Talk:Pachacuti

Untitled
I removed the following information to make the article tone a bit more encyclopedic:
 * "Was he a good leader or a bad leader? Well every good thing comes with a prize tag."
 * "Ok,let's say that Pachacuti did not have any social skills or he had no heart, (I don't know I never met the guy, but this is not the point."

Dori | Talk 02:20, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) I just largely rewrote this adding a 16th century drawing and more information. The previous article seemed unsavably POV, but it's just commented out for now. --Zenyu 22:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC) These conquest maps are not accurate. I sort just guestimated the extent from looking at some other peoples maps. But when I went back and put in Chimor, and Chachapoyas I could see that I was off in the territory, esp in the Tupac Inca and Huayana Capac years. The map now on the Image:Inca-expansion.png map is more accurate. But that one does not have the other countries on it, so these maps need to be regenerated. (Also I learned that Pachacamac and Cajamarca were added to the empire between 1463 and 1471, the first was a breakaway republic from Chimor that joined the Inca to avoid reprisal from the Chimu, Cajamarca was a powerful city state that was simply no match for the Inca armies.) I'll fix this when I have the time to regenerate the maps... --Zenyu 20:58, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) I believe that Pachacuti is the name of the political party run by Salazar in Cusco as well as the name of the Inca. Probably so few searches would be done for that, there is not point in disambiguation. Question: Is this Pachacuti the same person who had Machu Picchu built and other magnificent edifaces in the Cuzco area? This article is bad. This should be renamed to something like Pachakuti_(Inca) to refer to the Inca with the name... pachakuti itself means "world turned around" and is an Andean concept somewhat comparable to the changing yugas in Hinduism. The name has also been used by various indigenous movements in Bolivia and Peru. Murple 19:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I think that would be Pacha kutik and not pachacuti nor Pachacutec. The other two are hispanisized. Same with Tupac Yupanqui. The original’s Tupac and not Topac or Tupa or Topa. O’s and e’ didn’t even exist in Quechua. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusing
I was wondering why it said in the first sentence of the third paragraph, "Meanwhile, Pachacuti reorganized the new empire..." In the last sentence of paragraph two it said, "Tupac Inca continued to conquer territiories to the north, reaching what is now Ecuador by his father's [that is Pachacuti's] death in 1471." The whole section seems rather confusing with too many subject changes from sentence to sentence for the number of pronouns that are used. 72.234.195.62 06:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Curious User

If you...
If someone here wants to improve this article, you can see the version in Spanish..There it`s a good article and you can translate some things..=)

If you...
If someone here wants to improve this article, you can see the version in Spanish..There it`s a good article and you can translate some things..=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.34.122 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It’s pretty good, but while I have much respect for Maria Rostworowski, damn that article is like literally a direct copy of her biography of Pachacútec.
 * so no Reman Empire (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting
This article seems to have some conflicting views on Pachacuti. For example "He sent his son Tupac Inca Yupanqui an army to repeat his conquests and tyranny" seems to suggest a negative bias on the subject, as does the preceding sentence about how authoritative and repressive his society was. However, much of the article praises him, most egregiously "Numerous kurakas do not hesitate to recognize his skills and identify him as "son of the Sun". Any suggestions on how to fix this? Mr. Phorcys (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is a terrible translation from the poorly sourced Spanish article. Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa is the major source.See this which mentions tyranny and this


 * Pachacuti’s claim to rule arose from his victory over the Chancas. For thanks to this victory,
 * Pachacuti found himself to be in a position of great power and the leader of many people. He thus ordered ... a great sacrifice to be offered to the Sun in Indicancha, the House of the Sun, and then they went to ask the statue of the Sun who should be Inca. The oracle which they had there . . . answered that [the Sun| had designated Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui. At this response all those who had gone to make the sacrifice prostrated themselves before Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui and called him . . . Son of the Sun.'9
 * By way of implementing the oracle’s statement, the Inca nobles returned with Pachacuti to the temple of the Sun:

And when they came before the statue of the Sun, which was of gold, the stature of a man, they found it holding the [iinpcrial| headband in its hand, as though freely offering it. Pachacuti, having made the customary sacrifices, came before the statue of the Sun, and the Sun’s chief priest. . . took the headband from the hand of the statue and with much ceremony placed it on the forehead of Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui. Thereafter, all acclaimed him as. . . Son of the Sun, Lord, the Turning About of the World.'


 * The nobles are the kurakas. "do not hesitate" doesn't seem appropriate. The article needs a major rewrite, maybe turned into a stub and start again with something shorter but sourced. Doug Weller  talk 19:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller, I know this is an old discussion, but just in case this is going to cause anything I’d like to clarify. First nobles and kurakas aren’t necessarily the same. While Kurakas are in general any officer holding a position of power, in a historical context they are the local kings. The Spanish article, while it didn’t cite any sources back then, now does. But even though these are new sources (i.e 90 percent María Rostworowski), the article already copied phrases and sometimes paragraphes from these sources (i.e María) in the article. So essentially that’s were the thing with the kurakas not hesitating might come from. The Idea is that the local kings, who were hesitant to join in the war against the Chankas, now that victory was certainly on the Inca’s side, joined in and submitted to Pachacuti. As to The phrase with Tupac Yupanqui, it definitely comes from Sarmiento de Gamboa. In fact it’s almost a direct quote. Have a great day Reman Empire (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Reman Empire Thanks. I've no interest in this article anymore (cutting down heavily as I've not got a lot of time left, cancer). But your post is interesting.  Doug Weller  talk 06:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. So sorry to hear and best wishes. Reman Empire (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pachacuti. 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/20081010160641/http://incas.perucultural.org.pe/english/hisasp7.htm to http://incas.perucultural.org.pe/english/hisasp7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Maps
Alright so I’m NOT an expert, but those maps seem definitely wrong from what I have read. Now my main sources are Maria Rostworowski and Garcilaso but that’s beside the point. These maps. I mean the Colla were definitely already conquered when Pachacútec or Pachacuti sent some expeditions commanded by Capac Yupanqui, and later Tupac Yupanqui to the north in order to subjugate those regions. And Cajamarca was already conquered at this time according to I believe all chroniclers (?) except for Garcilaso. But the map is far from going off of Garcilaso’s account. In fact it doesn’t even mix all the chronicler’s accounts nor does it take a modern analysis as it’s source material; it simply does its own thing. And besides even if it did end up having some kind of source I do not know about, then the fact that this is Andean history, which is very much not 100% known in anything really, with contradictory accounts of the Spanish period everywhere, should be a reason on its own why this does not have a place on Wikipedia. Reman Empire (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Succession
I just removed the section succession on the article and moved its content to biography because of the following reasons :


 * it includes detailes which chronologically should be at the beginning, not at the end of the article
 * it includes several details which do not have anything to do with Pachacuti’s succession
 * it is very unusual to have such a section on a wikipedia article

If you have any arguments for it to stay feel free to tell me. Reman Empire (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)