Talk:Maya Codex of Mexico

Article is outdated
What we know about the Grolier Codex has changed significantly since this article was written, mainly due to the extensive research published over the last year by Stephen Houston's team. A lot of the statements in this article are now either incorrect ("Maya Blue pigment could not be confirmed") or need to be balanced against new arguments. The recent research strongly supports the authenticity of the Grolier Codex, but the overall impression one gets from this article is that it is unlikely to be authentic (as we give considerable coverage to skeptics, without covering new research that has debunked their arguments). I was considering putting an Update tag on the article and possibly even proposing it for good article reassessment, but I wanted to get thoughts from Simon Burchell first. Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to be cautious here, Coe, Houston et al have been proponents of the Codex' authenticity all along and they have not published any new evidence yet as far as I can see. There is press coverage, but I am not seeing any of that published research you mention. Even the press coverage suggests that they are mostly reviewing existing evidence and finding it to confirm the opinion they already had. I cannot determine from the press coverage if they have done any independent testing of the codex. In any case we should wait untill there are signs in the literature that skeptics are convinced before we take the word of those who were already convinced to be final. An encyclopedia has to be conservative in this kind of situation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maunus, there is nothing new in the opinions of Coe (who has a vested interest), Houston, and Taube, who have always supported the authenticity of the document. They have published a new paper reaffirming this, but there has been no new physical analysis of the document. Mention of the new paper and reaffirmed support has been put into the authenticity section, so the article is not outdated. Until we see long-standing opponents of the document's authenticity changing their opinions, we should not jump in and blindly give undue weight to claims of authenticity from a group of scholars who claimed it was authentic from the beginning and have never wavered. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I havent actually been able to find the new paper yet, only the advance press coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I say new, I believe it was December last year, but I couldn't get at it because it was paywalled. It was published in a book, Amazon link here . This prompted a belated press report (this month) at Brown University, which was then picked up elsewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I'll write Houston and ask for a pdf copy. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have the pdf now, and I have to say that this is doubtless the single most thorough and detailed study of the Grolier to date, and the iconographic analysis is largely new and much more detailed than previous ones. The conclusions seem justified to me since they demonstrate the extreme amount of often prescient knowledge (or luck) the forger would have needed to make the codex without making any mistakes. It should definitely be included in the article quite prominently. I wouldnt say that it is a strict requirement for retaining GA status (as long as the arguments and conclusions are included), but for FA it would certainly be indispensable to engage it with more detail.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll update the article if and when I can get access to the new source... probably won't be any time soon though... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have created a Resource Request for the latest info on the Codex. and  might be interested in it as well. Le Loy 08:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

public display
The article said it was not publicly displayed, but I found an item where it was recently displayed.

http://remezcla.com/culture/maya-codex-pre-hispanic-document/

So it's probably still displayed. Y-barton (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Substantial Article Content Update
On 30 August 2018 el Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) published a press release declaring that El Códice Maya de México (CMM, and formerly called the Grolier Codex) was not just an authentic Prehispanic manuscript but also the oldest known Prehispanic manuscript in all of the Americas. During 2018, INAH also published a book sharing their research teams' findings proving the authenticity of the CMM written in Spanish, which may have been a limiting factor to accuracy of information collected on the current Grolier Codex wikipedia page.

To this end, substantial content update to this page are heavily recommended. Among the first edits I shall implement will be a change of title to better reflect the manuscript's official name, El Códice Maya de México (The Maya Codex of Mexico). Although another wiki page with a similar name exists, it is a Spanish article containing a modest update about the manuscript's authenticity that does not reference at all the substantial 2018 INAH publication that further supports INAH's findings. By relaying the Spanish-language content of the 2018 INAH book in English I hope to ensure that English-speaking audiences will gleam some of the most recent research covering the CMM. Beyond the problem of the current title, I also propose that the entirety of the page be updated using a draft I am working with as the main framework for the updated article. This step is not one I adopted initially but one suggested to me by an editor currently reviewing the draft linked above, who felt that given the need to update the Grolier Codex Wikipage, a BOLD edit was not only required but encouraged.

I shall begin to roll-out these edits in the coming days in hopes of receiving feedback from fellow editors interested in making this wikipage a more accurate resource for everyone. I look forward to working together with our community of editors.GenxM (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A lot has happened since I first brought this article to GA... It certainly needs some serious work to update it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of developments have certainly unfolded since this page was published but I have just rolled out substantial edits with the in-text citations to come. Please feel free to jump in and help with any edits you feel are necessary for the content to be more accessible.GenxM (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles - the changes are so substantial (and frankly GenxM's grasp of basic editing policies so weak) that it should be delisted as a GA straight away, as it is not the same article. The title is I think unsustainable - it should probably be Maya Codex of Mexico, though there is a case for keeping the old title until the English-speaking world has got more used to the new one. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current page should be delisted as a good article due to how substantial the edits are at the moment. Once the edits are complete, I do believe submitting for a GA review is in order but these edits are not yet complete. In regards to the my editing abilities, it is exactly for this reason that I began this thread as a forum by which we may all collaborate to bring about a more accurate article together. As far as the title goes, please do go ahead and switch it to something that is more sustainable (however you define that term in this context) so long as it keeps the integrity of the official name declared by the manuscript's stewards, INAH.GenxM (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the local consensus that the article should be delisted pending re-review, I have delisted it as a good article. Any editor may renominate it at any time by adding to the top of the talk page and any other editor may begin the review at any time. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just tweaked the intro so that the first sentence describes the subject instead of the renaming, and then caught up on talk pages and now better understand why it was in upheaval. I appreciate and admire y'all for your hard work balancing bold updates with a longstanding good article. Looks like this was the big edit, yeah? I was going to start to try to incorporate the old well-formatted references from before that edit but am overwhelmed at the moment… Tophtucker (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)