File talk:Aztec Empire ME (orthographic projection).svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not a reliable map[edit]

The sources quoted for this map aren't reliable :

  1. I've found no source supporting this map on La Historia con Mapas ; moreover, this one shows no Aztec territory between Mitla and Soconusco/Xoconochco.
  2. Britannica : what's the article/link?
  3. internet sources : blogs and other unreliable sources (no pair-reviewing, no quotation of the author nor the publication of the map, no explanation of the primary sources of the map)

Moreover, the recent, specialized and detailed sources about Aztec empire show no Aztec territory between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco : Berdan & Smith 1996, Berdan & Smith 2013.

El ComandanteHasta ∞ 12:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica : I can't find any Aztec & Maya Empires page on britannica.com. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's not page, there's image 17 of 27 in Aztec article, Aztec & Maya Regions on britannica.com 1997, the image says "Aztec Empire". --Giggette (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any Aztec article, only Aztec (people). And I can't find any Aztec & Maya Regions on britannica.com. Who is the author of the map? Does he quote the primary sources used for this map? Does he explain his methodology? If you can't answer all these questions, then this Britannica's map is very much less reliable than Berdan & Smith's map, which is a more specialized publication that explains its methodology and quotes its primary sources. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2] Encyclopædia Britannica 1994. --Giggette (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. And what about the author, the methodology and the primary sources?
  2. And what about the fact that this orthographic projection adds, without any reference, territories such as San Lorenzo, Kaminaljuyu and even parts of actual El Salvador?
  3. And what about the fact that there is no map supporting your map on lahistoriaconmapas?
  4. And what about the fact that Ian Mladjov (author of this map you quoted) is not a mesoamericanist, but an "expected" PhD specialized on "Greek, Roman, and Medieval Mediterranean (Crusader) history"?
Even Ross Hassig is not really a reliable source for your map, as Maunus explained on his EN talk page. Only Berdan and Smith's map explains in detail what states can be considered as a part of the Aztec empire because they paid taxes or were client of the Aztec Triple Alliance. Moreover, you still couldn't quote any reliable source to support the fact that the territories between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco were a part of the Aztec empire, i.e. client or tributary states.
El ComandanteHasta ∞ 05:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the reasons explained here and on the Wikipedia in english, I add the {{Superseded}} template to this map. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 12:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is not an encyclopedia, EN Wikipedia preference is not a reason to replace it on COMMONS. If you do not agree with this version is no reason to replace it with yours, that map was created according reliable source. Best regards. --Giggette (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments published here to support the fact that Sémhur's map is more reliable than this one are valid. It's not because they also have been published on EN Wikipedia and were supported there by everyone except you that they can't be valid here. You still have no argument to oppose. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still no answer and no argument to oppose to the {{Superseded}} template? It means that I can restore it, right? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, if Sémhur's map is more reliable than this one are valid or not, it's not a reason to use {{Superseded}} on this map because it was created by a reliable source (Ross Hassig) as such others sources. Moreover their relative maps are used by Wikipedias [3], [4], [5] or perhaps now you want to vandalize these images from Wikipedias (Global usage POV) as you did it with this version (orthographic projection). Assume good faith. --Giggette (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying again and again :
  1. Ross Hassig is NOT a source for this map, as I told you before, as Maunus admitted, because there's no map of the Aztec empire in Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare.
  2. How can I assume YOUR good faith now that I know you're used to lie to support your POV (there and there, where you deliberately misquoted what Yavidaxiu said about his map), and now that you keep lying pretending that I'm « vandalizing » when I just recommend the use of a more reliable map (because supported by different recent and specialized sources) than the one you support (knowing that it's not supported by any specialized recent source)?
El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you don't understand spanish language as well because I did not lie what Yavidaxiu said, and Sémhur vandalized this map [6] because your resquest on FR Wikipedia, honestly you should have upload another file and and not vandalize the original map without prior consensus on the discussion page [7], no matter if you have "recent" and "specialized" sources. Now you are trying to disqualifying me? [8] after insulted me [9] and others [10]?. You should calm down and assume good faith. So thanks to you this sourced map is no longer in use on EN Wikipedia but it's not a reason to put {{Superseded}} template. Best regards. --Giggette (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You lied, it's a fact, not an insult. Yavidaxiu himself explained how you misquoted him. So now you're trying to lie to non spanish speakers, to make them believe I can't understand what Yavidaxiu said. You're just a POV pusher able to lie and vandalize just to avoid to admit that you've been wrong. You're pathetic. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, as I said before the user Yavidaxiu admitted that his map is not exactly the same for many reasons in spanish language [11], [12]. Now you're starting to insult me? ... you called me "pathetic"? [13]. --Giggette (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you lied :
  1. Because you just said that "the map is not the same as the reference" (in english and in catalan : el mapa no és igual a la referència), while Yavidaxiu explained that he just avoided copying the map quoted as reference, to respect the copyright of its authors, but that the informations published in his map are the same as in the source.
  2. About lahistoriaconmapas, where no map supporting your POV has ever been published (otherwise you would have quoted the exact link).
  3. About Sémhur's intentions and mine, pretending we are vandals when we just wanted to replace an undocumented map by a map documented by recent and specialized sources.
  4. About Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare, which contains no map of the Aztec empire supporting your POV, as Maunus admitted it and as you know it.
  5. And about Ian Mladjov (author of this map you quoted), now that you know that he is not a mesoamericanist, but an "expected" PhD specialized on "Greek, Roman, and Medieval Mediterranean (Crusader) history", but you still pretend that his student work and your bunch of maps randomly picked from blogs are as much reliable as Arqueología Mexicana (the mesoamercianist reference review published by mexican archaeological authorities), the famous map from the famous mesoamericanist Frances Berdan or Michael E. Smith worldwide reference The Aztecs!
So, yes, I repeat, and loud : you are dishonest and pathetic!
El ComandanteHasta ∞ 12:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Yavidaxiu can't upload the scanned map from "Atlas del México prehispánico" to respect the copyright (copyvio) as the user said

(in spanish) 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.

Can you tell me where exactly the user said (translated from spanish) "the same as in the source"? (you lie, not me) but the user says (translated from spanish) "it's not an exactly copy because the art of the magazine is protected by copyright.", because the art? but we are talking about territories in vectors, see Commons:Disputed territories, so then all vectorial maps on COMMONS did not respect the territorial extension? has Yavidaxiu authorship of this vectorial version?, also the user says (in spanish) "a partir", do you really can understand this word in spanish language?, I see you don't. Furthermore, Maunus admitted created this map based on Ross Hassigs book Aztec Warfare, and also now you're discrediting Ian Mladjov?, enough for me. Probably you're not understanding, this is not an encyclopedia, this is COMMONS and I reupload the original map based by verifiable sources, it was not my invention, and yes you and Sémhur are vandals just because changed the original file without a prior consensus on COMMONS. Sémhur should have upload another file and have a consensus on each Wikipedia for using, see Commons:Disputed territories, besides you have no right to use {{Superseded}} template on this map because of that, this template is used to show a better image (by quality and not by reference) that should be used instead of the first image. This is not an encyclopedia and this is not the place to have this kind of discussion. --Giggette (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Yavidaxiu also said

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

. It means

I can't reach now the publication, but the reference is there and perfectly verifiable, because anyone who lives in Mexico city can go to a library and read in the review the section dedicate to the prehispanic cultures (pages 64-75) and check that the map I have prepared is valid. The verifiability has nothing to do with specific quotes, because a map is ont a quote : it has to do with the existence of a support to the information proposed.

It means that Yavidaxiu didn't copy stupidly a map, but recreated it including exactly the same information as in the review. At the contrary of Maunus, who admitted that his map was an original research, compiling various maps of Ross Hassig about Aztec rulers military campaigns : when an army cross a territory, it is not a lasting domination similar to a taxation or a formal alliance. That's why recent and specialized sources DO NOT include the territories between Teozapotlan and Xoconochco in Aztec empire, at the contrary of Maunus' maps. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 05:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? and where can we read when Maunus admitted that?. --Giggette (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always the same link, as if you were unable to read it... It's boring... El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think all your false accusations and insults against me are boring. --Giggette (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you prefer not answer and hide your lack of arguments complaining... So what? Still no specialized source to support this map. Still based on nothing but unreliable sources. So, still a clearly superseded map, with regards to reliability. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 09:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again, there are sources, and keep in mind that on Commons there is no reason to have only one image on a somewhat conjectural matter, the original name should almost certainly stay with the image that was originally uploaded there. You should calm down already. --Giggette (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on Commons there is no reason to have only one image. But if there is a better image (here, a better documented one), the template {{Superseded}} can (and should) be used. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither.--Giggette (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Neither" your only argument to prove that this map is as reliable as Sémhur's map? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 22:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. --Giggette (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that everyone can see that your lack of good faith has no ending, I cease to discuss with you. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 09:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone can see your whim [14], [15], [16]. --Giggette (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lie about the author of the map[edit]

Giggette is lying pretending to be the author of this map : it was first uploaded by Keepscases there. Moreover, Keepscases didn't create it as a member of any graphic lab. So, can someone please remove these erroneous informations from this page?

Text to remove :

Derivative work : [[User:Giggette|Giggette]] |Date =2013-04-25 |Permission = |other_versions = |other_fields={{Credit line |Author = © Giggette | Other = Wikimedia Commons |License = [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed CC-BY-SA-3.0] (or [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License])}} {{Information field|name=Giggette|value={{Graphic Lab|es|map}}}}

El Comandante (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least, after more than seven weeks of discussion, Giggette has conceded something to restore the truth. Thanks. I don't know if I can hope that this is just the beginning of an acceptation of reality, but maybe some day we can also inform Commons users that Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare does not support this map (according to Maunus, the author] of the map that was used by Keepscases to create this one), and that this map is much less reliable than Sémhur's (also according to Maunus), explaining why... We'll see... El Comandante (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Aztec_Empire_ME_(orthographic_projection).svg&oldid=97792873"