Quotation: Tawantinsuyu has a modern rainbow flag which is displayed throughout Peru. Does anyone know about a historical connection between Tawantinsuyu and the rainbow flag? What is the official status today? Thanks Roarjo 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Many hispanic and indigenous cronist relates about usage of a imperial standard, squared, called wiphala. Huhsunqu 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See the wiphala article. I understand wiphala can be either a patchwork style or striped, is wiphala, huipala a generic (quechua) term for flag? Do you know a specific reference for the historical connection Tawantinsuyu-Wiphala? - Roarjo 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The references in the Wiphala article (e.g. [1]) do say that the wiphala is an ancient symbol, indeed predating the Incas. Here's an article in English which expresses some doubts on the antiquity, but still mentions the use of such standards during the Conquest. The Spanish Wikipedia article is a good deal more skeptical, suggesting that the rainbow was used, but that the long striped flag is probably European-inspired. The word is Aymara, though also used in Cuzqueño Quechua; its etymology is hard to trace, though there is plenty of speculation. Zompist 06:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that when I was in Cuzco over the summer, the Tawantinsuyu flag was flying alongside the Peruvian flag in the main square (Plaza de las Armas), so the official status today must be one of acceptance and pride. [[LinaInverse 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]]

The flag has no historic background. It was an invention of Garcilaso de la Vega.--Gonzalo84 00:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there is no historical reference to an Inca or Tawantisuyo flag or banner until the early 1970's. The Spanish didn't chronicle any reference to a banner or flag attributable to the Inca. The gay rights movement wasn't in vogue at the time the banner was created 35 years ago. It's true that Cuzco flies the Rainbow Flag. But this is something that was initiated in the 1980's to please tourists by the mayor of the city. Furthermore, Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006) flew the Rainbow Flag in Lima's presidential palace as a political gesture since he is ethnically of Indian origin. Nevertheless, the Rainbow Flag was taken down for good by president Alan Garcia in July 2006 on the very day he took office. --Tito4000 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Early 20s, not early 70s... In Cuzco that is... Herle King 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

We should create an infobox to the page like the one in the Spanish Version.

Tawantinsuyu

Motto: (Quechua): Ama suwa, ama llulla, ama qilla (Translated: You are not thief, you are not liar, you are not idle
Capital	Cusco
Official language	Quechua
Government • Head of State	Federal Empire • Sapa Inca
Area	2.000.000 Km²
Population	Around 15 million
Establishment	1250
Dissolution	1548
Time zone	UTC -5

What do you think??Smertios 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Inca Maxims

The Inca maxims "Ama suwa, ama llulla, ama qilla" were translated as "you are...", while correct as a merely literal translation, it doesn't reflect the intended sentiment of the words. In Quechua, the "do not / do" or middle-ground between "is" and "is not" doesn't figure, so these mistakes are commonly made. (forgot to sign) Hdezela

I'm sorry, but I don't speak quechua. I translated it from the spanish edition. I guess you can feel free to change it... Smertios 13:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is something invented by Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.173.176 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates

The original template is at Template:Pre-Columbian. The "new and improved" version is at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test.

Once we have a usable version of Template:Pre-Columbian/Test, we plan to move it into Template:Pre-Columbian and then insert it at the bottom of the Aztec, Maya civilization and Inca empire articles.

Discussion is at Template talk:Pre-Columbian. Please share any feedback and suggestions that you may have.

--Richard 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Notes

There are two notes on the bottom of the page that point to nothing. Probably the place in the text they are referring to has moved somewhere else. Anybody know where? Piet 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed one, the other one was in the main text. Piet 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Article size

OK, one person (Pietdesomere) moved a bunch of stuff out of this article, and someone else (Haham hanuka) slapped on an {{expand}} tag, neither with any discussion or explanation. Since these edits pull in completely opposite directions, I think there needs to be some discussion. Zompist 19:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The material that was removed appears to all have been moved to a brand new article called Inca society, created by User:Pietdesomere. Mona-Lynn 20:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I've created some mess by moving stuff to different articles without discussing first. We were working more on the Aztec pages, trying to bring all the related articles into some structure by using Template:Aztec. Then one of us proposed the creation of a template for all pre-columbian cultures, Template:Pre-Columbian. The idea was to put this on all these pages to make navigating easier. In the mean time we had also split the Aztec article into different sections, and I decided a bit overenthousiasticly to start doing the same thing for the Inca Empire and Maya civilization pages. Discussions exist but in all the wrong places. To try and solve this in the future, we're probably going to start a Wikiproject around pre-columbian cultures, see Talk:Maya civilization. That way we can make these pages, especially the Aztec, Maya and Inca cultures, more coherent and comprehensive. More information will follow. One of the first things to do, this time after discussing first, will be to split up the lengthy pages that exist now into different topics to provide more clarity. I believe this is an essential step, but it involves some work because the main article must be able to stand on its own. I've broken it a bit now, again my apologies for this. More information will follow once the project gets going. In the mean time feel free to revert if you feel it necessary. Piet 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was writing the following text at the same time that Piet was writing his comment above. He saved his first so I got a "edit conflict". Rather than try to remove the duplications, I will simply put here what I wrote and leave it to the reader to sort it out.

Yes, Piet and I have launched a grand project to organize and rationalize the articles related to pre-Columbian cultures and civilizations. The best way to appreciate our vision is to look at Template:Pre-Columbian.

As far as discussions regarding article size go, Piet has been bold and moved stuff out of overly long articles but not always done a perfect job of leaving behind an appropriate summary of the text that was moved. This is not a slam against Piet. Doing that well is not at all easy.

For example, I have just gotten criticized for moving too much text back into the History of the Aztecs article because I thought the editor User:Madman2001 had moved too much text out. It's really hard to get the right balance.

A similar complaint was raised regarding the Maya civilization article. Check out the topic "re breaking up into sub-articles" near the bottom of Talk:Maya civilization. That discussion led to the one following it titled "WikiProject Mesoamerica".

Please read those two topics and then weigh in on whether you might be willing to join a WikiProject called Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pre-Columbian.

Just to give you some context... Piet and I met while editing Hernan Cortes. Shortening that article involved moving stuff into Spanish conquest of Mexico. Well, of course, that led us to the Aztec article which then got us involved in shortening the Aztec article. It also led us to Spanish colonization of the Americas and ultimately to the Maya civilization and Inca empire articles. From there, it was a short leap to Pre-Columbian.

Along the way, we have created the following templates Spanish colonization of the Americas, Template:Aztec, Template:Maya and Template:Pre-Columbian. None of these are perfect and your assistance in improving these is solicited.

--Richard 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The flag, again

The Inca Empire had no flag, in fact the very notion of a flag was introduced in the Andes only with the Spanish conquest. As for the rainbow flag, it's an invention by twentieth century indigenist thinkers who wanted a symbol for the remembrance Inca past. It's based on a menion by the 17th century chronist, Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, that the rainbow was part of the coat of arms of the incas. Of course that reference is also an attempt to mold inca culture into western standards, in this case Guaman Poma needed a coat of arms for the Incas to be on par with European monarchies. The point is that the Incas, and for that matter every other prehispanic state, had neither a flag nor a coat of arms. My suggestion would be to eliminate all reference to flags from this and related articles. What do you think? --Victor12 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As it seems nobody disagrees with the above I'm removing all reference to a flag of the Inca Empira except as a modern representation. --Victor12 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The historian Maria Rostworowski, and the Peruvian Academy of history, have explained the Inca Empire had no flag. They even have said the concept of flag didnt exist in pre hispanic world.--190.8.147.50 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Inca Empire/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

hmm, the article lacks of many sources, an important need by now --Andersmusician $ 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3