Talk:Cē Ācatl Topiltzin

Untitled
It appears that this article is simply someone's (very poorly-written) junior-high research paper. I have corrected many of the more egregious errors (such as a switch from past to present tense) and will continue to correct others as I find them. In the meantime, I'm listing this on Cleanup. Kurt Weber 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, some of the content of this should be merged, most of the other content is poorly written to preserve. Nanahuatzin 06:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Should This Article Be Disputed?
This article describes fiction and myth as truth. The evidence for the existence of a Toltec culture is close to zero. There is even less evidence for posing any kind of chornology of kings since the kingdom it self is unlikely to have existed. Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl is simply the deity and mesoamerican Culture hero Quetzalcoatl. This page should be deleted or merged into Quetzalcoatl Please discuss at Talk: ToltecMaunus 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence for a Toltec civilization is 100%. The ruins of their capitol Tollan are in Tula, Hidalgo. The history of this particular king is from post-conquest codices and is questionable.216.67.161.230 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc


 * No it is not. There is no evidence for any claims about the ethnicity of the people who built Tula Hidalgo. Most recently it has been suggested that Tula was built by Huastecs (which would explain the similarities between Tula and Chichén Itza). The only reason Tula Hidalgo is called the way it is is because the aztecs told the spaniards that Toltecs had lived there. They also said Toltecs had lived in Teotihuacan and in all other large cities: Tollan was a generic term for metropolis and thus the fist urbanized peoples of mesoamerica were called toltecs by the aztecs no matter what their ethnicity were.Maunus 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the article is poorly written likely a junior high history essay, the things that you're arguing against are naming issues and not actually a question of factual accuracy. Whether a separate culture named the Toltecs existed to spawn a priest-king named after the God he served isn't the issue - the existance of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl is archaeologically accepted in academic circles as a given fact. The Aztecs themselves claimed descendance from the Toltecs - or what they called the Toltecs - so their claim to the Spaniards that Toltecs (or a group of people that also inhabited various metropoli including Tenochtitlan, Teotihuacan and others) lived in what we call Tollan is acceptable - why not? The processual approach to this issue - and others like it - dabbles in issues of naming and arbitrary boundaries between cultures that can't be verified in any way at the moment, so as it is, the claim of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl's existance in fact should be accepted to the same extent as any Mesoamerican historical claim. Quixoticsupernova 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Topiltzin Ce Acatl" or "Ce Acatl Topiltzin"?
Hi, everyone! Is it "Topiltzin Ce Acatl" or Ce Acatl Topiltzin"? The page in Spanish says "Ce Acatl Topiltzin," and this is the way I remember the name since many years ago, when I was a student. Thanks and regards! Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs.--correogsk (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ce Acatl ("One Reed") is just a calendrical name, and Topiltzin means something like "our prince/lord". Queztalcoatl is a deity name. I don't think there's a standard or correct ordering of these elements. At least, in practice the figure is variously referred to as Topiltzin, Topolitzin Quetzalcoatl, Queztalcoatl Topiltzin, Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl, Ce Acatl Topiltzin, Ce Acatl Tpolitzin Quetzalcoatl&mdash;just abt every possible permutation. To add to the confusion, often commentaries don't specify or distinguish when the original historical texts grammatically use the elements as proper names, or titles/epithets. I suppose a case could be made for placing the calendrical name first. Equally, omitting the calendrical name altogether is commonly done, or using it as an alternative. At a guess I'd say Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl is the most commonly seen name, but if true don't think that it can be by a large margin.


 * Probably not something to worry about too much, so long as all the various alternatives redirect to whichever form holds the article text. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Double-Whopper
Quote "According to the Florentine Codex, which was written under the direction of the Franciscan missionary Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztecs [...] Bernardino de Sahagún, who compiled the Florentine Codex, was also a Franciscan." -- I guess this doubleing isn't necessary -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost 12:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tollan
This page repeatedly cites the city-name of "Tollan" but that links to a page citing two DIFFERENT cities, each sometimes called "Tollan" but each with its own separate name; and, more generally, to any great city in Central America. Should this page refer to "Tula" instead of "Tollan?" 2601:645:501:DCD0:6994:A523:86FA:757A (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably Tula (Mesoamerican site) but that article seems to contradict this one. Doug Weller  talk 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)