Talk:Chanka

The Chancas in combat
The following passage runs like completely nonsensical gibberish


 * "According to sources alleged that story about Inca Culture Chanca, the very Hanan Chancas when bloody fighting, when they were captured the enemy prisoner of war. We did cruel things to show the enemy that they should not meddle with them, they did things like scalp, or while still alive prisoners were uprooted skin, head hung so the blood is concentrated in the upper body and they did a few small cuts on the front of the toes, is where we began to tear the skin gradually, while the prisoner was screaming despavoridos. Another way to intimidate the enemy was making cups made from skulls where prisoners drank the blood of the enemy."

I have chosen to remove it as it is grammatically incoherent and lends nothing of value to improve the quality of the article. 67.142.172.27 (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the Spanish version of the article and is important for understanding that they were a very war-like people. For this reason it has been included. However, it does need a citation.  The Spanish version does not reference it either.Editfromwithout (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation
I have translated from the Spanish version as far as it made sense. There a couple of minor points that need checking. I will be back to do more linking, but carry on anybody if you want. Richard Avery (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I translated this wrong: No fueron rivales de los incas pues se somettieron pacíficamente a los quechuas cusqueños en menoscabo de sus "hermanos mayores" los Parkos o Hanan Chankas, para los Soras y Rucanas que eran pueblos valientes y netamente guerreros. I'll come back to it, but if it's a little clearer to someone else please correct. I'll keep working on other parts that are clearer.Editfromwithout (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * under History by the way, I put:They were not rivals of the Incas because they submitted peacefully to the Quechua of Cusco, losing their influence to their "older brothers" the Parkos or Hanan Chankas. The towns of Soras and Rucanas were valiant and clearly warriors.Editfromwithout (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chanka people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603190300/https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/anders_martha.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/anders_martha.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008233647/http://www.andahuaylasperu.com:80/html/historia.html to http://www.andahuaylasperu.com/html/historia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Black Legend" or in other words "it's all propoganda." The entire Viceroyalty of Peru section has zero inline citations while making claims of a conspiracy against Spain
There should be some citation or source justifying:

1. That this claim in particular is a deliberate piece of false propoganda by enemies of the Spanish colonialists such as the Dutch or British.

2. That there was in fact no slavery or encomienda-like forced labor system implemented for these people.

3. That we aren't just contributing to the Spanish imperialist "white legend" by dismissing this as the "Black Legend."

4. Maybe a citation or source here? The entire Viceroyalty of Peru section has no citations while making rather bold claims about a deliberate conspiracy against the Spanish empire and dismissing criticism of the Spanish empire as propoganda. I would say that sort of thing should absolutely have a citation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
I have put this tag here because of the discussion around the Viceroyalty of Peru, which makes the unsupported claim that there was no mistreatment of the Chankas or other Indigenous groups. As explained by a researcher at St Andrews, this does not fit what actually happened: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/stories/2016/the-chankas/.