Talk:Coat of arms of Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is the current Mexico Collaboration!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia Mexico related article.
A summary of this article appears in Opuntia.
Heraldry and Vexillology Portal

Coat of arms of Mexico is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

Contents

[edit] Page Move

This page has been moved to keep its name consistent with all other national arms pages, which use "Coat of Arms of X" as their standardised names. Grutness|hello?

[edit] Capitalization

Remember to capitalize the name of deities, ethnic groups (Aztec), and languages (Nahuatl).

Ok.. i allways forget that  :) Nanahuatzin 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

I think that the article has shaped up really well! But I'm a little concerned about "The Eagle" section. It seems a little muddled, I'll try to work on it a bit, but the whole thing seems a little off. --RyGuy17 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Ok, so I edited the best that I could, if anyone feels that I should have done it differently, feel free to make changes.

I think this nboooooooo. So far i have been unable to know why US sites refer to the Caracara (or quebrantahuesos) as the national bird of Mexico... I don,t know where that info originated, a least i have found that Panama consider it,s national bird. In the actual representation, the eagle shown in the coat is the golden eagle which is oficially considered the national bird of Mexico... (http://www.banxico.org.mx/nProductosNumismatica/aMonedasMetalesFinos/MonedasPlata/Apem/frapem_coleccion.html#real) ..But... some antropologists suggest that the aztec "cuahtli" IS the Caracara (which is more comon in Mexico than the golden eagle), although not everyone agrees. Since i am not an specialist in bird i will try to investigate a bit more on this subject.... Nanahuatzin 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If anyone has access to "Arqueologia Mexicana" please have a look at this issue. Also the text of the law is ambiguous since it defines the bird as the "Mexican eagle" without going into details, hence avoiding to answer the question completely (since, by convention and usage, everybody knows what a "Mexican eagle" is supposed to look like, right?). It was Venustiano Carranza, however, the one who decided the design of the Arms should go back to its "indigenous roots". The answer really lies on the intrepretation of the aztec codices and since nobody truly agrees, that fact should be mentioned in the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is my source to the note i put, But i need to research a bit more. The correct prehispanic image would be close to the Eagle in the Mendoza Codex. From this point of view, the coat of arms of Mexico C boob ity, is more close to the prehispanic sources. http://es.geocities.com/ciudaddelaesperanza/Ruta1_Escudo.jpg  : As you say... the law just says it should be a Mexican eagle, meaning, not a particular species, but a design more closely to prehispanic sources, after all the lawmakers did not know much about birds  :) . So far... I have found that Banxico (the bank of mexico) consideres the "aguila real" the oficial bird of Mexico.. a leat for numimsmatic purpose, but i havent found anything else. One of the points in the article of "Arqueologia mexicana" is that the aztec "cuahtli" is the "Caracara" which is indogenous to Mexico adn this sould be the mexican eagle, while the Royal Eagle exists in America, Europe and Asia. But... from i have found everyone in Mexico uses the royal eagle as model... I will try to put this in the article, as sonn as i make a little more sense to my.. :) Nanahuatzin 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/pdf/75.pdf

You have to remember that what the Bank of Mexico says (specially on their webpage) is just an interpretation of the law. Given the autonomous character of the institution, they cannot go around being prescriptive on issues that are not of financial nature. According to the law the Central Bank just stores the official design of the Coat of Arms for mint purposes. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, for the moment i just simplified this controversy in the article... i will try to find more offical sources.. but so far seems nobody in the govement has given a thought on this issue  :) Nanahuatzin 09:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right/left

I've heard that the choice of whether the eagle faces right or left was an issue of debate—has anyone else heard of this or have any sources for that? --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been an issue, at least recently. The last time that the Eagle's orientation changed was way back in 1910. There is an issue, however in the Venezuelan coat of arms, which has been recently changed. It features a Horse, running towards the left. Originally it was running towards the Right. It has mostly to do with current politics in Venezuela. In Mexico, no, it is not an issue. Hlecuanda 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms?

I would argue whether this article is about a coat of arms at all. The eagle and snake on the cactus are undoubtedly a national emblem, but that is not what constitutes a coat of arms. I would argue that Mexico uses no coat of arms. The articles scope should be limited to the accepted use of the term which usually requires that an emblem center around a shield. As such, Mexico has only historic coats of arms, used during the first and second empires.--dave-- 13:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just found this article through the FA on Mexico's flag. This in NOT a coat of arms in any sense of the word.--Eva bd 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I was going to post agreeing that on the face of it this is not a CoA but we do have a problem [1], if correct, states that national law defines this as their CoA. We might add that this doesn't meet any normal criteria for a CoA but I think if difficult to arge against its inclusion here. Alci12 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Blast! I guess if they want to call it a coat of arms, then there is not much that we can do about it. Thanks for that.--Eva bd 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are the branches at the bottom?

The description of the elements leave out these details. Looks to me like oak leaves on the left, and who knows what on the right. Anyone offer info here? 76.200.144.168 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the branches are oak and laurel. They symbolize victory and martyrdom of thos who have given their lives for the country. Hlecuanda (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)