File talk:Aztec Empire (orthographic projection).svg

Edit war

Facts:

• 2010-01-10, version 1 by Keepscases.
• 2010-02-11, version 2 by Sémhur. Update with data from a sourced map.

1. 2013-04-06, version 1 by Giggette. Reverted to version as of 20:34, 10 January 2010
2. 2013-04-06, version 2 by Sémhur. Reverted to version as of 12:23, 11 February 2010: this map has a recent source (Atlas del México prehispánico), and the first map has not.
3. 2013-04-11, version 1 by Giggette. Original aztec expansion territory see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aztecexpansion.png
4. 2013-04-11, version 1 by Giggette. Original aztec expansion territory see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aztecexpansion.png
5. 2013-04-13, version 2 by Sémhur. Sorry, but Maunus (the author of File:Aztecexpansion.png) provides no source, while I used a recent and solid one, the Atlas del México prehispánico (2000).
6. 2013-04-15, version 1 by Giggette. Sémhur please upload another file with your source.... reverting original orthographic projection 10 January 2010 by keepscases"
7. 2013-04-18, version 2 by El Comandante. Reverted to version as of 18:30, 13 April 2013
8. 2013-04-19, version 1 by Giggette. Original version, PLEASE upload another one with your triple alliance
9. 2013-04-19, version 2 by El Comandante. No reliable source to support the version proposed by Giggette VS a very reliable source to support this version
10. 2013-04-19, version 1 by Giggette. reverted to original version on 10 January 2010
11. 2013-04-20, version 2 by El Comandante. Reverted to version as of 10:58, 19 April 2013 : no reliable source supports the Giggette's version
12. 2013-04-23, version 1 by Giggette. it wasn't my version but before upload another version use the discussion page
13. 2013-04-23, version 1 by Giggette. Reverted to version as of 16:07, 19 April 2013
14. 2013-04-23, version 2 by El Comandante. Reverted to version as of 08:30, 20 April 2013 : still no reliable source to support the other map
15. 2013-04-23, version 2 by El Comandante. Reverted to version as of 08:30, 20 April 2013
16. 2013-04-23, version 2 by El Comandante. Reverted to version as of 12:23, 11 February 2010
17. 2013-04-23, version 1 by Giggette. This is not a map of the provinces tributary of the triple alliance
18. 2013-04-24, version 2 by El Comandante. Reverted to version as of 20:52, 23 April 2013 : Giggette's POV still undocumented

Discussion started on Sémhur talk page:
Your version is only the "Aztec Triple Alliance" but not the maximal extension territory of the aztec domination in territories, otherwise, can you provide an image from the source "Atlas del México prehispánico"?, anyway you can upload another orthographic projection with your extension territory "triple alliance". --Giggette (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What would be the difference, in your opinion, between the maximal extension of the tributary provinces of the Excan Tlatoloyan ("Aztec Triple Alliance") and « the maximal extension territory of the aztec domination »? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 11:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version Aztec Empire (orthographic projection) according many souces for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Please upload another file if you are agree with this extension. --Giggette (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Map showing the expansion of the empire showing the areas conquered by the Aztec rulers. --Giggette (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Giggette, I'm not a specialist of Aztec period, as I am just a wikigraphist who made maps for requesters in the French Graphics Lab/Map workshop. So I ask for the requester, El Comandante, as you can see above.

But your problem is still there, and it is not a problem of agreement or disagreement. You do not provides any reliable source. You just shows pictures took on websites, but from where they come ? The version I made in 2010 is from Provincias tributarias de la Triple Alianza (s. XVI).svg, itself from a recent source: Atlas del México prehispánico, edición especial de Arqueología Mexicana, 5, julio de 2000, México. So, please, provide a recent and reliable source if you have. Sémhur (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you?, really?, Aztec empire?, it says so?, i will check your "reliable source", page?. Otherwsie, the file Provincias tributarias de la Triple Alianza (s. XVI).svg from Atlas del México prehispánico it's just the domain of the Mexica before the conquest but it wasn't the Aztec Empire. --Giggette (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What you say doesn't make sense. Here's another reliable source from Frances Berdan about "Aztec Empire"/"Excan Tlatoloyan tributary provinces/"Mexica domain" or however it can be named. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense?, I see, well, your only two sources from "Arqueología Mexicana" and "Frances Berdan" are only the original provinces tributary of the triple alliance when the aztec empire was founded (Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, Tlacopan), but all the references I gave you, they show the maximun expansion of the territory the aztec empire in 1519 after many declines, for example, "Atzcapotzalco". Now it makes sense?, it's like "European Union", original created by Inner Six countries in 1951, so then you'll show the first territory extension of the EU if tomorrow won't be dissolved?. --Giggette (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. These two maps show the Aztec empire in 1519 (check it there and there, for Berdan's map) , not when the last Excan Tlatoloyan was founded. Moreover, Azcapotzalco was conquered and included in the Mexica triple alliance at the beginning : it's the founding act of the Aztec empire... El ComandanteHasta ∞ 07:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your first map 1 we can't see it and the second map 2 it doesn't look like, completely different to your map. --Giggette (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know the very famous Berdan's map, you don't know anything about Mesoamerica... And if you don't want to read, I can quote for you : « Figure 1. Map of the Aztec empire, 1519. From Aztec Imperial Strategies (Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, eds.): 324. 1996. », and « It is instructive to compare the new map of the empire (Fig. II-1) to Barlow's famous map of the same area. This is done in Figure II-2 which shows provincial borders and tributary provincial capitals » (maybe you can notice by yourself that the title of Barlow's famous map's is The Aztec Empire : 1519). The same Berdan's map is commented in the best-seller of Michael E. Smith The Aztecs as « A map of the empire (figure 7.3) shows the locations of the tributary and strategic provinces as they existed in 1519 » (in my ebook version of the 2003 edition) and, in the 2013 edition, an updated version of this map is commented as « A map of the empire (figure 7.4) shows the locations of the tax provinces and client states as they existed in 1519 ». El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Giggette talk page and El Comandante talk page:
What would be the difference, in your opinion, between the maximal extension of the tributary provinces of the Excan Tlatoloyan ("Aztec Triple Alliance") and « the maximal extension territory of the aztec domination »? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, discuss and answer the questions before reverting one more time. This edition war is useless, wiithout any argument nor reliable source to support your point of view. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Before reverting or modify this map, Sémhur should discuss on talk page, there wasn't a previous talk before his uploadling.--Giggette (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Without any reliable source to support your point of view, your edition war is totally illegitimate. You don't want to discuss, just to impose yourself. That's not collaboration, but POV-pushing. I gave you two reliable sources to support the version proposed by Sémhur. What do you want more? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Without any reliable source to support my point of view? really? and do you?, your "reliable source" is just about the provinces tributary of the triple alliance by the user Yavidaxiu (File:Provincias tributarias de la Triple Alianza (s. XVI).svg), don't you have enough?. --Giggette (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You ask, I answer : The 2 sources are Arqueologia Mexicana and Frances Berdan, as quoted on Semhur's talk page. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense?, I see, well, your only two sources from "Arqueología Mexicana" and "Frances Berdan" are only the original provinces tributary of the triple alliance when the aztec empire was founded (Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, Tlacopan), but all the references I gave you, they show the maximun expansion of the territory the aztec empire in 1519 after many declines, for example, "Atzcapotzalco". Now it makes sense?, it's like "European Union", original created by Inner Six countries in 1951, so then you'll show the first territory extension of the EU if tomorrow won't be dissolved?. --Giggette (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No. These two maps show the aztec empire in 1519, not when the last Excan Tlatoloyan was founded. Moreover, Azcapotzalco was conquered and included in the Mexica triple alliance when the aztec empire was founded... El ComandanteHasta ∞ 07:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputes noticeboard
A discussion is started on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Aztec_Empire_(orthographic_projection). Sémhur (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputes in foreign language
Apparently started a conversation in French without notice Commons:Bistro. — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Giggette (留言 • 贡献) 2013-04-25 20:05 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. I didn't start a conversation, I just ask for advices to know what to do in an edit war (yes, in more than 6 years it's my first one). Then I go to Administrators' noticeboard. And also, do you see how you are POV-oriented? You titled that section Disputes in foreign language! Foreign, really? For who? Please, try to be neutral, at least for that. Sémhur (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable map

The sources quoted for this map aren't reliable :

1. Atlas del México prehispánico, special edition of Arqueología Mexicana, 2000-07-05, Mexico. : what's the article/link?

However, in the map of user Yavidaxiu says "Provinces tributary of the Triple Alliance" and not "Aztec Empire" for a good reason, it is because this map says "Provincias tributarias de la Triple Alianza hacia principios del siglo XVI." (in english, early sixteenth century) also it says "...encabezada por Tenochtitlan antes de la llegada de los españoles" (in english, led by Tenochtitlan before the arrival of the Spanish). --Giggette (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an incredible information for you : 1519 was at the beginning of the sixteenth century! And the tributary provinces of the Excan Tlatoloyan (nahuatl name of what Europeans called "The Aztec Triple Alliance") were considered, until recent works (like Frances Berdan and Michael E. Smith's, who distinguish tributary provinces and strategic provinces), exactly the same as what was initially called by Europeans "The Aztec Empire". These are very basic informations. So, I repeat : cease to try to impose your POV on a subject you ignore all the basics. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 08:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No again, you're still attacking me... Well, guess what?, I don't need a history class from you, just please give references, citation, article/link, page about what are you saying to verify. --Giggette (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not reverse the things: you still bring no sources to confirm your assertions. Sémhur (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No fair?, well this map File:Aztec Empire (orthographic projection).svg is still vandalized by you. --Giggette (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And you know the reference of the map : Atlas del México prehispánico, a very reliable one because Arqueología Mexicana is a reference review about mesoamerican studies, because all the most famous mesoamericanists publish articles in it. You can't read it now at your home? That's a little verifiability lack (not a critical one : anyone can check it in a good specialized library, or by buying the review), but not a reliability problem. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

link?, page?. it's doubtful, verification needed. --Giggette (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The map from the Atlas del México prehispánico has not been published on internet, so there's no link. I can't check the review now to quote you the exact page of the map used by Yavidaxiu. But why do you consider it doubtful? At the opposite, Yavidaxiu's map is far closer to Berdan's (i.e. far more reliable) than all the obsolete and very doubtful maps that you quoted from blogs... And Yavidaxiu is a well known user of the Spanish Wikipedia, with valuable contributions. Oh, now I can see what's your problem with this map, because I've just seen on Yavidaxiu's talk page on ES that you've been in conflict with him there... Your motivation seems to be pure vengeance against him... El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Simple, it's doubful because it can't be verified, ain't enough?. The map of yavidaxiu is not the map of "Berdan" for sure, this map can't be verified, not reliable.--Giggette (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong and you know it. The title of the review is sufficient to make this map verifiable : anyone who can read the special edition n°5 of Arqueología Mexicana can find what map of the Aztec Empire was used by Yavidaxiu, and find it probably easily, with the help of the Índice de imágenes, pp. 78-80, between the maps of mesoamerican cultures (pp. 64-75) and/or mesoamerican periods (pp. 19-41). There is no absolute necessity to cite the precise passage of a publication. Moreover, this sourced map is much more reliable than all the undocumented maps you quoted from blogs. Especially because these maps pretend there were Aztec territories between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco, while Berdan's very reliable map and detailed works don't show any. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably you have not noticed but this is not Wikipedia, this is COMMONS and the image (or the page where the map is shown as "Aztec Empire") in question is necessary for verification, and the image of your author is not the same at all. This map can be classified as false or falsely titled. --Giggette (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "the image (or the page where the map is shown as "Aztec Empire") in question is necessary for verification", and what is the guideline where it is required? Do you really think that your other map, only supported by contradictory, undocumented and obsolete maps randomly picked from blogs, is more reliable??? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 09:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lo siento, me dirigiré en español a todos ustedes. El mapa que tanto se ha disputado fue preparado a partir del mapa ofrecido en el número especial de Arqueología Mexicana, que se intituló Atlas del México prehispánico. Enfatizo que fue a partir de ese mapa y que no se trata de una copia fiel suya porque el arte de la revista está protegido por derechos de autor. Por lo tanto, no se debe esperar que en la publicación señalada se encuentre el mapa en la versión que preparé para la wikipedia. Ahora bien, estaré en Colombia hasta el mes de agosto. No tengo acceso a la publicación ahora mismo, pero la referencia está allí y es perfectamente verificable, pues cualquiera que viva en la ciudad de México puede ir a las bibliotecas, consultar la revista en la sección dedicada a las culturas prehispánicas (pp. 64-75) y cerciorarse de que el mapa que preparé es válido. La verificabilidad no tiene qué ver con las citas específicas, pues un mapa no es una cita: tiene qué ver con la existencia de un respaldo a la información ofrecida. He leído en otro lado que este no es el lugar para la discusión sobre cuál es el mapa más adecuado. Es probable, pero en cualquier caso, eso no hace más que desplazar la discusión hacia las wikipedias, particularmente hacia la wikipedia en español donde las ediciones de Giggette —a quien no hay poder humano que le haga entender la diferencia entre literatura y arqueología, o bien, entre fuentes actuales y fuentes obsoletas— comienzan a causar una distorsión del saber de los pueblos nahuas. A los compañeros que escriben en otras lenguas, les pido que tengan cuidado y se encuentren al pendiente de este tipo de ediciones. Es muy fácil meter hoax arqeuológicos por aquí, incluyendo en forma de mapas. 186.147.37.44 22:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC). PD. Bien, fue un lapsus, o no: ahora pueden tener certeza de que no miento, me encuentro en Colombia. Saludos desde Bogotá. Yavidaxiu (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ni es el lugar ni la discusión para tus comentarios hacia mi persona, pero ya que lo mencionas porque honestamente no te entiendo, ¿puedes ser tan amable de decirme cúal es la diferencia entre la literatura y arqueología?, y ¿a que viene está diferencia?, sabiendo que desde un principio estos usuarios alegan que hiciste tu mapa igual a la referencia Atlas del México prehispánico, a pesar de que no tenían la página en cuestión para verificarlo. --Giggette (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya sabes de qué estoy hablando. Efectivamente no es el lugar, pero también es el lugar. Aquí no has mostrado ninguna fuente que respalde tu mapa. No deberías sabotear de esta forma una fuente de información tan popular como los proyectos de wikipedia. Yavidaxiu (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Por cierto, tú sí puedes revisar la fuente. En México se consigue fácil en los puestos de revistas viejas que hay por San Juan de Letrán o Donceles. ¿Por qué no lo has hecho si tu intención es decir que el mapa está equivocado? En cualquier caso, ¿no te han ofrecido ellos una fuente donde es claro que el mapa que tú defiendes es incorrecto? Habráse visto... Yavidaxiu (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitivamente se ve que no sabes de que sé está hablando en esta conversación, tus problemas hacia mi persona sólo porque no se te dió apoyo en Wikipedia por mis etimologías no tienen nada que ver con esta discusión, este no es mi mapa, deberías usar bien el traductor y entender mejor porque acabas de afirmar a favor de lo yo estoy alegando. --Giggette (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh estado siguiendo esta discusión y debo de admitir que este mapa me parece muy pequeño para representar los 500,000 km² que normalmente se le atribuyen a la extensión del Imperio azteca. Ese mapa muestra mas bien la mitad, unos 250,000 km2. --Javier83 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Este mapa estaba bien originalmente pero fue vandalizado. --Giggette (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

¿Se puede saber qué fuente fiable respalda esta cifra de 500,000 km²? Noto que todos los que critican este mapa procuran no responder al argumento clave, que es que no existe ningún documento que respalde la existencia de territorios controlados directamente o indirectamente por los "aztecas" (eso es, la Triple Alianza, o Excan Tlatoloyan) entre Teozapotlan y Xoconochco. Es muy fácil inventar cifras y mapas, pero mucho más difícil citar referencias fiables, ¿verdad? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

History Channel nos da una cifra de 500,000 km². Ahora sobre lo demás de que no existe documento que respalde la expansión, pues lo único que puedo decir es que entonces para que crear estos mapas en primer lugar? tengo una pregunta para usted ya que no soy experto en temas precolombinos, ¿del Imperio Inca también se tiene documentos sobre su máxima expansión? en el caso Inca se aceptan los 2,000,000 km² como hecho. --Javier83 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

¿History Channel? ¿Those who published 2012, End of Days, Last Days on Earth, Seven Signs of the Apocalypse and Nostradamus 2012? ¿Y por qué no Disney Channel? Otro más que no sabe distinguir una fuente fiable de una estupidez, y que no sabe nada de historia pero pretende enseñar a los demás basándose en cualquier argumento publicado por cualquiera dondequiera... El mapa de Berdan y Smith se basa en fuentes primarias precisas estudiadas con una metodología científica universitaria precisa, y por eso muchos otros especialistas utilizan y citan su trabajo ; todo lo contrario de las publicaciones sensacionalistas como History Channel... El ComandanteHasta ∞ 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Más insultos que salen de usted, ¿cuales fuentes primarias precisas estudiadas?, ¿cual metodología científica universitaria precisa?, ¿cuales especialistas?. ¿Ahora resulta que todas las obras cartográficas precolombinas se basan en Berdan & Smith?, por favor, sin palabras.--Giggette (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

¿Ahora History Channel, además de ser una fuente fiable sobre Mesoamérica, es el portavoz de todas las obras cartográficas precolombinas? MDR. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@El Comandante ¿Me estas insultando? por que eso parece, no hay razón para usar groserías. El mapa que usted defiende por lo que veo se ve muy mutilado si consideramos todas las conquistas que llevaron a cabo los aztecas, el mapa claramente muestra regiones en blanco que fueron sometidas como parte de la área mixteca y sobretodo la región zapoteca que aparece casi completamente en blanco. Sobre la fuente de History Channel, ¿por que comparas a unos programas con otros como si todos fuesen la misma cosa? ¿History Channel mentiría en una cosa como la extensión del Imperio azteca? ¿con que propósito? por que llamar a mi fuente "estúpida" ¿que acaso Berdan & Smith llevan la verdad absoluta y irrefutable? --Javier83 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No te insulto : sólo hago constataciones. Te parece que History Channel es una fuente fiable. No tengo tiempo que perder explicándolo todo a los que no son capaces de comprender por qué este tipo de publicación no es fiable. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict globalized by Giggette

I'm trying to find a global solution to Giggette's global POV pushing there on Commons, there on EN, and there on FR. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Giggette's map is not the best available and should not be substituted for more accurate ones. The map by Yavidaxiu is much more accurate and well sourced[8], and this should be the basis for orthographic projection versions.Maunus (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

O.K. --Giggette (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are sincerely OK, then undo your inclusion of your map on all Wikipedias, and ask for the deletion of your erroneous map. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 06:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete the map, this is not an encyclopedia, and about the Wikipedias is question of choice. --Giggette (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And what about undoing all your POV pushing, at least? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 17:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason to delete the map, the map is based on Ross Hassig's work. Is Ross Hassig no reliable enough for you? --Javier83 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

But on what purpose? On what article could a superseded and obsolete map be useful? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't answer properly to this question, Giggette? If your map is not deleted, then it will be necessary to inform Commons users that Giggette's map has been superseded by Sémhur's map, because this one relies on more detailed, specialized and recent sources. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 16:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict globalized by El Comandante

Insults, personal attacks and harassments, not enough?. --Giggette (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

When I say that you're lying, because you're actually lying, it's not an insult, it's just an observation. And it's the same when I talk about your POV pushing on multiple Wikipedias, when you actually replaced Sémhur's map by yours, knowing there was still no solution to the dispute that YOU chose to create on Commons. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 16:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you should not have replaced this map File:Aztec Empire (orthographic projection).svg on 11 February 2010, you should have upload another file, and you could it just because keepscases is blocked, this is not a free encyclopedia, otherwise you insulted me [9] and others [10], please reconsider your words, your behavior is extremely uncomfortable. --Giggette (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

When I say that you can't distinguish a reliable source and a stupid one, it's not an insult, it's just an observation : History Channel is NOT a reliable source, like blogs are NOT reliable sources. Now complain wherever you want to whoever you want, but that won't hide the facts that YOU insulted Sémhur and I, and that YOU tried to impose your erroneous POV on multiple Wikipedias knowing that your POV was NOT reliably documented. And now I have productive works to do, so I won't keep on losing my time arguing in vain with you. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 06:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you forgot it that I DID NOT CREATE anymap and much less I did not insult to anybody as you DID it [11], so please stop of attacking me just because I REVERTED your vandalism ("POV") on mutliple Wikipedias and COMMONS. --Giggette (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)