Talk:Pipil people

Modern Pipil
I'm mostly away from Wikipedia right now so don't want to get involved too deeply but I have a few observations to throw the way of anyone listening about the little paragraph named "Modern Pipil" at the end of the article.

To begin with, I'm not sure about that title. Firstly, what does it mean? "Modern Pipil" sounds to me mostly like it refers to the modern Pipil language, but of course it doesn't (although Nawat is mentioned). Presumably then it actually refers to the modern Pipil people, in which case it might be better to say "The modern Pipil" or even "The modern Pipils". A more serious problem I have here, though, is that as it is written it is not terribly obvious to me that the paragraph is actually about the modern Pipils. Who are they, the 90% who have some indigenous ancestors, or the 1% of pure indigenous ancestry? If the former, these do not consider themselves "Pipils" and are not so considered by others (at least in El Salvador), so the heading would be a bit obscure and misleading to say the least. And if the latter, which I assume to be the case, then the problem is that the paragraph really says very little about them (just a part of one sentence towards the end), and actually concentrates on the other issues, which is the customary way of ignoring the indigenous peoples out of existence in El Salvador itself while pretending to be interested in them, and won't do.

Having said all that, I'd also like to add that the wording of the paragraph is confusing and inaccurate because it glosses over the fact that the Pipils are not the only indigenous group in El Salvador and certainly not by any means the ancestral source of all present-day Salvadorans. Thus the Pipil is only one component in the ancestry of the 90% of mestizos referred to, but the way it's put seems to be assuming that Pipil and indigenous in El Salvador are practically the same thing. The Pipils attracted most attention when the Spanish turned up because of their political and military predominance in the centre and southwest of the area now called El Salvador and probably also by the fact that their language was intelligible to the Mexican interpreters who accompanied them, and the Pipils of today have the added distinction of being the only indigenous group whose language is still spoken by anyone at all, but that does not mean that nearly all the people in El Salvador are descended from Pipils just because they are mestizos. Depending on the region and family history, people may have Lencan, Cacaoperan or Mayan blood. They may also have a mixture of course, but that would depend largely on the degree of mobility of earlier generations.

Sorry to have gone on for so long, but I have one more thing to say quickly. The description of the location of modern Pipils as "near the Guatemalan border" is not quite accurate. Of course El Salvador is so small that it could all be described as near the Guatemalan border in a sense, but within the relative geography of El Salvador, the department of Sonsonate (where most of the few remaining Nawat speakers probably are) would not normally be thought of as all that close to the border. It's like describing Oregon and New York City as "near the Canadian border". But here I'm no doubt splitting hairs. --A R King 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have so many problems with this article it is hard to know where to start. It's a hodge-podge of uncited scholarship, romantic legends, outdated Salvadoran schoolbook lore and sketchily sourced updates. Just to keep it from leading readers seriously astray, I jumped ahead and ventured some very basic corrections and additions: e.g., edited the bit about "Pipils" contributing to the "culture" of El Salvador (there's no case for this, the writer seems to mean the national mythology of El Salvador and its demography, not its culture); amended the 10% white claim, which is obviously wrong and dates to an early census that was badly done, to say "less than"; added "black African" to the "mestizo" demographic mix (a contribution commonly denied in El Salvador but the evidence is too convincing to ignore); brought in the Lenca (a glaring omission); corrected the wrong attribution of Cihuatan to the Pipiles (it is Mayan), etc. But the task is really huge. But the whole article desperately needs rewriting, and citations, particularly from Fowler, Lauria-Santiago, White, Tilley and others, not to mention older historical and archaeological scholarship on the "Pipiles." This isn't an easy task because several of these sources disagree about some of this material. "Pipiles" is a difficult term to handle in any case. Maybe someone can really undertake this seriously. Tafkira2 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Uncontested and uncontroversial. -- Hadal (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Pipils → Pipil people – As per WP:SINGULAR and in keeping with other ethnic peoples articles. Unfortunately the two edits on the redirect page "Pipil people" prevent me from making the move myself. Uyvsdi (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pipil oral tradition?
The lede used to claim that the Pipil have an oral tradition of coming from the southwestern US. This seems unlikely, as the Pipil predate the existence of the US; rather it seems to be taken from the (probably incorrect) identification of Aztlan with some location in, or sometimes all of, what is now the southwestern US. Note however that the location of Aztlan is uncertain and it may even be just a mythical location (like the Garden of Eden probably is, for example), and could be anywhere from, say, Nayarit (which is fond of claiming to be the "real" Aztlan) to, well, anywhere, including the US. Also note that the origin point (urheimat) of Uto-Aztecan (also "Yuto-Aztekan") languages is far from settled, and could be anywhere from Durango to Nevada. However, the most likely origin point seems to be located somewhere in southern Sonora, near the modern homelands of the Yaqui (Yoeme) and Mayo (Yoreme) peoples, placing it outside of the US.

Death-obsessed buildings?
This quote from the article makes no sense: "Their architecture is death-obsessed." I doubt the buildings felt much about death one way or the other. Does this mean that their architectural style denotes or connotes an obsession with death? This might be true, but I would be surprised if anyone knows, because I cannot think of any well-accepted and well-reported Pipil sites that have been excavated, beyond the small house floor that can be viewed at Casa Blanca in Chalchuapa. The ascription of other excavated sites (e.g. Cihuatan, any Cotzumalguapa sites, La Maquina, etc.) to the Pipil seems controversial, at best. TCSaint (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, this quote: "The ruins of Cihuatán, those in Aguilares, and those close to the Guazapa volcano are considered among the most notable remains of Pipil civilization," seems to just be three references to the same site. Cihuatan is near Aguilares and is close to the Guazapa volcano. It has been ascribed to the Pipil (by Fowler) and that ascription has been contested (by Bruhns and by Amaroli). Other sites in the vicinity may or may not be associated with Cihuatan and may or may not be associated with the Pipil. Popular wisdom in El Salvador holds that Cihuatan is Pipil in origin, but this is far from current scientific consensus (what little scientific investigation has been made, anyway). TCSaint (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I feel that this article could use some improvements. First of all, there need to many more citations than there are presently. Also I feel the lead paragraph is unclear and does not give a good overview of the article. There could be more info on the modern and past culture of the Pipil and how it has changed over time. For examples, there could be examples of what type of clothes people in this group wear, as well as information about their diet. Also I would like to know more about cultural factors that might make modern people of Pipil descendants different than people of other ethnic groups in El Salvador, as well as how they might have influenced the culture of El Salvador in general. ChaosAkita (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pipil 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/20120928064607/http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?idCat=6482&idArt=3957733 to http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?idCat=6482&idArt=3957733

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) 19:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Flag Source?
What is the source for the design of the flag shown in this article? There is absolutely no information provided about it in the article. 1.146.167.50 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi the source is in the wikimedia article Flag of Pipil. COAmaker17 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NahuasES.jpg

محمد احمد البركاني
اين هو 78.137.87.186 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ARCN 111 Archaeology of the Americas
— Assignment last updated by Sak201 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts for distinguishing Pipil/Nahuat page to be more Pipil/Nahuat focused
As it stands most of the citations and information here is about the broader Nahua language and Nahuan people, I would like to find sources that include more specific to the Nahuat language and culture. Adding these to the history and language sections would allow for further clarification and more identity in the Nahuat people as they do have a seperate culture to the larger Nahua. There is not a lot of literature specific to the Nahuat people which does pose a barrier but more dense searching referring to the larger Nahuatl group should prove profitable. Valin12345 (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)