Talk:Aztec warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article seems to be based on the Age of Kings and I propose someone deletes it until it is done by professional researching.
As of now I cannot find anything to back up this article. There seems to be nothing to validate the fact that the army was divided into two seperate branchs. The school section is already covered by the general Aztec article and has not place in a section about Aztec military. Aztec weapons should be filed under weapons stubs after being researched and verified. Nigelthefish 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup and Tags
I was going to do a rewrite, but I couldn't find any WP:V info. so... I added a cleanup tag. I removed several sections that were a direct copyvio of the aztec military article at answers.com (except the size of the army was increased in this copy of it... no sourcing for the claim). I removed the school section; it didn't seem to fit here and the info is at Aztec anyway. I wikified it a bit and I added a verfiable tag. Weapon info needs to be sourced.--Isotope23 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I Agree
I just rewrote the bastard. Did a little research, wiped away the crap and sorted it out a bit. it's still a stub, but I can't really say I care.--The Enslaver 21:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
"Quauhololli" this is the only page on the internet where this word ocurs, can we believe any of this stuff?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.0.200 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2006.
- That may be because it is alternatively spelled cuauhololli, and you'll find a few matches for that. --cjllw | TALK 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
they didnt use bows?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mexxxicano (talk • contribs) 21 August 2006.
[edit] This Article and its lack of references
There is only one Scholar who published books dealing only with research done on Aztec military techniques and strategies. Ross Hassig's "Aztec warfare: political expansion and imperial control" and "war and society in ancient mesoamerica" are the books that should be used to base this article on. This article is clearly based mostly on a computer game and unreliable sources. If someone decides to get Ross Hassigs books and rewrite the article it would be great. Otherise I will do it when I get the time.Maunus 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- But what do we do in the meantime? Should we put this article up for AfD or leave the unreliable stuff here until you get the time to work on the article? --Richard 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Leave it as is, (after all its not the only unreliable article around). Or cut out the worst parts. Or go to the library. All are possible solutions. I don't know what standard policies dictate.Maunus 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- There's also these lecture notes from an SMU anthropology faculty member, which if nothing else could be used as a basis for an outline until someone can get a hold of Hassig's work.
-
-
-
- I am wondering whether this article would not be better under a different title, something like Aztec military history or other- some title which would allow for a greater range of topics to be addressed rather than focussing on the compositional elements of their forces.--cjllw | TALK 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Re Maunus' suggestion to "leave the unreliable stuff in because there is other unreliable stuff in Wikipedia"... this is unacceptable. This sort of thinking degrades the credibility of Wikipedia.
-
-
-
-
-
- Re Maunus' comment about "standard policy". Consult WP:V, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
-
-
-
-
-
- Standard policy says that if it isn't verifiable, it should be punted. No citation or reference, no inclusion in the article. When in doubt, take it out. It can always be re-inserted later.
-
-
-
-
-
- If it looks like it might be true but we're not sure, we can take the intermediate step of slapping [citation needed] onto the questionable text. If no reliable citation is forthcoming in a short period of time (2-3 days), then the text should be taken out.
-
-
-
-
-
- So, if no one is volunteering to provide references and citations soon (say within a week), we should pull out everything that is suspect and park it in the Talk Page or a subpage thereof until we can back it up with a reliable source.
-
-
-
-
-
- BTW, I agree with cjllw that a broader title might be more appropriate.
-
-
-
-
-
- --Richard 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I got HAssigs book last week and toda I got the time. So I rewrote it. Writeups are fixups are appreciated but now it is at least readable and factual. I will take some time later putting in inline citations.Maunus 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Maunus, that's gone a long way towards improving the article. With the Hassig reference now to hand, would you think that the article could be renamed to something broader like Aztec military or Aztec military history, or could you envisage there to be sufficient material there for the broader topics to be begun as their own articles (ie separate to this one)? Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 07:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think it might be appropriate to rename it to something broader. It is not really historical since it doesn't describe any developments in the aztec military so I think the appropriate title would be Aztec military or Azte warfare.Maunus 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've renamed the article Aztec warfare, I think that should do for now.--cjllw | TALK 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wow! Great job, Maunus! The article is much improved thanks to your efforts. --Richard 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)