Talk:Zapotec peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.


This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

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.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] To do to improve

The article has a good start, but it is really, really short. Looking at the article history, it seems a lot of care was placed to bring it up to this level. However, considering that the Zapotec peoples are pretty influential in mesoamerica, much more can be here. How about the following:

  • Pre-Columbian History section (the fr.wiki has a good start, so take a look there)
  • Spanish Colonial History section
  • Mexican History section
  • Culture (pt.wiki does a good job here, including a map)
    • Photos would be nice (see either the fr.wiki or the de.wiki)
  • Language - a paragraph devoted to this should be good. Be sure to have a "main article" link to the Zapotec language page.
  • Demographics
  • Contemporary social issues
  • More on the "expatriot" community of Los Angeles
  • More citations
  • More links
  • Comprehensive "Additional Reading" list would be nice, too.

BTW, the es.wiki is a stub, so it will not be of any help. Anyone fluent in Spanish who would be willing to bring that stub up to a "Start" class level? CJLippert 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The es.wiki has been converted into a disambiguation page, with a start class Zapotec language and start class Zapotec culture article pages. However, the Zapotec people article (es:Etnia_zapoteca) is still a red-link and needs to be started. CJLippert 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I agree that the respective articles (Zapoteca Indians and Zapotec) as currently written cover much of the same ground- albeit poorly, and very sketchily, in both cases. However I think that it would be still useful to maintain two separate articles - one to cover the historical pre-Columbian civilization, one of the most likely originators of mesoamerican writing and calendrics and about which a great deal more needs to be written, and the other to cover the contemporary indigenous people, who again are worthy of a much more detailed treatment. I would suggest, that Zapotec be retained for the historical, and Zapoteca for the contemporary. Of course, both articles would cross-reference, one being the antecedant of the other.--cjllw | TALK 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum, a third branch also needs expanding on - Zapotec language.--cjllw | TALK 05:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree that there should be a Language(s) section. I only wish I had knowledge of this topic to contribute.Gaep13(talk) 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - it seems that someone has nevertheless gone ahead with the merge. IMO there would still be soem virtue in maintaining separate articles, one for the historical civilization, the other the contemporary peoples, but given the parlous state of information in the now-combined article on either, I guess it may be premature to do so. Hopefully, the material can be improved and added to justify a re-splitting of these.--cjllw | TALK 08:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you cjllw.--Rockero 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section re "Chronogram of Zapotecan Lineage"

I've deleted this recently-added section[1], unsourced and unverified, which contained what appears to be someone's personal biography and genealogy mixed up with modern esoteric interpretations (eg. mention of "galactic centre" in relation to Maya calendar). It remains to be demonstrated whether any of this can be independently verified from any reliable source.

It further confirms the need to split this article up (again) into separate articles - one for the historical Zapotec civilization, one for the Zapotec languages, and the other for the indigenous (contemporary) Zapotec people. Will look to do this in the next little while.--cjllw | TALK 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Zapotec language already have their page.Maunus 08:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Maunus, and so I see, though when I originally raised it there wasn't. We still need IMO to separate this article into one on the pre-columbian culture and one for the contemporary indigenous group. In terms of article naming, my first suggestion would be to retain Zapotec for the pre-columbian culture, and use Zapotec people for the contemporary communities - any thoughts, counter-proposals?--cjllw | TALK 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've split them now into Zapotec people, Zapotec civilization (needs a LOT of work) and a disambiguifier at Zapotec. I was bold, sorry I didn't take up the discussion. If it turns out to be wildly unpopular it can be changed back of course. I am now trying to clean up the links to the disamb page and link them directly to the page it wants. Maunus 09:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's ok, Maunus, I think that arrangement should be fine, though "Zapotec culture" might also have done the job. Nice work.--cjllw | TALK 09:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zapotec Women

I think the new section on Zapotec women is so important that it deserves its own article - and a summary in situ. I propose splitting it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There should also be some cross-referencing and perhaps some transposition with the Gender in Mesoamerican cultures article, in need of some attention. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)