Talk:Possible Nahuatl etymologies of Guadalupe

Bias
This is a biased interpretation of the Guadalupe story. While it is not bad that we have an article on it, it should be clear that there are other interpretations and attributed to somebody, perhaps the authors of the references. --84.20.17.84 09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Guadalupe story as it appears on its own main Wikipedia page is itself biased, since the entire thing frequently assumes and is perfused with religious belief. That page is not consistenly NPOV, as is the case for many religious topics.  But for this Coatlaxopeuh page, Anzaldua's writings on this subject simply represent a non-religious interpretation of cultural information.  Her interpretation is very far away from orthodox religious beliefs, but that is not the same thing as bias.  A true NPOV might come from a non-Christian who can view Aztec mythology and the orthodox Virgin Guadalupe story as both being mythological.  By that standard, is this Coatlaxopeuh page biased?  No, not at all.  But you don't have to be an atheist or non-Christian to view things objectively.  This interpreation is not unique to Anzaldua, but has repeatedly been put forward and this interpretation is even mentioned by the President of Mexico on his official website (see: http://zedillo.presidencia.gob.mx/welcome/PAGES/culture/note_12dec.html). So let's drop this silly objection.


 * The writer who objected should carefully read Neutral_point_of_view, and that writer should specifically identify what words, sentences, and references in this Coatlaxopeuh page are biased.  The writer who objected complains that "it should be clear that there are other interpretations and attributed to somebody, perhaps the authors of the references"... that is a strange statement because this is exactly what is done in the first section ("Origin of Coatlalopeuh") of this Coatlaxopeuh page.  The ideas are specifically attributed to Gloria Anzaldua, and her books are referenced.  There is not NPOV problem here at all.Lapabc (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, NPOV removed. - RoyBoy 08:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Coatlalopeuh vs Coatlaxopeuh; article issues
I've reverted the recent change that tried to standardise the orthography here by replacing almost all occurrences of Coatlalopeuh with Coatlaxopeuh. True enough, the article's title is at Coatlaxopeuh and this form may be a closer approximation (but still an approximation) to a half-way plausible nahuatl construction. But the fact is that the source (Gloria Anzaldua) that's mainly being quoted here chooses and uses the spelling Coatlalopeuh. So for a start it's not really appropriate to 'correct' the spelling in the text relating to how she (and other similarly vested authors) employ the term. In any case, whether Coatlalopeuh,Coatlaxopeuh, or some other variant, I believe neither is regarded by Nahuatl scholars as being an actual, authentic or attested nahuatl construction. Instead, the word is more likely an attempt to come up with an allegedly nahuatl word to bolster the claim of there being a native origin for the word guadalupe, supposedly on some mis-hearing. In other words, the term was more-or-less made up in effort to disassociate the mexican guadalupe from the similar and earlier Extramaduran guadalupe.

See also a prior discussion on this, which I'll copy here below from where it originally took place in user talkspace (original here).

The article still has many issues of course, which need addressing and much better citing. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Prior discussion on name, copied from user talk
Hi Maunus. How would you analyse this compound? The first part is evident; the second, I gather is sposed to come from xopēhua "to give s.o. a kick" or "reject with disdain"..? Is the ending change to -peuh 'cos it's in a compound, or..? Does the construction work morphologically?

If so, is there any justification for the alternative spelling sometimes encountered, Coatlalopeuh ?

My impression is that this is not so much a term found in genuine classical nahuatl texts, but is more likely a term dredged up circa 17thC in an attempt to give some plausibility in explaining the appearance of the word "guadalupe" in the Nican Mophua as being natively derived from Nahuatl. ie, instead of acknowledging the word (and therefore the cult at Tepeyac) as an import from Spain. Also, despite some modern revisions to the contrary Coatlaxopeuh does not reference any actual Aztec deity figure, pre- or post-conquest, and supposed connection w Coatlicue, Tonatzin et al is not valid. Instead it's something only put forward ex post facto as a nahuatl cognate for the guadalupan apparition. Is it a term actually used in this context by nahua speakers today?

Is this on the right track, or is the term actually a viable alternative name for Tonantzin? (which itself is possibly more a generic epithet than specific deity).

I was otherwise inclined to redirect this to Our Lady of Guadalupe, were it not for the fact that the term seems to be a minor cause celebre in some contemporary chicana/feminist literature, where it seems to take on almost a life of its own as a mother/earth goddess. As such there's prob scope for s.o. to expand on its adoption & use in this literature, in addition to the (alleged) conxn w the guadalupe story. Not that I'm that much inclined to do so myself, but wondered whether you think the article as it is misleads substantially on any of these points. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that that is not a genuine Nahuatl word it doesn't follow any of Nahuatls rules for making compound words. I believe Burkhart, Poole and others have come to the same conclusion: it is an attempt to coin a Nahutl etymology for the word ex-post-faco. After all it is completely unnecessary to come up with an indigenous origin for the word guadelupe when there was already another virgin, town and monastery of Guadelupe in Extremadura, Spain before the conquest. And no I have never heard the term used, and I don't think any one else has either.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insights Maunus. Yeah, it does seem almost like someone contrived to go thru a nahuatl dictionary looking for elements to piece something together that sounded as close as possible to "guadalupe". Will check Poole, Brading, et al again, when I had a quick search was unable to find explicit mention, but it's quite probably there somewhere. Cheers, --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutting down article
I have removed all the content that is not directly sourced to Anzald'ua as it is in fact incorrect and unsourced at the same time. I will provide sources for the non-existence of the word coatlaxopeuh within a few days, but I cannot let this false information stand uncorrected.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems relevant
"It is probable that the Guadalupan indigenista paradigm was inspired largely by various Mexican writers posing the possibility of an  original name for the image in NBhuatl, which was then transliterated  by the Spaniards to "Guadalupe." This idea dates back all the way to 1666 and Luis Becerra Tanco, a priest fluent in Nahuatl and Otomi (Gutierrez 1981:12), who suggested that the Virgin might not have enunciated the name "Guadalupe" to Juan Diego's uncle in her final apparition (as the early documents state). Becerra speculated that this was because Nahuas could not pronounce that name properly (for example, the Nahuatl language lacked a /g/ and a Id/), and because a native name would make more symbolic sense to the Nahua (Becerra 1979:9). He proposed the name "Tequantlanopeuh": "She who originated from the summit of the rocks" (1979:9). But since most Guadalupanos took the historical tradition literally, his notion was rarely, if ever, defended. In the 1890s, however, Mariano Jacobo Rojas of Tepoztlan, Morelos, took up again the idea that Our Lady had asked that her image be venerated under a NAhuatl title. Rojas proposed the term "Coatlaxopeuh," which he interpreted as meaning "The one [feminine] who crushed the serpent's head" (DAvila 1936:14). His student, the distinguished classical Nahuatl scholar Ignacio Davila Garibi, wrote an extensive defense and exegesis of this name. "Coatlaxopeuh" has been the most widely accepted Nahuatl alternative name for the image in the devotional literature, and there are many more that have been proposed. An indigenista term advanced by Mario Rojas Sanchez is "Tlecuauhtlapcupeuh," which means, "She who emerges from the region of light like the Eagle from fire" (Rojas 1978:44-45). He provides a detailed exegesis of this name component by component, based on his  reading of Nahua worldview and his great familiarity with modern Nahuatl." (Indigenista Hermeneutics and the Historical Meaning of Our Lady of Guadalupe of Mexico Miguel Leatham University of New Mexico)
 * WHY ON EARTH IS THIS *REALLY* INTERESTING MATERIAL BURIED IN THE "TALK" PAGE? The article is now so stripped down and minimalist that it was reduced to the trival... but meanwhile, in this Talk section, we learn that this name issue goes back to THE 17TH CENTURY (!!) and revisited in the 19th Century... it should be needless to say people, but THIS IS HISTORY, and history is a legitimate basis for including topics in Wikipedia.  It is *wrong* to dismiss that history with an "impression" that the word is "incorrect" and "contrived" therefore the content of the article should be reduced to near-nothingness.  If a contemporary writer with a political agenda contrived this a couple years ago, then perhaps it might be justified, but that's not the case.  This puported manipulation of Nahuatl occurred 350 years ago (or 110 years ago) and it has been accepted over the centuries to varying degrees, thus it ceases being an issue of being "false" and is a legitimage issue of history.  Why should we all be subject to Maunus' authority disputing that the words really sound like 'Guadalupe' while dismissing former President Zedillo's statments to the contrary ("The similarities in sound and attributes between Guadalupe and Coatlicue have been pointed out repeatedly; and the Spanish Bishop may quite naturally have given her a more familiar name"... see webpage referenced above)?  And what is the basis for this "impression"?... an academic exercise in lingusitics about how 350 year old words (or 110 year old words) may have been compounded in what was was an essentially spoken language by illiterate people (excepting the efforts by conquerors to codify it in a foreign script so that missionaries could spread the language for political purposes)... so we have to accept this justification while ignoring the President of Mexico?  There is no good justification for the wholesale removal of that material, and the justification given IN ITSELF is interesting and significant enough to include in the article!


 * I CHALLENGE MAUNUS AND CJLL WRIGHT TO ENCAPSULATE THE DISCUSSION IN THESE TALK PAGES INTO A PARAGRAPH AND THEN POST THAT IN THE MAIN ARTICLE.


 * (BTW, when Maunus' rewrites the sentence "Coatlaxopeuh is a word proposed by Mariano Rojas as a possible Nahuatl origin of the word Guadelupe" he commits the same error he complained about incomplete citations... namely, introducing Mariano Rojas without citation.) Lapabc (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was I who found the Leatham source and included it here, with the purpose of integrating it into the article at some later date, which I then forgot, but have now done. I should note that generally if there is something you would like me to do, I respond better to polite requests than to aggressive challenges.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FIRST, my apologies if you thought it was aggressive, it was clear that you had the source material and my comments pointed out how valuable your source material was... the reason for stating it as a challenge was because you had not edited or corrected the material you found fault with, you simply deleted it... the use of caps was to see the main point over the noise, I personally find it easy to lose my place in a thread without visual aids. SECOND, your additions are excellent, as I anticipated they would be... thank you. Lapabc (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)