Talk:Moctezuma II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moctezuma II was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: March 30, 2008}

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography (Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

WikiProject Mesoamerica (Rated B-Class) (Rated Top-importance)

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.

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.

This article is also supported by the WikiProject Aztec sub-project.

WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)

WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-Class)

Mexico Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico 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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] "Last king"

On a page entitled just "Moctezuma," (which I have redirected here) someone had written "Moctezuma was the last Aztec king." Please note that that is both incomplete and false -- there were two Moctezumas, neither of which were "last."

If we're not careful, the term "Wikipedia article" will come to be used to mean "authoritive-sounding nonsense."

In a way Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin was the last true Mexica king of Tenochtitlan since during his rein, Tenochtitlan was raided by Cortez. Myke 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No source

I cut the anonamously added "Some historians point out however, that the spaniards, realizing that Moctezuma had lost his influence and rule over his aztec subjects, found him useless and killed him right after the stoning incident." Source? As far as I remember, this isn't how Diaz de Castillo nor Prescott tell it. Wondering simply, Infrogmation 04:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

if i remember the original source of this is Gomarra (and confirmed by the florentine codex). This declaration from Gomarra wa the reazon why Castillo wrote "The Real history...".

[edit] Warrior, not scholar

According to the ABC-CLIO world history database, Montezuma was a warrior, not a scholar, which directly contradicts what is said in the article. perhaps this should be changed.

There is no contradiction, all aztec upper classes were warriors. To have the title of Tlatoani, Moctezuma must have been responsible of capturing about a dozen war prissioners. Also as a tlatoani, he continue with the aztec military expansion. But he was more interested in religion. A warrior like his uncle would have not care about the divinity of Cortez. But intead of continue his military acounts he prefered to be the Head of the Calmecac, insted of the Telpochcalli, and live the life of a priest. He did not wanted to be elected tlatoani. . Nanahuatzin

[edit] Contact with the Spanish, sources

You all should really reconsider the portion of the article concerning Spanish contact. The problems with the sources you cite are enormous. Some modern research by those who are not as biased as the authors you've read might do this article some good. It's pretty much been decided in the past 20 years or so that Moctezuma didn't believe Cortés was Quetzalcoatl, and there's no native evidence that Quetzalcoatl was even supposed to return. Report that "the sources say that..." if you want, but don't present what the sources say as if it's fact. That's just lazy.

mmhh decided by whom?... Most of the info here comes from primary sources, like Alva ixtlixochitl, the mexicayotl cronicle, the ramirez codex, Camargo, Sahagun etc. The legend of the return of queztalcoatl, (or more correctly, the return of Ce Acatl Topiltzin Queztalcoatl, great priest of queztalcoatl) is recorded By Sahagun. Is it true that there is a hotly debate on why Moctezuma reacted the way he did, maybe we shoudl expand that... Nanahuatzin 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black legend

The whole paragraph starting from "They gave the Spanish gold flags" and ending with "they crave gold" is clearly an example of black legend. The writer pretend it has been written by an Aztec but in fact it's a fictional extract from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, therefore it's a subjective point of view which should not be included in a serious article.

Sorry , i have never read that book. Original Source Florentine Codex. Book XII, by Bernardino de Sahagun. I used the spanish translation from "The other side of the conquest", by Leon Portilla, the main scholar on nahuatl language. Yes it,s a bit colorful, but I included to show that not al aztecs view spaniards as gods o else... Nanahuatzin 08:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Estoy de acuerdo de con tu explicación, se puede decir lo mismo (que no todos los aztecas consideraban a los españoles como dioses) con otras palabras, pero es menester señalar que lo anterioremente citado podía ofender y ofendía la sensibilidad de un español.

(Attempt at English translation of above comment)

I agree with your explanation. We could say the same thing (that not all Aztecs considered the Spaniards to be gods) using other words, but it is (menester) to note that the earlier text could offend and has offended the sensibility of a Spaniard.

(end translation)

Richard 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Entendido el punto. Procurare ser mas cuidadoso, sin embargo, tambien me gustaria comentar que es por esa razon que recurri a citar una fuente primaria, en lugar de solo referme a ella. EL publico en general esta acostumbrado solo a escuchar los testimonios europeos... Nanahuatzin 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(Attempt at English translation of above comment)

I get the point. I will be more careful

(translator's note: the previous sentence is a loose translation, my Spanish is not that strong, please correct the translation if you can).

However, I also prefer to comment that it is for this reason that I went back to cite a primary source instead of just referring to it. The general public is used to only hearing the European testimonies (translator's note: i.e. European point of view)

Richard 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please offer English translations for Spanish comments. Piet 09:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. Nanahuatzin 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moctezuma's father

Moctezuma was Axayácatl's son, not Ahuízotl's. Same goes for Cuitláhuac. Ahuízotl was Cuauhtémoc's father.

[edit] Name

The article claims that Moctezuma is ostensibly the preferred name. I cannot confirm or deny this. I am however quite certain that Montezuma is the more commonly used name, so I propose a change to that title. Relevant Wikipedia guidelines:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Quote: Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Quote: If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

Awaiting reactions of course... Piet 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Montezuma sounds awfull !!!!!!! (sorry you ask for my reaction...) I know this is an english enclyclopedia. But in the last years i have seen a trend to try to respect the original names: Sri-lanka, instead of Ceylan, Beijing instead of Pekin. So.. can we try to use Moctezuna, instead of the spaniard version of the name... Specially that even in Spain Montezuma is no longer used, (and not to mention that most mexicans would find montezuma offensive).. Please :)

Also.. if you look at goggle you will find that most references to "Montezuma" dos not refer the the Aztec Tlatoani, but To Montezuma school, Montezuma county, city of Montezuma, Montezuna Castle, Montezuma Well,Montezuma's Reptiles etc, while Moctezuma would refer specifically to it.... Nanahuatzin 20:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard any other spelling but Moctezuma in Spanish. However, Montezuma ought to be mentioned too in the text as this is commonplace in English language. Regards, Asterion^talk 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the above cited naming conventions, I don't see any strong argument for "Moctezuma". It may be more accurate, but please observe the adherence to the conventions in articles such as Saladin and Avicenna, even though these names are not actually the correct forms. I somehow doubt strongly that "Moctezuma" is more common in English, and I would need to see a citation to that effect.

The above convention states: use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. One needs only do a quick search to find that Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, and Oxford, amongst others, all use the form "Montezuma" for the entry. I'm a little confused, because it seems that Nanahuatzin's comment seems to ignore the relevant policies cited directly above, which makes his own suggestions seem invalid. According to Wikipedia's naming conventions, this article should use the form "Montezuma" in the title and the text, as far as I'm concerned.--C.Logan (talk)

I think you have a valid point. Most Americans are used to seeing "Montezuma" as in "the halls of Montezuma". However, as you see above, we were convinced to use "Moctezuma" instead on the baseis that "Montezuma" was a Spanish neologism for the real Nahuatl name.

I'm OK with Moctezuma, I guess. However, I agree with you that the alternate names should be provided and explained.

Here's what MSN Encarta has to say (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573242/Montezuma_II.html)

Montezuma II (1480?-1520), ruler of the Aztec Empire of Mexico; his name in the Native American Nahuatl language is Montecuhzoma.

Here's what the Britannica has to say (http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-390850/Montezuma-II)

Montezuma II, or Moctezuma II, or Moteucçoma (Aztec emperor)

Now, where do you think we should go from here?

--Richard (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I support the inclusion of the more correct name-forms, but it seems to me that we should use "Montezuma" as the primary form for the article, as these encyclopedias do. I don't have any doubt that "Montezuma" is not as accurate, but again, the naming conventions seem to suggest that we should go with familiarity over correctness- hence the above examples I'd given. I've tagged the claim that Moctezuma is the "most common" form in English, because this seems very questionable to me. It is certainly a recognized and used form, but none of the history books that I've seen use "Moctezuma", even if those books chose the improper form only, again, because of public familiarity. I would be interested to see a source which supports this claim, because it would satisfy my concerns.--C.Logan (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither "Montezuma" nor "Moctezuma" are correct. Both are 'corruptions'. Some scholars prefer to use the genuinely accurate spellings Motecuhzoma or Moteuczoma, but they're yet to really catch on. --Ptcamn (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ptcamn. Reposting what i have recently written at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aztec/Terminology#Montezuma_vs._Moctezuma:

The prefferred spelling in scholarly articles is Motecuhzoma if using Richard J. Andrews orthography which is becoming the most accepted in aztec studies. Another transliteration that is accpetable is Moteuczoma or Moteczoma but this is not commonly used. This is because unlike the two other forms moctezuma and montezuma it reflects his actual name in Nahuatl. It is composed of the three parts "mo" the reflexvive pronoun , "tecuh/teuc" "lord" and "zōma" "frown" - the other forms introduce spurious letters like "n" or turn "tecu" into "cte" for no good reason. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cortes leaving to meet Narvaez

The sentence about Cortes leaving to meet Narvaez does not express the core point that Narvaez had been sent to arrest Cortes. When I have time I will try to fix this. Richard 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed. I fixed it a few weeks ago but forgot to leave a note here. --Richard 06:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Moctezuma's death and of La Noche Triste

It seems to me hard to reconcile the date of M's death as given in this article (July 1) with the date of La Noche Triste (also July 1). Wasn't the latter some days after the former? Alpheus

right, la "noche triste" was 30 of june, 1520 . Cortez delayed to run out of the city, because he still had the hight priest has hostage, and the aztec wanted to make Cuitlahuac a Tlatoani. The aztec ofered peace in excahnge, but the resume atack as soon as cuitlahuac was made TlatoaniNanahuatzin 06:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to have accurate dates here. The Europeans were still using the Julian calendar, which by that time had accumulated at least 10 days of error in comparison to the solar date. That is, the summar solstice for 1520 was probably around June 11th according to Cortes' calendar. Madman 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up tag

Fellow editors: I placed a clean-up tag on this article. I believe the following areas should be addressed:

The conversational tone of large sections of the article.
Unsupported material.
Legends and hearsay passed as fact (e.g. Moctezuma looked into a bird's eyes and saw men landing on the coast).
Better use of white space.
Better placement or definition of Nahuatl words.
The date of death of Moctezuma as well as Moctezuma's lineage (as noted elsewhere on this page).
The Trivia section is out of place and a mess.

My thoughts, Madman 22:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with you I have begun the clean up. I would suggest cutting the "contact with the spansih part" entirely since this is all treated under Spanish conquest of Mexico.--Maunus 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree for the most part but please preserve the "legends and hearsay", attributing them as such. I'm not sure how much of that may have come from Nanahuatzin but the point is that the legends are useful information if presented as such. Part of this comes from the importance of myth and legend in cultures such as the Aztec. And part of it comes from the fact that history is not just about fact but also about interpretation. Knowing what legends are passed on about a person gives us some understanding of how his contemporaries and subsequent generations viewed the person. A person is not just what he does but what others think about what he does.

Also, I have mixed feelings about Maunus's recommendation to cut out the "contact with the spanish" part entirely. I did something similar with the Hernan Cortes article (i.e. I cut out the "conquest of Mexico" part and put it in the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article. Another editor objected saying that I had removed the most important part of Cortes' life. As a compromise, I put a short summary of the Spanish conquest of Mexico article back into the Hernan Cortes article.

On the one hand, we should not replicate too much material between articles. On the other hand, we must not eviscerate the Montezuma II article by taking out the single episode of his life that makes him famous. I trust User:Madman2001 to do the righ thing.

--Richard 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very dificult so separate the facts and the legend, but most history books in Mexico, include the omens that it is said, happened before the conquest as part of the biography of Moctezuma. They reflect the feelings and fears of the population of Tenochtitlan, and are part of the contradictions of his caracter. Proud to his people, and humble to the spanish. Brave in battle, and fearfull to the gods. All this has result in a hotly debate on his motives. Maybe all this has to moved to a section and leave the known facts apart.... Nanahuatzin

I dont see the Omens relevance for the personality or history of Moteczuma. As argued by James Lockhart in "we people here" the omens are most likely an aztec hindsight addition and has snothing to do with actual history. And everything that is known about the personality of Moteczoma whether being "brave" or "humble" and to whom we have from biased sources that should not be mistaken for real biographic information. Of course it can be included but crtitically please, and stating which sources say what and what might be their reasons to do so. But yes I think there could be a section on the persona of Motecuzoma as he has been depicted in legends and hearsay. --Maunus 12:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is taking shape and I move that the cleanup tag be removed. If someone helps me giving a few finishsing touches I think we can get it to GA status within the month.Maunus 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors, particularly Maunus, for cleaning up the article. It has moved from awful to good, and I have removed the clean-up tag.

Could I also ask the editors, particularly Maunus, to please check your spelling and links in your articles? As just one example, there were numerous spellings of "Moctezuma" scattered throughout the article (all from one editor). There were also numerous redlinks in the article, red only because of apelling errors (e.g. "Fransican" instead of "Franciscan" and many others). Please check your work before saving. Thanks, Madman 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. Sorry, I will do better checking. Maunus 15:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azcapotzalco or Tlacopan?

The Aztec Triple Alliance is being described with Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Azcapotzalco, shouldn't it be Tlacopan instead? Even once being subordinated to Azcapotzalco, Tlacopan sided with the other two cities in their conquest over Azcapotzalco. Then, Totoquihuaztli, Tlacopan's ruler, claimed the title of Tepaneca tecuhtli, "Lord of the Tepanecs".
Do you agree on changing it? 201.37.6.195 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't checked Aztec Triple Alliance article. Info there matches what I said above. I've already fixed it. 201.37.6.195 04:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulled Trivia section from article

Pulled this Trivia section from article per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. If you feel any line below belongs in the article, please insert it in the proper place.

Montezuma's Revenge is the colloquial term for any episodes of travelers' diarrhea or other sicknesses contracted by tourists visiting Mexico.
The Mexico City metro system has a station named Metro Moctezuma in honour of the tlatoani.
Antonio Vivaldi also wrote an opera called "Motezuma"; it has little to do with the historical character.
Moctezuma was not allowed to be looked at unless it was a festival. A person that looked at him would receive the death penalty.
He was so holy that he was carried around everywhere so that his feet would not touch common ground.
This Emperor Moctezuma may possibly have influenced the semi-divine figure of Montezuma common to the 19th century folklore of native tribes living in Arizona and New Mexico.
There is a reference to Montezuma in the song Cortez The Killer by Neil Young and Crazy Horse off of the Album Zuma(1975). The verse is as follows: "On the shore lay Montezuma, With his coca leaves and pearls, In his halls he often wandered with the secrets of the world."

This is a perfect illustration of why that guideline should not exist, and the guideline was apparently railroaded in by a select few without the knowledge of most editors... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the guideline, and have long had a mind to remove the trivia section myself. It is wholly non-encyclopedic and of little to no relevance.Maunus 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section has bothered me for some time so I am glad to see it go. I was not aware of the guideline and am glad to have a solid basis for getting rid of trivia sections in other articles.

However, I do think there is value in acknowledging historical legacy and modern perceptions. Montezuma's Revenge deserves some mention since that phrase and the "From the shores of Tripoli to the halls of Montezuma" from the Marine Corps hymn were the two most well known mentions of Montezuma in my generation although admittedly this has probably changed in the younger generation of today.

Similarly, the influence of Moctezuma on the semi-divine figure in folkore of native tribes deserves mention IF it can be sourced to a reliable source.

The rest can probably go.

--Richard 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I would agree with you on mentioning Montezuma's Revenge and the Marine Corps hymn. Typically they are in a section entitled Modern legacy or some such. As mentioned above, editors are welcome to incorporate them into the article, just not in a section entitled Trivia which becomes a trash-magnet.

User:Codex Sinaiticus, what parts of this are relevant to an encyclopedia article on Moctezuma? Certainly the Neil Young song and Montezuma's revenga are just plain silly. The Vivaldi sentence is almost self-defeating ("it has little to do with the historical character"). The two tidbits about how special he was sound like legends more than facts. If they belong in the article, they need to be referenced and put into the article itself. Interested in your thoughts, User:Codex Sinaiticus. Thanks, Madman 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This new "no trivia" rule that seems to have come out of nowhere, if applied site wide, will radically transform the entire face of wikipedia as it currently exists, into something quite different, and far less enjoyable. I guess there is a minority of editors who decided behinbd closed doors that they wanted a carbon copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, and are now presenting this as a 'fait accomplis' "guideline" because no one knew about it. It feels like a hijacking. If this had been proposed in the open, it would NEVER have received a support from Wikipedia's editors.

If you seriously need "reliable sources" that Montezuma has ever been connected with Motecuzoma, try taking a look at the Montezuma article. The other items are mostly relevant links to other related articles, why are they being suppressed and whom does this benefit??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hot issue for you, eh? Madman 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What is going on here with deleting links to related information from the article onder the pretense of a misguided guideline is just plain wrong. I will resist this on any article where I see this being done. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs some reorganization

I haven't ever looked at this article closely. There's a lot of information but, based on just a quick look, the section/subsection organization needs work. I don't have time to work on it today but I figured I'd drop the cleanup tag on it and try to get back to it later.

--Richard 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag?

An anonymous editor added the expert tag to the article without stating a reason. If no reason is introduced here on the talk page within the next days I will remove it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moctezuma before 1519

What about Moctezuma's life and reign before the arrival of the Spaniards? A description of the last two years of an about fifty to sixty year-old person is a pretty unfinished biography, isn't it? --88.64.212.26 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

I removed:

"he who angers himself."<ref>{{cite book |last=Thomas |first=Hugh |year=1995 |title=Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of Old Mexico}}</ref>

Despite being sourced, Hugh Thomas is a historian, not a nahuatlato. This translation both ignores the "lord" morpheme, treating it as though the name was simply Mozoma, and fails to recognize that Nahuatl often uses reflexives with a passive meaning — it's like translating Spanish no se sabe as "it doesn't know itself" when the correct translation is "it is unknown". --Ptcamn (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in the sources section

The paucity of indigenous written records and as well as the sometimes biased descriptions of the man by chroniclers can easily lead to no small amount of friction about how Moctezuma really was. Interpretations of the biographical accounts that we do possess vary widely. Therefore, I think it best to present actual quotations from them, with brief summaries of the general descrription BY THE WRITER, in the article, rather than fill the sources section with conjecture.Wuapinmon (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs less conjecture. However I am not sure that the right way about it is to insert large chunks of primary sources. Primary sources needs to be interpreted in order to be correctly understood - some sources are more reliable than others, some have one kind of bias others have the opposite good scholars have studied the sources and written about how to best understand them. Therefore the section in my opinion should build on what good scholars have said about how to best understand the soruces. I think that the right way to do this is by having the "conjecture" and interpretations of historians be fully sourced to the works of the which historians who have written about it. For example James Lockhart and Matthew Restall - the article as it is anow is not well sourced and only briefly mentions those scholars, while not pointing to any specific texts by them: this should be change. Some statements are completely unsourced and seems to be lose conjecture by previous editors - these should be removed. I think it is ok to include smaller pieces of quoted primary sources to illustrate salient point and to show the style of the sources - but they should not be made to look like being the "truth". The truth is not in the sources, but can only be approximated through their interpretation.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Bernal Diaz, I think the quotes offered are reliable. I agree that the opinions of good, peer-reviewed, publications to support different interpretations are needed (e.g. Restall and Lockhart). I have made some edits, and I do believe that the Wikipedia reader can evaluate the actual quotation on their own. Nothing is lost by maintaining the description quote I've entered, though I will agree that the second quote about their reaction to his death could be superfluous and maybe belongs on the True History of the Conquest of New Spain page. Wuapinmon (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Until we can get some sources to support the arguments in the tagged section, I think we need to POV check. Once we get that, then the article will be much stronger. Also, since it is unsourced, without even mentioning a potential source, I have removed this section:

As Aztec ruler, he expanded the Aztec Empire the most; warfare expanded the territory as far south as Xoconosco in Chiapas and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. He elaborated the Templo Mayor and revolutionized the tribute system. He also increased Tenochtitlán's power over its allied cities to a dominant position in the Aztec Triple Alliance. He created a special temple, dedicated to the gods of the conquered towns, inside the temple of Huitzilopochtli. He also built a monument dedicated to the Tlatoani Tízoc.

until someone can provide sources. Wuapinmon (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll source that right away.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! I like the new positioning too; it fits better where you've put it.Wuapinmon (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A section o his life and times?

I think in focusing on the sources we have neglected making a section about the actual life of Moctezuma - I think we should make a section before the source section describing what is known about his lifes main events, and it should probably inforporate the "contact with spanish" section.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone focused on Moctezuma's life after the Spaniards' arrival? At that time he was more than 60 years old and he had already reigned for seventeen years! --88.64.57.246 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Needs some serious work on being consistent with references. Also needs a number of citations.

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.

No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Details:

Consistency in formating the references and sources. There are a couple of websites used as references that are just bare urls, a few references are used that aren't listed in the sources, and the formatting of a couple of the sources isn't consistent with the format of the other sources. You also use a mix of Harvard citations (the (Diaz del Castillo 1568/1963 224-25)) and regular footnotes. It doesn't matter which style you use, it just needs to be consistent.
Reference 26 is a self-published website and wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Would be fine if it used the source listed at the bottom of the website as a source.
Formatting the quotations should be not in italics. See WP:MOS#Italics.
A number of spots need citations. I've added citation needed tags at the spots. I also marked with hidden text a few other spots that while not needing citations wouldn't be hurt by having them.
Also in the consistency part - footnotes after the punctuation. A number of spots have the footnoes after the punctuation.
Direct quotations need citations attachted to them, I've marked those spots also with citation needed tags.
Consider changing the Native American mythology, Symbol of indigenous leadership, Spanish noble family, and references in modern culture sections into subsections under the Legacy section. Also many of these sections could use some expansion to them, they feel kinda skimpy for someone who has had so much impact.
Also, consider changing the data in References in modern culture from a list into a paragraph or two. Myself, I'd nix the video game stuff, but that's just me.
See also sections usually go right before the References section.

I haven't really read through the prose for anything grammatically wrong or awkward. Mainly, it needs a ruthless run through for consistency in referencing, puncutation, and other issues. Like I said, I haven't read the prose deeply, which would need to be done before passing it to GA also. I'll do that after the issues above are dealt with, it'll be easier then, after the kinks are worked out with the other concerns.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll be able to get to all this stuff in the next week, but this will give us a starting point from which to better the article, if we don't get it fixed in time. Thanks for your review.Wuapinmon (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading out of town in the next few days and won't be able to reliably check in. Any chance of progress being made soon? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that another week has passed with no movement, I'm failing this article's GA nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.