Talk:Mesoamerica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
This article comes under the purview of
WikiProject Mexico
A WikiProject to improve coverage of Mexico-related topics

Contents

[edit] Stone age / Bronze age

The Stone age article claims that the Mesoamericans left the stone age circa 2500 BC. So were there bronze age civilizations in the Americas? The Bronze age article lists the time periods that various parts of the world entered the Bronze age, but makes no mention of mesoamerican civilization. The article on Aztecs makes no mention of technology. I'm trying to figure out if the Aztecs, or any other Native American civilizations, had entered the Bronze age. thanks. -Lethe | Talk 00:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think mesoamerica can really be said to have entered the Bronze age. While some cultures did develop basic metalworking it never became wide spread or a civilisationally significant trait in any of them. Basically the cultures that did use metalworking only manufactured jewelry and religious artefacts, tools and weapons were always made from stone. (I haven't seen any finer stonecraft than the Mayan carvings in Obsidian and flint)

Magnuspharao 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)]]

[edit] rm of copyvio entries

I've excised the oddly-phrased additions by User:Jungenbergs, which would seem to have been lifted verbatim from this site.--cjllw | TALK 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec?

You have nothing this is crap where do they live what climate and environment i have a project on this and this has nothing it dosent talk about them??!!

er...why not try the Aztec article itself?--cjllw | TALK 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category rename proposal

This category rename proposal (dated 2006-04-24) was resolved, and Cat:Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica was renamed to Cat:Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.--cjllw | TALK 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup & expansion

The recent addition of an expansion-request tag is quite justified, since the present coverage barely scratches the surface of this topic. It is also timely, for a WikiProject (WP:MESO) is in the process of being defined with an intended scope precisely for Mesoamerican-related topics. This article will be the first on a list for attention, and so this expansion request will be responded to shortly. Anyone else interested is of course more than welcome to pitch in...--cjllw | TALK 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Begin translation of spanish version as requested...

This is more or less the beginning of the translation of the spanish, though the writing doesn't seem to be very academic...I've tried to make it a bit more clear. What is the policy regarding direct translation and editing for style? Also, I've included in bold words/phrases that I don't understand, some I've checked even in a dictionary but the meaning might be more academic, feel free to edit ;-) --gary

I'm not sure about the usual practice for exercises of this type, but I would say that we do not need to produce a word-for-word translation of the es.wiki equivalent article- it's only necessary to capture the salient facts and references, and the actual english text can be phrased in whichever manner seems most suitable. The article on es.wiki is very good in terms of coverage and deservedly featured there, but still there are some aspects to content, writing style and structure for which it may be better to take an alternate approach.
Since the text is very long, rather than take up so much room on this talk page, I would suggest that the work-in-progress translation below be moved to a temporary subpage, such as Mesoamerica/Translation, and any discussion revolving around the translation to work it into something which can be transported into the english article can be discussed on the corresponding talk page talk:Mesoamerica/Translation. I think there is a template around somewhere which can be slapped onto either the article or this talk page which is used to alert editors that a translation/editing exercise is in progress, and can point to the subpages where the efforts are taking place so that anyone interested in helping out can do so. I'll see if I can find it.
I for one will be helping out, my spanish is not too bad and I'm quite familiar with the subject matter in any case. Thanks for making this good start, gary. BTW, I'm curious- your account seems to be quite new- have you had a different one before, and how did you come by this request?--cjllw | TALK 08:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved the translation to Mesoamerica/Translation and will continue from there. Once I get through the whole thing, maybe a run through to smooth out the English would be helpful, then it can be put on the main page. I saw the page as a nomination for spanish translation of the week, and went for it. The account is new; I am new ;-) Gershonw 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. A very nice start to your wiki editing career, if I may say so. The article is not yet actually selected as SPARTRA of the week, so you may have jumped the gun a little, but I don't think it really matters. It looks very much like it will be the next selected anyway, and so shortly the cavalry will be on its way.--cjllw | TALK 23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion of the translation can be found at Talk:Mesoamerica/Translation. I'm currently in the process of merging the articles. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Era names

The normal names of the major divisions of Mesoamerican history, in English, are "Preclassic", "Classic" and "Postclassic". I've replaced "Classical" &c. throughout. (See e.g. this timeline, or compare the number of Google hits the different forms get at www.mesoweb.com and www.famsi.org).

Capitalization and hyphenation of "Preclassic" and "Postclassic" are a bit less consistant, but those forms seem to be the most common. ("Post-Classic" in particular is common, and Coe's The Maya, which is what I have to hand (7th edition, ISBN 0-500-28505-5), uses it consistantly, but I've gone with "Postclassic" since it gets more hits at FAMSI and for symmetry with "Preclassic". Change it if you think there's a good reason. -Butsuri 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, I believe the "-al" endings were a bit of a legacy from the recent translation of much of this from the spanish. "Formative" is another alternative for Preclassic, used at least as often these days I suspect. As for hyphenation or mixed capitalisation, there's no recognised convention other than to be consistent within the same text - IMO the one-word expressions chosen are the more appealing, so fine with these.--cjllw | TALK 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this dicussion is pretty old, but i thought i would throw my two cents in. Re: hyphenation - I've never seen Pre-classic and Post-classic within Mesoamerican literature, and until i started hanging around here, never saw it in reference to meso chronology. It was the first thing i wanted to change when i started editing, but i wasn't bold enough (!). I will now.

Also, in regards to the formative - my experience with the term has generally been in research concerning non-maya areas. Specifically, I've most often seen its use in Oaxaca and the Olmec area. Generally, the two (Formative and Preclassic) are interchangeable... Oaxaca dan 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Kirchoff, Mesoamerica and this article

I think that there is a basic misunderstanding implicit in the structure of the article. Nameliy the is the idea that mesoamerica is principally a geographical area and that Paul Kirchhoff just named it. What Paul Kirchoff actually did was that he proposed that a number of shared cultural traits in a that particular region could be used to define a cultural area that he called mesoamerica. So when the cultural similarities part says that "at the same time when he defined the geographical limits of mesoamerica he proposed a set of cultural characteristics ..." its got it all backwards. He first observed some shared cultural traits and then he defined the geographical area as the area where those traits can be found! This means in my opinion that the cultural traits shopuld be given a more prominent place in the article than the mere geographical description of the region and it also means that the article should be rewritten to reflect this fact. In short the boundaries of Mesoamerica are not geographically but culturally defined. --Maunus 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to tone down the geographical description of the article and tone up the cultural part of the article I would like to move most of the ecology and cultural areas information to another page for example called Ecological zones of Mesoamerica or Cultural areas of Mesoamerica or something to that effect, leaving only a short description of one or two paragraphs with links to main pages. This would also cut a bit of KB's off of a fairly long main page.--Maunus 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with expanding emphasis on cultural/historical matters for Mesoamerica. However we need to retain a reasonable amount of information here on other aspects such as physical geography to give the complete picture and background setting- but yes, these can be pared down and broken out into specific articles as needed.
Given the broad scope for this article, it will be appropriate to have separate main articles for more detailed coverage of each of the sections, once those sections are determined and reordered.
For those topics you mention, I'd suggest the following subarticle headings:
in accordance with naming conventions. There will of course be other subarticles needed as well.
As to whether it's best to begin creating these subarticles by copying relevant sections of text from this one, I'm in two minds- sometimes rewriting text pasted from a larger article so that it can stand on its own is at least as much work as starting from scratch- particularly where that text is poorly-referenced and prone to inaccuracy and over-generalisation.--cjllw | TALK 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems with the common culture part

The common culture part has a few shortcomings that I shall describe here in the hope that someone helps me better them.

  • Overstatement of Unity. The section gives the impression that all mesoamericsn cultures are identical. It does not differentiatie been different cultural concepts, customs etc. of different mesoamerican cultures. Mesoamerica as a cultural area is defined by some likenesses, not by its cultures being identical.
  • Nahuatl linguistics bias. All religious, mythical and philososphical concepts seem to refer only to the aztecs. They are written in classical nahuatl without mentioning that this is the case nor give a reason for this choice. Tláloc, Quetzalcóatl, Huehuetéotl, nahualli, Cincalco, Mictlan, Chicnahuapan, are examples of nahuatl mythological terms used without qualification.
  • Nahuatl cultural Bias. The mythological, religious and cultural descriptions is also biased towards the aztecs. Not all mesoamerican cultures had the same concept of the soul, of nagualism, of the the afterlife etc. This article shows us what the aztecs thought, but states it as being true for all of Mesoamerica.
  • Esoterism: The parts on mesoamerican myth, religion and thought suffers from esoterism. It is bad enough that it implies that all mesoamericans think alike, but it also juggles esoteric concepts like duality, shamanism, comovision and symbolism in a less than scientifically agile manner. In fact it just states some ideas as being general for "mesoamerican thought" without corroborating with examples, references or even linking them to the cultures in which the concepts are actually found (aztec).

Approaches that could remedy these flaws:

  • Make clear which mesoamerican cultures are being referred to by all specific references to concepts or words.
  • State the actual degree of variation between the mesoamerican cultures by using examples of how different cultures of the americas share the same concepts and differe in others. (for example: quetzalcohuatl was called kukulk'an among the classic maya, or the quiché also claimed their ancestry from Tollan, or the aztec daysigns versus the mayan, or mixtec creational myths compared to aztec ones, or the maya developed writing but the aztecs didn't, etc. )
  • Dont use specific terms such as names of deities or religious concepts if it can't be avoided. If used be sure to specify to which mesoamerican culture the term applies and any parallels in other mesoamerican cultures.
  • Describe religious and mythical concepts in concrete rather than abstract terms. -Not "mesoamericans thought in terms of dualism" but: "Duverger has claimed that mesoamerican beliefsystsems can be characterized by dualism, for example .... -
  • incorporate references.

I think that it basically needs a very thorough reworking focusing on substantiating and qualifying the claims that are made. I will start doing it little by little but will appreaciate all the help I can get.--Maunus 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise some salient points Maunus, both here and above. They definitely need addressing in this article, as well as across many if not most of the related articles in project scope as well. This article has not really been updated since its recent translation from the es.wiki equivalent, and have been putting off reviewing and amending it, so it is probably high-time it was made the number 1 priority on the list. Shall be happy to concentrate on it more fully after finishing with another article I've been updating. It is going to be a long haul however to redress the apparent errors and omissions and bring the article up to 'flagship' standard.
As well as the deficiencies you outline, it needs a general overhaul of the structure, tone and content inherited from the spanish article translation. Many of the links need updating to reflect the targets and structure of sub-articles found in en.wiki, for example.
It will also be necessary to refresh the references with addition of english-language ones, and (from the outset of the revision) implement an appropriate citation style. Personally I'd prefer a Harvard-style system, which I think works well for broad articles such as this which are likely to accumulate a good number of references which can be listed bibliography-style at the end. Inline citations would be given (surname year:pg) where simple enough, with also a "Notes" section generated by <ref></ref> tags for longer cites and digressions.
Before going too far down the track we should also think about the overall structure - the topical divisions and their ordering - which seems at present to be not quite that logical. As a starting-point I'd suggest for high-level divisions within the article we arrange it along the lines of the proposed Mesoamerica category scheme, modified as necessary. This would make it easier to break out sections into sub-articles which can cover that particular topical area in more detail than can be practically covered in the main article itself. The article already weighs in at around 83k, so need to be mindful of the overall length.--cjllw | TALK 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining my extensive edits

The reasoning behind the extensive edits of the cultural section that I am undertaking is partly explained above. But here I can give a bit more information on what it is I am changing. Firstly the entire section seems to be based almost entirely on Duverger who is not an uncontroversial nor unproblematic writer, mostly because he specialises in complex structural speculations on mesoamerican thought, religion and philosophy and not nearly as much on providing facts or qualifying his claims. I am trying to tone down the Duverger influence on the page heavily and instead switch to information and reasoning that can be found in more mainstream scientific textbooks on Mesoamerican myth and culture such as those written by Muriel Porter Weaver, Michael Coe, David Carrasco, Robert Carmack, Robert Sharer and Michael Smith. I also try to switch the focus to providing information instead of complex interpretations and esoteric explanations.

  • Michael E Smith The Aztecs 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK (2003).
  • Michael D Coe The Maya London: Thames and Hudson, 4. udgave, 1987
  • Sharer, Robert J.; The Ancient Maya, Fifth Edition; University of Stanford Press, 1994.
  • Weaver, Muriel Porter. 1993. The Aztecs, Maya, and their Predecessors

Maunus 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstructing in order to reconstruct - help needed

I may have gone overboard this time but I think something drastic had to be done. Now I got it started and I am sure you all have some ideas (probably many) on how to better the current somewhat amputated state of the article. I will only ask you not to revert the article entirely but rather expand and better the current structure and its part as much as you can. I think this structure is closer to what the article should be like with some informative but basic parts here and links to main pages. The main pages Geography of Mesoamerica and Mesoamerican chronology also need urgent attention. I will continue working on this one but I really hope that others of you will also take part in this restructuring. Maunus 10:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Sacrifice

The last paragraph needs to be cleaned up, it sounds almost pro-sacrificial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.210.155 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2006.

[edit] Difficult

The article is a little difficult.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.106.13 (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

Thoughts on making it more comprehensible to newcomers to the subject while retaining depth of coverage? -- Infrogmation 23:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map Image:Mesoamerica english.PNG is pretty good, but could be better. For one thing, there are other Mesoamericna cultures in central Honduras just to the east of the Maya; the "Centroamerica" section should be expanded north to include that. What else? -- Infrogmation 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The overall map should probably extend down to Nicaragua and Costa Rica, as there are sites there which display mesoamerican traits and accordingly may be considered part of the periphery (even if only for certain periods). The zonal boundaries also need some revisions. Will look to see if it can be redrawn, may take a little while. There's a "blank" regional map somewhere in commons, though my recollection is that some of the peripheral zones need to be "stiched on" somehow. Once we've a stable "blank" version, it should make it easier to form derivative maps for a variety of data purposes (I think it'd be better to have a consistent set of blank maps for this).--cjllw | TALK 03:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerica cultures

I think that this page should undergo profound changes, I noted this is mainly an ancient mexico article, and the author (s) don;t account for several well developed cultures, the time line is wrong, as well as almost all sections, by not account for the different areas of MesoamericaAuthenticmaya 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)AuthenticmayaAuthenticmaya 03:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely correct. I have mentioned it already on this talk page. The page hasn't been edited substantially since then. It is completely Aztec biased. Please do anyhthing you can to improve it.Maunus 06:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help out - though, you guys are right... some of the sections in this article (i.e., cultures an chronology) need drastic revision. Oaxaca dan 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cacao

While the cacao section certainly is interesting it is much too long. This is an overview article of Mesoamerica as a cultural area - a comprehensive history of Cacao is outside the scope. If there isn't a separate article on the History of cacao already then it should be created and the larger part of the section moved to there. If there is then the material should be incorporated into that article.Maunus 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the text to the Cacao article already in existence. Doing so cut 5kb off the article size. The other article probably needs some editing to get it to flow correctly. Peace, Oaxaca dan 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Reorganization

If its cool with everyone, I was going to attempt to reorganize this page to follow a more cohesive and intuitive format - Along the lines of the organization one would use for a "first-year in grad school" term paper. Intro, followed by contextural information (space and time), and a subsequent elaboration of detail. I was thinking something along these lines:

Major Headings: 1. Intro, 2. Geography, 3. Chronology, 4. Cultures, 5. Political Organizations 7. Economies, 8. Common Characteristics (plus the many sub-headings), 9 Biblio., 10. Refs., 11. External link.

I'll start doing minor things, but I, as I'm relatively new to this, heard that a discussion is usually preferred before making drastic changes to an articles organization - I know most of the frequent editors on this page realize an overhaul is necessary (as its been discussed above), but I just wanted to make sure it was cool with people. obviously, comments, critiques desired. (later edit: Forgot to sign my entry Oaxaca dan 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

I say go ahead. I'll help you once I see where its goingMaunus 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
By all means, dan, please proceed. Your outlined structure proposed above is sound, and can be tweaked as needed as things progress. Since the page is already at or above the recommended size for a single article, the finer detail can be hived off into separate subsidiary articles under those topic headings and others, with this overall top-level article summarising the main points. Some of those subsidiary articles already exist, others can be created.--cjllw | TALK 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick question cjll, what is the recommended size for an article? I only briefly looked for it, but had no luck. Oaxaca dan 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:SIZE is I guess the main guideline. Given the broad reach of this main topic article, IMO we could get away with going slightly beyond the norm of recommended max size here, but not much- say up to around 45-55KB of text.--cjllw | TALK 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed for Early Periods

Does anyone know of or have any citations/field reports/etc. for the Paleo-Indian and Archaic material? As I confidently know very little of these periods, I basically just reformatted the text that was there and tried to link what I could to other wikipages. I'm not sure what source material is out there for these early periods, and am wary of saying something is the "first example of X" when I haven't seen the data. Thanks in advance! Oaxaca dan 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation about the arcaic period will be Historia General de Guatemala,ISBN 84-88522-07-4. FAMSI, and Dumbarton Oaks, [1] I really apreciate your editings, although in The photo that I upload as sierra Madre in Guatemala, you put Sierra Madre de Chiapas, OK they are the same but the countries are different, please try not to revert to the old style of Just Mexican Ancient History. Cheers Authenticmaya 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was going off of the Sierra Madre page that says the specific chain of the Sierra Madress that runs through Highland Chiapas and Guatemala is called the Sierra Madre de Chiapas - even the part in Guatemala- i.e., the portion south of the Isthmus. I know that the name refers to a Mexican place, and wasn't trying to overly emphasize Mexican history to the exlusion of other countries. I'm not that way, as i've worked in most of those countries. I just thought that was the "official" name of that particular sub-chain of the Sierra Madres, as that page says "In Guatemala: Sierra Madre de Chiapas: moutain range in the southern part of the country." But I'm no geologist, so its cool.
Anyway, thanks for the ref! Oaxaca dan 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I Corrected the error in The Sierra Madre, in fact, the Sierra covers all Central American Countries. Why dont we exchange emails so we can known each other better. Yhank You Oaxaca Dan. Authenticmaya

[edit] Late/Terminal Classic equivalents in other areas

I was hoping someone could contribute information concering the post-teotihuacan period in central mexico (i.e., Xochicalco, etc.) during the epi-classic (do they still call it that?). and the equivalent of the maya Late/terminal classic among the central america countries. I know very little about these areas during this time period (AD 700 - 1000ish). For now, I will concentrate on the Maya late classic and the Terminal classic and hope for someone to write about the other areas. Oaxaca dan 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can help in the Central America area, another favor, please show me how to cite a source (book), and I will cite it in the article.mayasautenticos 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Authenticmayamayasautenticos 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Re citations, for the general case and an overview see WP:CITE and its related pages, in particular WP:CITET which gives examples on how to use the various citation templates. To see citations in action you can look at the References section of say Mayan languages, and also the citation/sources page for WikiProject Mesoamerica, WP:MESO/CITE, which has a number of pre-filled citation templates. Or, you could just give what details you can in the references section of the article, and we can help tidy them up.--cjllw | TALK 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the page

I was thinking of taking everything under the "Common Characteristics..." heading and moving it to a new page, with a "Main Article: Common Chara..." tag placed on this one in addition to a very brief list of the characteristics. The problem is that this article is too long. I've cut stuff, moved stuff elsewhere, revised, and deleted redundent images, and its still at 65km. Moving the above mentioned text would put it at roughly half that, give or take. does this sond cool to everyone? -- Oaxaca dan 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that the main page on mesoamerica deserves being long, and I wouldn't worry much about the length of it but rather of the quality. In my opinion the common characteristics part is the most important part because it is what defines Mesoamerica. (I think that this is for example more important than the geographical description of Mesoamerica - in my understanding of Mesoamericanistics, the geographical borders of Mesoamerica are defined by the common cultural characteristics and not the other way round). The common characteristics part is at present the least developed part of the article, and something definitely needs to be done about it - part of it could certainly be shaving off a few KB's.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Length be damned! I'll worry about refining the text and what-not rather than moving it (its the least developed, at least in regards to the work i've done, mainly because i've been working my way down from the top) Hopefully we can make it a bit more concise. -- Oaxaca dan 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Maunus, I think it would be beneficial to have at least a para or two outlining the common/defining characteristics immediately after the lead (which can be expanded upon further down in the body of the article.
BTW- does anyone have access to Kirchhoff's 1940s paper? I'm led to believe he ennumerated there what he saw as being the defining characteristics - it would be good to include/reference these, and examine any subsequent modifications.--cjllw | TALK 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offerings to the earth

I deleted this section because the inclusion of grave goods is common among nearly every socially, politically, or economically stratified society. I don't think it assists in the definition of what is "Mesoamerican" - the reasons behind including grave goods, I think, are already covered in the particular mythology/religon articles on each particule culture. The text is pasted below just in case someone has a problem with this, and would to re-include it.

Offerings to the Earth
The burying of rich offerings in the earth at the ceremonial centers is a tradition from the beginning of Mesoamerican society when the nomadic peoples began to settle. Ceremonial and secular spaces were distinguished, to establish a cosmic order in the world, created to justify the position of the rulers over the ruled and to pay tribute to the earth, which was deified by the Mesoamericans, to maintain this order.[cite this quote]
An offering to the original gods, the old fire from the volcano and the Earth Mother, was typical. Offerings from all the individuals of a community would consist of a mound of earth, and, later, the construction of pyramids, and these structures would be used in the future for the giving of the offering and various other religious activities.
The offerings were an important part of the ceremonial center, giving it ideological and religious power. Looting the offerings would eradicate the religious power of the temple[cite this quote]. The exact significance of the objects is not known with certainty, but they have always been thought to have magical powers, and this power was independent of the age of the objects in question.

-- Oaxaca dan 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political and religious art section

I removed the following text from this section. This material is more appropriate for a general "Mesoamerican art" article, one that includes music, theator, and art (including the present day), not a brief section specifically designed to address sociopolitical and religious expressions of art.

The Maya were the only culture in America, to sign its work, and even made self-portraits. This was true mainly in the paintings in ceramic and caves, where literally they let their minds go.[citation needed] There is a large corpus of Graffiti in sites such as Tikal and Nakum.[2], There were cities well known for its artist, both Sculptures and Ceramics, that received commissions from other places, such as the elusive "Ik" site for the signature in its works, now known to be Motul de San José, on the lake Peten Itzá shores.
Art outside that of the Maya, remained anonymous, and to this day no signature has ever been found associated with any work. Furthermore, it is said that Mesoamerican art was abstract, though not in the figurative sense, but in the manner in which it is disconnected from any natural references.
There were very well known Musical instruments, such as Drums, clay Whistles or Ocarinas, bone and woodden Flutes and wooden Trumpets, among others, used both in public events and ceremonies such as the Mesoamerican Ball Game, as in the every day life, proven by the kid size whistles and flutes found in Maya children tombs.
The pre-Hispanic art is also considered extremely intellectual, capable of liberating itself from all realist obligation. Following this idea, two observations emerge: the first refers to the austere image that archaeology has presented: generally it prefers noble things and museum pieces, while disdaining perishable artifacts, even if it is certain that these were essential for Mesoamerican ceremonial centers.
The second observation refers to the problem of counterfeiting that still persists today. The inspiration of these forgeries plays an important role in that new designs have been invented in order to sell artifacts to collectors, obviously attracted by their novelty. This has been a consequence of the poor understanding of Mesoamerican art.
The only mesoamerican theatrical play named as a World Heritage Monument by the UNESCO, is The Rabinal Achí", of the Achi's in Alta Verapaz, in Guatemala.

I forgot to sign this (but i added it much earlier today) -- Oaxaca dan 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that action, dan, while containing some interesting points it's too specific for the overall main article. For the moment it could be inserted (if it's not there already) in the Maya art article.--cjllw | TALK 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerica geographical description

I just happened to see this while I was on RC patrol, but there's a major edit war going on in this page between AlexCovarrubias and Corticopia.

This edit war seems to be going nowhere and there are violations of WP:3RR starting to happen, so I created this section for the editors involved to talk it out on the discussion page instead of pointlessly starting a flame war with endless reverting.

I don't know what the issue is, so I won't be involved in the discussion, but I do know that edit wars end up badly for both sides, so please stop edit warring and discuss the issue here until you come to consensus. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's regrettable: I'm unsure what the problem is either. Essentially, AlexC has taken issue with the more precise description of Mesoamerica (which literally means "middle America" -- actually, the source listing Kirchoff indicates "center", but I'm not pressing that, am I?) being within the larger contemporary region of Middle America in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (numerous citations support that). The argument that Middle America also often contains the West Indies is rather moot, since southern North America also contains the Caribbean. I encourage others to weigh in, since this is rather tiresome. Corticopia 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that this is a long-standing debate, one concerning the geography of North and Central America and where various bits of countries fall within those definitions. What it comes down to with specific reference to this article is that its totally irrelevant - its should be carried over to a geography page, not in an article that explictly focuses on the archaeology of a culture area known as Msoamerica. Its sufficient to define Mesoamerica simply as covering an area including "south/southeast Mexico, guatemala, belize, and parts of honduras, el salvador, nicaragua, and costa rica." Whether or not it lies with in "Middle america, southern north america, etc. etc. etc. is completely irrelevant. If you guys want to contribute to this article, help out and revise the astronomy, arthimmetic, and medicine sections. -- Oaxaca dan 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If you look for definitions of Mesoamerica, they only mention that the term describes an ancient region extending from central Mexico to northern Central America. The problem here is that this user is editing every single article about Mexico (check Mexico, Central America, Geography of Mexico and North America to spread his bias against Mexico. Namely, to falsely claim that Mexico is a Central American country, even if geopolitically this is false and even if only some geographers consider that the region east of Istmo de Tehuantepec is within this region. When he was defeated, he started using instead the term "Middle America" again to "separate" or "isolate" Mexico from the US anc Canada.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The prevailing meaning is not in dispute, but the term requires both clarification and precision. Even some recent reckonings of "Mesoamerica" are not in sync with ancient ones (e.g, OECD). And what are you talking about when I was 'defeated'? Whatever. You obviously deny and remove citations which disagree with your perspective and after lying about checking them and being called to account. Regardless, throughout, you demonstrate a serious absence of faith. Corticopia 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I added three references about Mesoamerica. You are deleting that info. So you are the one deleting perfectly sourced information, not me. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
if the term has other meanings, then it should go on a disambiguation page, not on this one. -- Oaxaca dan 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is about Mesoamerica, which requires clarification. If necessary and for amity, just indicate "mid-latitudes of the Americas" with a link to the overarching region either in the intro or in the geography section. Corticopia 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia is trying to confuse the historical term Mesoamerica with present day use for Middle America. These terms are not the same. Mesoamerica may literally mean "Middle America" in english, but still it is different from nowaday's "Middle America".AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
AC: how can I be trying to confuse the issue when I'm listing all the alternatives (and prevailing ones at that) with clear links to sourced articles? There is similarity between the terms that cannot be ignored nor glazed over, and we obviously detail the origins of the term appropriately. And through, your edits AC, you obviously are not reading Mesoamerica is part of a the larger larger region with a similar name. All the terms are related, and there's little wrong with that nor in trying to be more precise. Corticopia 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see from the page history you're back to edit warring already. As you're now both in blatant violation of the three-revert rule, I'm reporting both of you to the administrator noticeboards. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


CORTICOPIA'S INCONSISTENCIES

As all you can see, user Corticopia has edited the page Middle America in the past weeks [3]. So he knows for a fact that the term has different meanings. Now, look at the edit summaries of this article [4]. Now he's trying to deny the term has different meanings:

  • Middle America as a region comprising Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.
  • Middle America, a region of the US.
  • Middle America, as a translation of the term Mesoamerica, referring to the historical cultural region that this article is about.

He's trying, again, to mix up the different meaning of the terms. Let's remember that he said in this discussion that "Mesoamerica" is "within" the region of "Middle America", accepting that both terms are not the same. Now, he says the terms are synonims. See my point? He's just editing based on his personal bias, not to mention he's deleting perfectly sourced information. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this page has now been protected for a few days as a result of the revert war. Hopefully this should give you time to sort everything out. By the way, I'm renaming the title to encourage more productive discussion. We don't want other editors' first impression of this discussion to be a revert war, do we? If you feel like a different title would better represent the situation, go ahead and change it, too.

On another note, I'm glad the WP:3RR violations didn't lead to any blocks, as this seems to be an issue worth working out, and blocks would only lead to more trouble. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection pending resolution of dispute

As Pyrospirit notes above, rather than impose any blocks for the edit warring I've instead temporarily protected the page, to see if a consensus can be reached.

FWIW here is my initial take on this terminology/geographical dispute:

  • The subject of this article is purely concerned with the complex of archaeological and historical cultures which, by well-established conventions, share to some degree a set of common traits called Mesoamerica(n), and whose histories are intertwined.
  • Although the territories in which these civilisations and cultures existed can "map to" a corresponding physical geography (and Mesoamerica is frequently used as a geographical term, by extension), this mapping can be imprecise, particularly at the 'peripheral' zones, and can even change depending on the pre-Columbian era and local history.
  • This culture-area definition is the original sense of the term, and by far the prevailing and most-recognised one.
  • Mesoamerica in this article has nothing to do with modern geopolitical divisions or national boundaries, and this article is not the place to go into or even really mention various contending ways to geopolitically subdivide the Americas.
  • Instead, when describing to the reader the general region where Mesoamerican cultures were extant, it would be better to firstly use topographical rather than geopolitical references- particularly when such latter terms as "Middle America" are readily confused.
  • As pointed out above, even though Mesoamerica literally translates to "middle America", Mesoamerica means something quite different again from the ways in which Middle America itself is used.
  • Even if some organisations such as the OECD have chosen to co-opt the term Mesoamerica for their own purposes and restricted contexts, these alternative definitions have a very different scope and intent, and throwing these into the mix here can only confuse matters.
  • If any of these alternative uses of Mesoamerica are notable enough for mention, then per Oaxaca dan's suggestion it would be better to put them on Mesoamerica (disambiguation). But it's muddying the waters to try to elaborate on these here.
  • In the lead section where the article sets out to define the meaning and scope of the subject, IMO at least it would be better to rely primarily upon the leading sources from the field of Mesoamerica studies, and not generalist dictionaries and encyclopaedias, or tertiary sources like the website of a strategic consulting and private equity firm called "Mesoamerica".

What are the counter-proposal(s) to how the lead section here is currently written?--cjllw | TALK 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agre with CJLLW on this. Mesoamerica as a term was invented exactly to make it clear that it doesn't correspond to the set of geographical terms north America, South America and Central America. Mesoamerica is a cultural area not a geographical one and that is why it should under no circumstances be referred to in terms of the geographically defined Americas. The issue of whether Mexico is part of North or Central America is simply irrelevant to this article. The discussion should be had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America where Mexico does not currently fall under their definition of Central America.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks God! Finally! I agree with you guys 100%. Mesoamerica is a geographic cultural area and trying to confuse the term with any nowadays geopolitical entities (Middle America, North America or Central America) is irrelevant, given the fact that the term itself express a unique area that existed long time ago. It is to be noted that most of the sources about Mesoamerica clearly delimit the region using physiographical terms, such as the current introduction in the article. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The lead as it is now is not good. Particularly the last paragraph is wrong when it states that Mesoamerica comprises the states of Central America and the southern Mexican states. Some Central American states are not at all part of Mesoamerica (e.g. Panama) and others are only partly. Also the notion of "politico-religious capitals" needs to be replaced with something more along the lines of Urban Centers, Ceremonial Centers or Citystates.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was talking about the first paragraph, I did not make that clear I guess. The last paragraph is kind of useless (and wrongly used to enforce the false argument that Mesoamerica is also a term to describe those countries nowadays), now that the "Plan Puebla Panamá", originally supported by President Fox in 2001, is extinct and basicly it was never really enforced. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that this article should not note Middle America somewhere -- even in the geography section -- since it harks of the etymology of the term (and anything containing 'America' is arguably just as vague or specific); this is also despite specific references to corroborate this provided by AlexCovarrubias (emphasis added):
  • The region consisting of central and southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and the western parts of Honduras and Nicaragua that was the focus of complex, hierarchical states at the time of Spanish contact. The people of this area shared a basic set of cultural conventions. Also called Middle America.
I am not denying that Middle America has various meanings: so does America, so does North America, and -- yes -- so does Mesoamerica -- that's the point. While the primary focus of this article is unquestionable, nothing exists in isolation and recent additions re geography clarify and provide context. Even the Oxford English Dictionary notes that Meso-America is a 'region in America, especially in reference to pre-Columbian cultures'.... (note, not exclusively); however
The current introduction is insufficient, lacking details, and grammatically/typographically challenged. Given the above, I will then rely on other editors -- NOT AlexCovarrbuias -- to prune the content in the introduction and accomodate for the varied viewpoints and definitions -- those both general and specific in nature. If not, I will resort to other measures (e.g., Village Pump, etc.) Corticopia 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your quoted link does not come from a reliable source, and as CJLLW states the definition of Mesoamerica here should be taken from a work in the Mesoamericanist tradition - I would suggest Kirchhoff who engendered the term. If we can find a work in this tradition using "middle america" as a term quivalent to Mesoamerica then I will support the inclusion of such a statement (however following the principle of due weight I would suggest that it go in a footnote). Stating that Mesoamerica is a region within the american continent(s) is a tautology. The way you state that if you cannot have it your way through consensus you will pursue your goal through different means is not a way to further a debate, nor does it do much to make other parties sympathetic to your viewpoint. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, it is logical that if we are talking about Mesoamerica, all the definitions about the term should come from the Mesoamericanist tradition. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the quoted link (McGraw) was provided by the originator of the dispute -- I make no claims about the veracity of it. He made his proverbial bed.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you -- it must be be noted somehow. Beyond deferring to original source matter, though, there does appear to be some content/detail about the etymology of the term per the Kirchhoff online reference (e.g., Mesos = center, Columbus); see the article. And, while not ideal, the manual of style effectively recommends tautologies (i.e., reiterations of content) for article leads: America (or the Americas) is more than just a continent, it may be two (as many English sources indicate), and a whole collection of regions. Corticopia 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicts)Just to note a little further, this is not so much about taking sides in what seems to be a wider terminological debate that is intruding here, but to agree on a formula which is more accurate and does justice to the article's subject. I've run out of time at my end of the world here to respond any more sensibly to these comments right now, but will do so when I get a chance. My initial thoughts are (still) that the Mesoamerica/Middle America distinction is best treated as a disambiguation, since (the coincidence of their etymologies aside) these are different entities which are not really ontologically related. The only instances I can think of where Mesoamericanist literature can be seen to 'embed' Mesoamerica within something called Middle America would be in (some of) the articles in the Handbook of Middle American Indians volumes- but even in these what counts as being in "Middle America" varies between contributors, and by topic.--cjllw | TALK 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm: is it merely a coincidence, or does one term stem from the other? I mean, Kirchhoff coined the term Mesoamerica in the mid-20th century, while I'm unsure of the origin of Middle America. It may be that all of these terms are interrelated, just as they are for the Americas in general (e.g., Britannica). In any event, I think it important to address the general location of Mesoamerica within the Americas (viz., eponymous Middle America) in the introduction or in the geography section. Really, what is wrong with saying that? And, I'm sorry to say, the two terms may be synoymous in some sources ... e.g. Spanish (Mesoamérica)
Please note: my comment above about action is merely to garner (if needed) a wider consensus on the topic and content. And if I have inadvertently removed information, I apologise, but I guess that's collateral damage. I don't necessarily want sympathy but rationalism to prevail ... which edit-warring obviously doesn't fulfill.  :) Corticopia 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I will not repeat the same arguments of other users. I just want to say that I fully agree with cjllw. Mesoamerica is a historical and cultural region that does not coincide territorially with today's usage of the term "Middle America". These are two different concepts even if they are related in etymology. Oh, by the way in Spanish, Mesoamérica is never synonymous to Middle America, in fact, there is no such thing as "Middle America" in Spanish, just North and Central America, and Mesoamérica, in Spanish, is clearly defined as a hisotrical and cultural region. --theDúnadan 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Then what exactly does Mesoamérica translate to in English? Just Mesoamerica? This is ironic given the parallel examples elsewhere (e.g., Central America = Centroamérica, etc.). Again, noone has clearly indicated or demonstrated why there is a challenge in indicating Mesoamerica is in the 'wider region (or part) of Middle America' (either in the intro or below), particularly if it is described as extending into Central America. And if at least the American Heritage Dictionary is to be believed, Mesoamerica is defined as just a region first, which was also populated by pre-Columbian cultures. And the OED harks of this too. The fact that Middle America may include other entities in the mid-latitudes of the Americas is moot: so does (southern) North America -- it is more precise than prior text. As well, noone has yet demonstrated that the terms in English or otherwise are not ontologically related. Corticopia 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, in the article The Cultural Anthropology of Middle Middle America: Mesoamerica is described as follows(among other things):

  • Mesoamerica is a sub-area of Middle America that includes most of the people in Mexico, Guatemala, and parts of Honduras. The term came into use when Paul Kirchhoff put previous thoughts together in a "culture-area-with-time-depth" concept. It served archaeology and later cultural anthropology as a term for the culture area in which complex civilizations evolved. The culture area today includes only the stratified agrarian cultures that evolved from these Precolumbian civilizations. Unfortunately this left peripheral culture sub-areas, such as northeast Mexico, the Caribbean coast of Central America, and the Isthmus of Panama outside of the area. The term also pays scant attention to modern commercial, farming, industrial, and urban cultures of the region. Ethnographers generously include these other orphaned cultures in the larger culture called "Middle America" to distinguish it from the core Mesoamerican zone. Middle America includes all the cultures south of the United States to the borders of Columbia.

I believe I have proven my point. Corticopia 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mesoamérica transaltes as Mesoamerica in English since meso is not a Spanish word either, but a Greek one. So there is no parallel with Central America=América Central, North America=América del Norte. A Spanish translation of Middle America is not Mesoamérica but América Media. Mesoamérica, on the other hand is extensively used to refer to a historical, cultural Pre-Columbian region, and very rarely [mis]used as a modern region first (like your source suggests). No need to propagate a [mis]conception.
Now, Antrhopology Prof. James W Dow, of Oakland University, happens to extrapolate this anthropological term into modern times. But even in his extrapolation he says that Mesoamérica is a cultural area where "complex civilizations evolved", and then defines it to be only the [current] stratified agrarian cultures that evolved from them. He himself is saying that this definitions left [out] other cultural sub-areas of old and pays scant attention to modern cultures. His quote sounds more to me like a complaint against the usage of the word Mesoamérica, in that he would like to have modern and peripheral cultures included, and that because of this, Ethnographers prefer "Middle America". In that sense, I believe your quote actually proved your opponents' point: Mesoamerica is a cultural and historical region. --theDúnadan 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you Dunadán. If you look for the definition of Middle America, most of the sources indicate nowadays usage (said to include Mexico, CA and the Caribbean). If you look the term Mesoamerica in english sources, it refers to the historical cultural region of the American continent. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no -- I am being polemic. You are returning to my point and the heart of the issue: I merely indicated originally that Mesoamerica is within the 'larger region of Middle America' (while also being included in NA and the Americas) and that this needs to be said -- that is precisely what Dow indicates. That doesn't deny that Mesoamerica is infrequently synonymous with Middle America (esp. in English) or may be more generic in meaning, but I'm not advocating that per se. The current intro is rather ... wanting. And, frankly, you cannot cast off such references merely as [mis]perception or 'extrapolation' so easily -- this guy is published and his paper(s) well sourced. If necessary, I will provide other reputable sources. Corticopia 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny that Mesoamérica is used rarely or infrequently as a quasi synonym (not fully equivalent) of Middle America. But finding a source for that infrequent usage when the term is extensively used in numerous sources in various languages merely as a historical concept and then claim that both definitions are equally valid is, I believe, stretching the definition. I don't cast away his reference, but he himself is saying that Mesoamérica refers to a cultural region that pays scant attention to the modern region. In that sense, I repeat, he is actually proving the point that Mesoamérica is a cultural and historical region, not a modern one. --theDúnadan 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Noted, but we are again digressing from my edits which precipitated this situation for whatever reason (and which has been lost/conflated amidst chat, rhetoric, edit warring etc.): I merely added that Mesoamerica is 'within (not the same as) the larger region of Middle America' or within the mid-latitudes of the Americas, in southern North America -- see Geography of Mesoamerica for similar contributions. That's it, but things somehow mushroomed from there (and I apologise if I contributed to that). Corticopia 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Middle America were a cultural region, then I believe the anthropological and historical Mesoamérica lies within it. But if Middle America is a geographical region (as it is claimed to be), then I don't think the inclusion including both definitions is at all relevant. I believe that mentioning Mesoamérica in Americas suffices.
Now, since you yourself have said that Mesoamérica is not the same as Middle America, then we need to change that inaccurate definition from Middle America (disambiguation). --theDúnadan 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Middle America is just a geographical region, not a geopolitical (since no government of the countries said to be part of it have united in such a region) or cultural term. Using Middle America in this article is not just inaccurate but will confuse the terms, as I think is Corticopia's goal. It is very obvious that most of the authoritative sources about Mesoamerica define the region using physiographical terms and avoiding nowadays geopolitical entities, since the term is a historial one. I agre with Dunadán. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm; while of course it is in the Americas, how can we note that Mesoamerica is in North America, also in Central America, but not in Middle America? They are frames of reference. Anyhow, saying just that it is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (with details in the geography section, and a link somewhere to Middle America) is fine with me at this point. Corticopia 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. We can also add a link on the "see also" section in North America. --theDúnadan 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've no problems with Dow's essay as a reliable source, but will note that his presentation of Middle America as a cohesive culture-area (meaning that its participating cultures have some complex of traditions and practices in common) is much less well-defined and recognised in the archaeological and cultural history arena (the "culture-area-with-time-depth" concept employed for Mesoamerica.) My impression is that Middle America is used (when it is used) more for contemporary ethnography, and so it's not quite a comfortable fit with a concept rooted more in historical studies. However, I guess equally there are some divergent formulations of Mesoamerica between Mesoamericanists as well, with some summaries omitting Costa Rican and Nicaraguan sites, for eg.
But for the present purposes it's probably a little too-subtle a difference to worry about addressing in the lead / main sections here; for that at least I'm not seeing any issue with Corticopia's current suggestion to "saying just that it is in the mid-latitudes of the Americas" and somehow cover the reference to Middle America later on. Just so long as we are not saying or implying that mesoamerica and middle america are interchangeable terms.--cjllw | TALK 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Please refer to the original edits: they didn't revolve around whether or not the two terms were synonymous (though I believe that case can be made etymologically), but I merely indicated (as Dow does) that 'Mesoamerica is a sub-area of Middle America'. (My current suggestion was my original one.) That is all I ask, and I really can't see why things have to mushroom like this because what was once a solitary editor takes issue with greater precision here and elsewhere. Corticopia 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cjll's comment that the info provided by Corticopia is too specific to include for the intro section which, if I had a problem with it, it was because of that - I had moved some of it (i think - it was prior to the main revert war, but after info was added by C and AC) to the etymology section - not sure if its still there or not. Perhaps we can have all that info put there, or as a lead-in to the geography section. It seems more appropo there. -- Oaxaca dan 13:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal of just noting that Mesoamerica is located in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (and avoiding to imply it is a synonim of "Middle America"). However, are we gonna omit the physiographical description of the region? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we clearly need to (a) locate the culture-area for the reader in geog. reference terms that will be familiar, and (b) describe in more detail the physiography of the region, how its characteristics influenced development, and so on. For (a) in addition to the 'mid-latitudes' desc we probably don't need to do much more than place it in reference to modern-day nations. For (b) we cover a bit of that in the geog. sections, and maybe Geography of Mesoamerica is the place to go into whether & to what extent "Middle America" has a pre-Columbian culture-area definition.
The mention of the 'contemporary' Mesoamerica per OECD usage in the lead's 2nd para needs to go- entirely, or somewhere else such as a footnote or possibly a mesoamerica dab pg.--cjllw | TALK 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your first paragraph, but not necessarily with the second. If the 'contemporary' paragraph must be moved, though, it should be added into a footnote or into the etymology (usage?) section. Remember, a number of commmon publications (the OED) define Meso-America as a region that especially (not exclusively) concerns pre-Columbian peoples, and I'm not denying that; also, it seems a futile exercise to create a dab and possible fork for said perspective. Corticopia 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
CJLL, I agree with "a" if that does not imply to use the modern meaning of "Middle America" because that would be confusing. I agree with only saying that it is located in the mid latitudes of the Americas and also including the list of countries comprised in the region. I also agree with "b", the use of "Mesoamerica" is rare to describe nowadays countries. I think we need to start thinking about the terms we are gonna use in the intro. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK, well maybe there could be some mention of the OECD[sic] political usage worked in lower down somewhere- I'm not sure that definition is something which could be worked as a separate article which could be then dabbed in any case (if there were enough to say about it then I think it would be able to stand as a separate article, it wouldn't be a fork as such, just a different concept going under the same name).

I'll be away travelling for about a week or a little more from now, and will be offline. The protection should expire of its own accord shortly anyway and editing can recommence. Happy for you guys to proceed as we have been discussing in that time, in any case there'll be others around who can help out. Appreciate the cooperative approach, AC and Corticopia, glad we are able to move things forward.--cjllw | TALK 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The OECD usage is not political, but economical. Just clarifying that. I don't think it should be included at all, but of course we can mention it somewhere in the article (as you said worked in lower down somewhere). I think we should start writing a draft.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This article is about Mesoamerica as a culture area

If you want a dictionary definition put it at Mesoamerica (disambiguation).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally! - Thank you Maunus. Otherwise, this will all fall back into another revert war. -- Oaxaca dan 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine, whatever ... Corticopia 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And here we go again - on this page as well as Geography of Mesoamerica. You guys are approaching 3RR's again. -- Oaxaca dan 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message in Corticopia's talk page to let him know that he's not being neutral about this issue, particularly because Mesoamerica is primarily a culture area that existed long time ago. However I also told him that if he considers the current version "not netural enough", he's welcomed to propose something else. I think there's no doubt that Mesoamerica is rarely used to refer to any "contemporary area", so I honestly consider my edit neutral and accurate. That's it. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. And I have responded -- 'may be' already implies rarity (making the phrase a tautology) and (as elsewhere) by making a point about the statement, it may have the opposite effect. For editors that are so adamant about pruning the article, adding redundant text is of course not the way about it. Corticopia 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you guys are both being quite obnoxious squabbling over a completely irrelevant detail. Nobody else cares whether mesoamerica is part of north or middle america or whether middle america is a continent unto it self or part of north or south america - it is simply not interesting or important. I would much prefer that you both begin adding actual content to the articles or in case its to emotional a topic for you that you leave it alone. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted ... but if you can't comment constructively, don't bother. Corticopia 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/s/Talk%7EMesoamerica_ddac.html"