Talk:Codex Xolotl

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jspringwood19. Peer reviewers: Gorditagirl21, Sicarex.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Planned changes edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am a student in a class covering Colonial Latin America in college. My plans are to made some additions to this article that I think will be relevant and important. The sources listed below are the sources I intend to use. I will be adding new content that covers the historical significance of the Codex Xolotl and the scholarly debated that exist regarding how the object should be interpreted for material culture.

Calnek, Edward E. "The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl." American Antiquity 38, no. 4 (1973): 423-27. doi:10.2307/279147.

Charlton, Thomas H. "Texcoco Region Archaeology and the Codex Xolotl." American Antiquity 38, no. 4 (1973): 412-23. doi:10.2307/279146.

Michels, Joseph W. American Journal of Archaeology 77, no. 1 (1973): 117-18. doi:10.2307/503272.

Offner, Jerome A. "Ixtlilxochitl’s ethnographic encounter: Understanding the Codex Xolotl and Its Dependent Alphabetic Texts." In Fernando De Alva Ixtlilxochitl and His Legacy, edited by Brokaw Galen and Lee Jongsoo, 77-121.

       University of Arizona Press, 2016. http://0-www.jstor.org.dewey2.library.denison.edu/stable/j.ctt19zbzgh.5.

Pueblos Originarios. "Códice Xolotl." http://pueblosoriginarios.com/norte/suroeste/chichimeca/xolotl.html

Schwaller, John F. The Hispanic American Historical Review 77, no. 2 (1997): 296-97. doi:10.2307/2516916.

Jspringwood19 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I like how you added a section for historical significance and debate regarding the Codex as it helps place it in a historical and archaeological context. One potential issue is that you mention an ongoing debate around the number of writers involved in the text's creation but this is not under the "controversy" sub-heading. It just seems as though that sentence, possibly with some added details, would fit better under the controversy section. Sicarex (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think your information is good and relevant to the article, but I do feel you could have made the paragraphs longer and more elaboration of the information you added. The paragraphs you added seem almost young and undeveloped, but have lots of potentials. With that being said, the article is neutral and does provide good information to the general public. I really wish there was more information added; one way could have the controversy be its own heading and give a bit more information on why exactly and maybe some prominent people that are on the different sides. Overall, your addition was needed to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorditagirl21 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic