Talk:Ahuiateteo

=Ometochtli=

Untitled
Generally mainstream sources list Ometochtli (Two rabbit) as the god of drunkenness. One must wonder where the information in this article came from. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * Good question. has a lot of stuff about the Macuiltonaleque. Also . Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the accuracy of this article, but I do know that their deities often had overlapping domains. For instance, Mayahuel was also goddess of pulque and drunkenness, as were her children, the Centzon Totochtzin (four hundred rabbits). This is common in polytheism, as the followers of particular deities assign more and more functions to their patrons, who then accrete attributes; it's often the case in hinduism, for instance, where the followers of a goddess or god often claim she created the universe, is the ultimate reality, etc... Jergas (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Miller and Taube
Miller and Taube provide an extensive bibliography but use no footnotes so it's impossible to know what primary or secondary source they use. They identify their main source for Aztec mythology as the Florentine codex however Book 1 of the codex, the Gods, does not include this god. In order to be a reliable source a publication has to be a primary or secondary source. Since Miller and Taube does not refer to either of these, it is, in my opinion, not a reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Miller and Taube are regularly cited in other works, so I would have to disagree. Both of them are established scholars on Mesoamerican topics. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because they are regularly cited in many Wikipedia articles doesn't make them reliable. They are established scholars in the field of art history. Their book is was written for the general public, not serious scholars. I hope better sources can be used in Wikipedia articles. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean in Wikipedia articles - I meant in publications.. and art history is a valid field of research. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguing against a straw man: "art history is a valid field of research". But not very relevant to the anthropology of the people of Mesoamerica. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mesoamerican studies is a multidisciplinary area of research, which includes among others not just anthropologists, archaeologists, epigraphers, linguists, and art historians. A very quick look at one shelf of my collection on Mesoamerica showed that the following books cited Miller and Taube:


 * Christopher A. Pool Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica
 * Michael D. Coe The Maya 6th ed.
 * Michael D. Coe and Rex Koontz Mexico from the Olmecs to the Aztecs
 * Linda Schele and Peter Mathews The Code of Kings
 * James L. Fitzsimmons Death and the Classic Maya Kings
 * Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens

The following cited other works by Mary Ellen Miller:
 * Geoffrey Braswell The Maya and Teotihuacan
 * E. Wyllys Andrews and William L. Fash Copán: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom
 * Richard F. Townsend The Aztecs
 * Robert J. Sharer and Loa P. Traxler The Ancient Maya

That doesn't even include books where references are given by chapter rather than grouped at the end. If all of these can cite Miller, and specifically the book in question, then so can we. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're arguing against a straw man again. I didn't sat that "we" can't cite Miler and Taube. I said that I hope that "we" can cite better sources that their book, which contains errors and interpretations and doesn't refer one to other primary or secondary sources. For example their Maya calendar article includes two dates that are wrong an not consistent with each other. How do you propose to deal with situation where the "reliable" sources are incorrect? Senor Cuete (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously we go with the most reliable that we can find - in this case, someone was asking for cleanup, and Miller and Taube was to hand. If you can find a better source, use it. In the meantime, Miller and Taube is fine. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)