Talk:Teotlalpan/Archive 1

untitled 2017
Para empezar, una gran parte de esta información si no fuera gracias a la existente en inglés lo cual yo edité, por lo tanto no ha encontrado el hilo negro de nada debido a sus comentarios anteriores aunque hay un antecedente de un artículo de su taller, pero apenas estaba buscando la información, más no significa que ya la tenía o que haya sido experto como trata de exponerse, ya que esto puede crear ambigüedades, su desarrollo se dio después de inglés porque mucha fuentes no les tenía él (que me muestre una foto o el texto en red de la revista de dimensión antropológica NO. 33 donde Vladimira Palma redacta lo siguiente: ''Así, en 1569, el cura de Hueypoxtla, Hieronimo de Villanueva, describe que, ahí no se encontraban congregados cerca de la iglesia ya que todos los habitantes estaban derramados (DA, 1895: 88.). En 1592, el virrey don Luis de Velasco (el joven) mandó a las poblaciones de Tequixquiac, Hueypoxtla, Tezcatepec, Tolcayuca, Acayuca, Guaquilpa, Zapotlán y Pachuca, debido a lo apartado que estaban sus sujetos (AGN, exp. 231, f. 58v-59). En un documento de 1591, el encomendero de Tetlapanoloya, Melchor de Chávez, se queja de que Gonzalo Hernández, encomendero del pueblo de Tepeapulco...'' ¿Qué página es este texto? ya que el señor cita esta fuente como su investigación, cuando yo en este momento lo tengo en mano y puedo fotografiar o colocar los textos para comprobar veracidad.

Un dato curioso es que da afirmaciones sobre la arqueóloga y doctora Vladimira Palma (catedrática que ha escritos numerosos textos sobre Teotlalpan), negando el sentido que le haya dado la doctora y dando opinión personal hacia los trabajos de esta persona, pues esto no es un ensayo para que él nos que dé afirmaciones de negación de trabajos con los que él no está de acuerdo; si en verdad fuera un doctor como tanto nos presume, habría sido muy cuidadoso al emitir sus conceptualizaciones personales en el artículo Teotlalpan en castellano, es el mismo error que cometí, pero ahora es al revés; además cita libros que mucha gente aquí no puede leer o tener acceso para ver la verdad del mismo, algo que se malinterpreta a una cierta manipulación.

No quiero desacreditar sus aportaciones y mapas conceptuales como poner el mapa de mi región en el norte y afirmar que esa era la verdad de que mi región no era de interés para los mexicas. De entrada aquí donde vivo no hay comunidades pames, solo hay comunidades ñhähñu u otomí, como la de San Ildefonso en Tepeji de Río y algunos en Jilotepec, en Ajoloapan y comunidades más numerosas hacia Ixmiquilpan; esta comunidades no fueron sometidas con fácilidad como él lo afirma, los cronistas de distintos pueblos otomíes y de la región hablan de numerosos conflictos con los aztecas por el sometimiento al pago de tributos, pero en los documentos se dice que no estaban agrupados, su dispersión era grande, no hay certeza de quienes eran los habitantes de los altepeme que fundaron los mexicas, pero se piensa por los reportes de las sumas de visita de los frailes españoles emitidos al Azobispado de México, había gente de habla náhuatl y gente de habla otomí. Yo si estoy interesado en sus fuentes citadas para trabajos de investigación de nuestros cronistas, porque hasta este momento no tenemos documentos donde se muestre que esto era el Mictlan (en los documentos dice; llamaban algunas veces mictlampa, una relación al norte, al mundo de los muertos, pero no afirman que era el mictlan, solo lo relacionaban según esos documentos), como allí lo está afirmando en el artículo con una imágen inicial, creo que es un buen pretexto para ir al Palacio de Lecumberri a buscar sus fuentes; ya que el señor está dando muchas afirmaciones en duda, no digo que sean falsas, pero se muestra como fuente primaria y sus libros citados no se encuentran al alcance; y en realidad si me interesan leerlos; no aquí en Wikipedia, en fuerte original.

Y no estoy enojado, estoy muy contento porque se está involucrando en mis temas de mi interés, aunque sea de forma obligada, pero Akapochtli está haciendo un buen trabajo, lo cual no es un beneficio personal, es un beneficio a la ciencia y al gente de nuestras comunidades, quienes tenemos que agradecer que haya (ayiga, como se dice en mi pueblo) gente escriba y comente sobre nuestro lugar de origen; pero los aquí vivimos también sabemos muchas cosas y también contamos con numerosos documentos sobre nuestra región, documentos eclesiales, cartas topográficas, algunas bibliografías que hacen referencia a nuestros intereses, y desde luego que voy consultar sus fuentes o intentar encontrarlas; ya que cuento con gran número de fuentes como las que cita, las cuales salieron de Teotlalpan; ya que al menos a mí no me podrá engañar y desde luego a muchos otros incansables investigadores sobre nuestra región; ya leí su artículo y le falta ser más neutral y mejorar su calidad de redacción, porque parece que me está contanto una historia a su manera, de lo que yo ya sé, le hace falta no dar afirmaciones personales sobre Vladimira Palma, además me da la apariencia que Akapochtli tiene un cierto rechazo hacia le pueblo otomí, tratandolo en la lectura como pueblo vencido o gente sosa cuando en estudios más recientes estamos leyendo y conociendo a un pueblo que no le fue tan fácil ser sometido por los mexicas; y eso no significa que esté en contra de los mexicanos o mexicas, siemplemente aquí en la vieja Teotlalpan, las cosas fueron muy distintas.

Desde luego que no somos capitalinos o chilangos, tenemos nuestra propia habla, nuestra propia historia y nuestra propia forma de vida a pesar de que estamos en el actual estado de México y vivimos muy cerca de la Ciudad de México, nuestros pueblos están estrechamente ligados a los pueblos de estado de Hidalgo (sobre todo a los Valle del Mezquital, o Tizayuca, Pachuca, Tolcayuca, etc.) y la influencia del idioma otomí sigue siendo fuerte en nuestras poblaciones. Pondré esto en inglés para que también se le de seguimiento.--Marrovi (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * De la misma forma, con escusa de mi expulsión en castellano como el ya famoso lenguas nahuanas, fue eliminado el texto porque estas personas no toleran correcciones y verdades y que creyéndose soportado por una porra política , llevó esto a un baneo general para buscar desquite de lo que lo hace pegar rabietas; así que Wikipedia inglés es una buena plataforma para hacer artículos neutrales y que no tengan apoyos políticos de personas que hacen mensajes incendiarios de forma proselitista en apoyo a Akapochtli o políticas excluyentes (por cierto hechas de forma muy sucia; ver antecedentes de baneo ) de este usuario que se siente agredido y que pidió mi expulsión en castellano, haciendo toda una maraña en base a Wikipedia alemán y conflictos con usuarios de habla castellana, los cuales apoyan porque lo que se vé tampoco están acostumbrados a ser corregidos y usaron la legislación castellana con cierta conveniencia para hacer un verdadero marranero al planear la expulsión por otros medios, donde no se vieran comprometidos al emitir un comentario de forma pública dentro de Wikipedia; sin duda este caso es el resultado de la envidia, el coraje y la intolerancia para la historia de la Wikipedia.--Marrovi (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * La forma de trabajar de esta persona siempre es decir que se viola todo, que la persona está cometiendo faltas, y desde luego trata de actuar para ganar audiencia, después se comunica con las personas y les pide apoyo para detener tales violaciones y castigar enérgicamente todo error cometido; por eso no es extrañar que use textos para incendiar y manifestar que se cometen violaciones para realizar un plan de ataque, sin duda es lamentable que este usuario le guste las disputas solo porque no está de acuerdo, realice el descrédito a manera de intolerancia y se aferre a que solo él conoce y nadie más, poné múltples citas, de las cuales no podemos leer los textos, y con eso realiza sus comentarios de único conocedor para desacreditar los textos que otros autores hayan realizado temas relacionado a lo discutido, y así, argumentar que solo sus notas son las únicas como si no valiera el trabajo de los demás ¿Una persona sabia y docta actua de esta forma intolerante? es que realmente la gente docta que yo conozco no actua de esta forma, al menos quienes verdaderamente hacen ciencia no trabajan de esta manera.--Marrovi (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Control-Patrol
Hi Iryna! I would like to ask you to patrol this page, Teotlalpan, it lacked clarity and contained information without verification. This page was deleted in Spanish, now he wants to write the same personal ideas here in English. Maybe this original author is going to commit to putting his version, I do not want to debate with him, that's why I ask you for help, you have experience as a wiki-user and you will know what to do. (I also asked for help from Ymblanter) Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I've added the article to my watchlist, but it may take me a couple of days to get around to checking through the content carefully. Thanks for the heads up, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, we keeping in touch. --Akapochtli (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Iryna, I make changes in this article, I'm the first autor, Do not delete the information in form arbitrary, it's necessary to complement and format with new information, is not correct to erase, that is why I put notes and I have got with the books in case to required references. Knowing all the case, this lends itself to manipulation and beginning of a new war. Thank you very much for patrolling, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I edited this article by first time, English version was the first, comparing with Spanish Wikipedia version, I live in this area and I have got books about this theme, I'm very happy by Akapochtli's editions, but I'm afraid this will serve another dirty war.--Marrovi (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't want any war. Here we don't let you your personal interpretations, the page is alright, let it thus. --Akapochtli (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Iryda, I can notes and references inside the discution page or talking in Teotlalpan and Talk:Teotlalpan, we make science no personal interpretations, if you want, you can to look the analysis the all references and bibliography about Teotlalpan area. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether you were the author of the article or not. Please read WP:OWN. As observed by, it's also irrelevant whether you live in the area: your observations, and what you believe you know are WP:POV. Finally, let's keep content discussions on the talk page of the article where they belong (for the sake of transparency and for the edification of other potential editors). I'm not going touch the article until I've had the time to read through it carefully, check the sources, and look for further reliable sources. For the time being, I've checked Google scholar which doesn't actually yield much to substantiate the article you've written. I'm not a Spanish speaker, so I'll be pinging a few trusted fellow Wikipedians (who are) to see what they make of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm watching the article and reviewing the references, see you.--Marrovi (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Iryna! I have allowed him a period of one week to present his version. From Thursday or Friday, with arguments I will reverse all his issues. So far he has not contributed anything remarkable. I'll be waiting for your comments. Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I put vigilance in this article and i'm reading references put in by Akapochtli, here we work with community working, not politics, I 'm working in my university, I have got many work with my students. I looking books and pages about Teotlalpan and I take pictures and notes in this case by the vandalismus and teasing, thank you Iryna.--Marrovi (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We need references, texts, bibliography when we can read his notes; no periods, it's a trap for to seek political helping; He don't delete information about this theme, to delete by arbitrary or personal reasons is vandalismus, all is asked and referenced in talk portal, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Akapochtli's massage (Your editions are breaking the policies WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:3RR).--Marrovi (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Textos que son editados en su propio estilo, lo cual es llamado mensaje incendiario. Texts that are edited in their own style, which is called incendiary message edit warring.--Marrovi (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hate or revenge whith this text?
 * Has he learned to make complaints using Wikipedias?

The user does not accept corrections or opinions that contradict his "ideal image" of the topic. He has tried every WP: OWN angle to keep it out because he considers himself the only one able of understanding the subject because he was born there and only those who live there can do it WP: COI. I found a poor page with no good references or useful bibliography, I corrected all the text and gave it a wiki style.

The page created by this author was deleted in Spanish by a query deleting (AfD) where it was verified the incapacity of this author to understand the subject, for his stubbornness in other subjects was indefinitely blocked in es.wiki and nah.wiki, on He even asked for a global ban. Here he has been asked to work with propriety, he has not listened, by long idle speech he tries gaming system, finally he puts his editorializing on the article. His consecutive editions (168!) To improve the text are idle editions, he removes and puts words, he adds the date and then removes it, puts it elsewhere and thus endlessly, can last for years doing this and not finishing the page. The text that I put is definitive, I make the wording more neutral and it does not need many changes.

The information that tries to impose the user in part already appears on the page, so it is unnecessary, the user just wants to appear his words. The other information without reliable sources is irrelevant because it is part of his personal vision NPOV hat does not contribute to understand the subject. The result of his stubbornness is the current page whose information is ambiguous and inconsistent. From the user's history I'm requesting to ban topic for this user. --Akapochtli (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

El usuario no acepta correcciones u opiniones que contradigan su "imagen ideal" del tema. Él ha intentado cada WP: PROPIO ángulo para mantenerlo fuera porque se considera el único capaz de entender el tema porque él nació allí y sólo los que viven allí pueden hacerlo WP: COI. Encontré una página pobre sin buenas referencias o bibliografía útil, corregí todo el texto y le di un estilo de wiki.

La página creada por este autor fue borrada en español por una consulta de supresión (AfD) donde se verificó la incapacidad de este autor para entender el tema, por su terquedad en otros temas fue indefinidamente bloqueado en es.wiki y nah.wiki, on Incluso pidió una prohibición global. Aquí se le ha pedido que trabaje con propiedad, no ha escuchado, por largo tiempo de ociosidad trata de sistema de juego, finalmente pone su editorial en el artículo. Sus ediciones consecutivas (168!) Para mejorar el texto son ediciones ociosas, elimina y pone palabras, añade la fecha y luego la elimina, la pone en otro lugar y así sin fin, puede durar años haciendo esto y no acabar la página. El texto que pongo es definitivo, hago la redacción más neutral y no necesita muchos cambios.

La información que trata de imponer al usuario en parte ya aparece en la página, por lo que es innecesario, el usuario sólo quiere aparecer sus palabras. La otra información sin fuentes confiables es irrelevante porque es parte de su visión personal NPOV que no contribuye a entender el tema. El resultado de su terquedad es la página actual cuya información es ambigua e inconsistente. Desde el historial del usuario estoy solicitando la prohibición del tema para este usuario. --Akapochtli (02:29, 28 de abril de 2017)

Simply
To get started... Vladimira don't wrote in Dimensión Antropológica 33; right here the Index... and the rest bla bla bla. --Akapochtli (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Eso lo sé, es una revista científica del INAH, pero me refiero a esta bibliografía. ''Huipochtla, Tequixquiac, Xilotzingo y Tetlapanaloya cuatro altepeme de la Teotlalpan bajo el dominio Tenochca. Mexico City: Expresión Antropológica'', quiero ver el contendo en red, yo puedo fotografiar los textos para poder citar.--Marrovi (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

References and notes
In this case, we need endorsed references and documented with notes, texts and pages, because put in only bibliography on the article can be interpreted as manipulation derived from a dirty war in Meta.--Marrovi (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The changes of 04/15/2017 contain bad information bad references, much is opposed to what has already been said, unnecessary sections as the information already appeared in the text, the edition thus duplicates information. One tries to impose a rough vision. Undo. --Akapochtli (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To start the article


The firt reference : Nava L.; E. Fernando; Otopames: Memoria del primer coloquio Querétaro, 1995. pages. 183-184, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, 2004. ISBN 970-32-0639-5

Fue en ese momento cuando los otomíes ocuparon la región de la Teotlalpan (que abarca una porsión del Valle del Mezquital), que anteriormente era la tierra chichimeca.

It was at that time when the Otomies occupied the region of Teotlalpan (which encompasses a portion of the Mezquital Valley), formerly the Chichimec land.

It is interesting, Fernando's book describe to Teotlalpan as soon as region.

This reference says a region:

Fue en ese momento cuando los otomíes ocuparon la región de la teotlalpan.

Name
Teotlalli is translated as valley or desert by Alonso de Molina and Rémi Simeón . Both references are written with excellent translation about teotlalli as dry place or valley.--Marrovi (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

More information about the name and other interpretations.
 * Biblioteca Digital del estado de Hidalgo

Teotlalpan, CEHINHAC, Cuatro siglos de Historiografía Hidalguense, No.1, Enero-Abril 1973. Page 33.

Nada tiene de extraño que a este territorio se le llamara desde entonces, porque el antiguo señorio teotihuacano dominiaba la region. La palabra teo de Teotl, a parte de la aceptación dios, también puede indicar antiguo. De manera que Teotihuacan (lugar de los dioses) también puede traducirse como lugar de los antiguos, de las gentes antiguas, al referirse a los teotihuacanos de suerte que al decir Teotlalpan, también puede traducirse como el lugar de los viejos pobladores, de los pobladores anteriores.

It is no extraordinary that this territory is called since then, because the old Teotihuacan lordship dominated the region. The word teo from Teotl, a part of God's acceptance, may also indicate ancient. So that Teotihuacan (place of the gods) can also be translated as the place of the ancients, of the old people, when referring to the Teotihuacans so that in saying Teotlalpan, also can be translated like the place of the old settlers, of the previous settlers.

This writer says; the Aztec word teotl, it is a semantic interpretation about old humans or the first humans, no relation with Gods.--Marrovi (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Other reference; in Hueypoxtla Monography (Ramos Duarte,Sonia, Monografía Municipal, Instiuto Mexiquense de Cultura, PAGE 76, 1995. ISBN 968-484-442-5) says : a town of Teotlalpan, no town, is a big territory or an old region. The toponym in Spanish says Lugar de la creación (Land of the Creation).

Is necessary to add more interpretations about traslation from Teotlalpan.--Marrovi (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New Text: Other interpretations is Land of old people, this translation is referenced to people of Teotihuacan.

Ambiguous terms


There are two clarifications about how to express "valley" and "north" in Nahuatl. The first is because teotlalli also appears with that meaning and some people so emphasize this, that's wrong.

The concept of "valley" can be expressed by three words with peculiar differences.
 * Ixtlahuatl.(Molina, 2004: fol. 48v.) It refers to open, fertile valleys, where the best conditions for human life are given.
 * Tepetzallan.(Molina, 2004: fol. 116r.) It usually refers to small valleys between mountains that limit urban sprawl.
 * Teotlalli.(>Molina, 2004: fol. 101r.) As we saw the term refers to a wide region (conceived as flat, hence it is used as a synonym for word “valley”) where living conditions are not favorable and only survive rustic and wild forms.

So it is preferable (and hence is used by current ethnic groups) use ixtlahuatl for valley and reserve Teotlalli for plain.

Severally about Teotlalpan as north, also they were used the terms Mictlampa, Hueitlalpan, Chichimecapan and Tlacochcalco.(name="López Austin)

His concept of a "square" world(López Austin, 1993:169) derived from motion solar whose circular center was the Valley of Mexico (see map on left).(González Torres: 1992:48-49; meaning of “cosmovision”) This turned north as cold region because in mesoamerican latitudes the sun, heat generator, spends most of the time in the south. This coldness associated with death is what turns north in the "Underworld" or "Region of the Dead" (Mictlan, from micqui that meaning "dead" with the termination -tlan).

At the time of Mexica peak, ahead of the Great Lakes in the barren north was inhabited by various ethnic groups (Otomis, Guachichiles, Pames) who received the generic name "Chichimeca" also emphasized sometimes as "Teochichimecas", with the consequence that north also named as Chichimecapan, "in the land of the Chichimecas." (Braniff, 2001:44, within her understanding she talks about this region simply as “chichimecatlalli”.)

Teotlapan in New Spain
This area was mentioned the first years from Viceroy of New Spain, until XVII century; next years was named Mezquital.

Dimención Antropológica, Lopez Aguilar; Fernando.

Para 1791, el padrón levantado en la jurisdicción de Ixmiquilpan, lo cual denota que hacia finales del siglo XVIII, ya se hacía un uso generalizado del término y que se dejó de lado el de Teotlalpan, frecuente hasta finales del siglo XVI y la mitad del siglo XVII.

By 1791, the register raised in the jurisdiction of Ixmiquilpan, which denotes that towards the end of the eighteenth century, was already a widespread use of the term and left the side of Teotlalpan, frequent until the late sixteenth century and half of XVII century.

This picture is a text from book ''Estado de México, texto de su historia, Marta Baranda and Lía Garcia, by Instituto Mora, Gobierno del estado de México, 1987. ISBN 968-841-150-7. This page is 33.

In English: The territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain is divided into 23 mayor provinces of the five that are formed in the Kingdom of Mexico and in the minor provinces of Acapulco, Coyuca, Chalco, Matalcingo, Mexico (the city and the district), Metztitlan Independent pre-cortisian province), Pánuco, Suchimilco, Teotlalpan, Tezcuco, Tlahuic and Zultepec.

Other reference about New Spain. --Marrovi (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

''En el capítulo que celebraron los agustinos en Ocuituco en 1536 decidieron iniciar el avance hacia el norte de la ciudad de México, buscando evangelizar a los indígenas otomíes de lugares ahora hidalguenses como la Sierra Alta, la Teotlalpan y el Valle del Mezquital, lugares a donde hasta entonces “no había entrado la luz del evangelio”. Este avance permitió además conectar a la región del Pánuco con el centro de México por medio de una cadena de pueblos con indígenas cristianizados. Por tratarse de una zona rica en recursos naturales, los frailes obtuvieron el apoyo de las autoridades virreinales...''

In the chapter celebrated by the Augustinians in Ocuituco in 1536 they decided to begin the march northward from Mexico City, seeking to evangelize the Otomi Indians from places now in Hidalgo's like the Sierra Alta, Teotlalpan and Mezquital Valley, places where Until then "had not entered the light of the gospel". This advance also allowed to connect the region of the Pánuco with the center of Mexico through a chain of towns with Christianized Indians. Because it is an area rich in natural resources, the friars obtained the support of the viceregal authorities ...

Other reference in Tequixquiac Monography. What is a manipulation about Teotlalpan don't was known in New Spain?. --Marrovi (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)



En 1519, Teotlalpan, región que comprendía, Hueypoxtla, Apaxco, Tequixquiac y otras comunidades,contaba con más de 400 mil habitantes, aunque su población disminuyó considerablemente a 76 mil en 1570.

In 1519, Teotlalpan, a region that comprised Hueypoxtla, Apaxco, Tequixquiac and other communities, had more than 400 thousand inhabitants, although its population declined considerably to 76 thousand in 1570.

Vladimira Palma Linares
Vladimira Palma (2010) insists on using the term without delving into its basis and development, being actually only a geographical framework for describing the archaeological development in the area of Teotihuacan, Toltec and Xajay cultures unrelated to the term Teotlalpan. When and where?.



Text very, very interesting.

Los señores de esta regions eran otomíes que en ocaciones, como en el caso Tlapanaloya, eran remplazados por recaudadores o señores nahuas debido a la forma en que se dio la conquista de estas poblaciones. Posteriormente, durante la colonia, estos calpixques y señores nahuas fueron reconocidos por los españoles como señores naturales de estas poblaciones.

Para el caso de Huexpoxtla y Xilotzingo los documentos coinciden en que tenían un señor própio, y como no se ha encontrado referencia a que éste fuera mexicano, por lo cual podríamos suponer que fueron lugares con un señor otomí. El caso de Tequixquiac es más dudoso, pues en algunos documentos no se hace referencia a la filiación lingüística de los señores, sino que sólo se señala que estaban mezclados otomíes y mexicanos y que los últimos eran minoría; sin embargo, aún no podemos asentar si Tequixquiac contaba o no con un señorio propio. En este trabajo propongo que sí contaba con un señor própio y que éste posiblemente era otomí.

De esta forma, puedo señalar que Tequixquiac, Tetlapanaloya, Hueypoxtla y Xilotzingo, eran cuatro altepeme rurales de jerarquía menor dentro de la organización del imperio, y que estaban sujetos al tlatoani (de jerarquía mayor) de Apaxco.

En resumen, cada altepetl y sus tlaxilacaltin, tanto internos como externos, se encontraban en asentamientos disperses, posiblemente para poder adaptarse a las caracteristícas geográficas de la Teotlalpan, como una forma de optimizar la tierra y los recursos. Finalmente, hay que anotar que la dispersion en el patrón de asentamiento ha sido considerado una caracteristíca de los grupos otomíes que no sólo se presenta en la Teotlalpan, sino también en los Valles de Toluca y el Valle del Mezquital, y en general en todas las regiones que en el momento de la conquista eran habitadas por otomíes.

The lords of this region were Otomies who at times, as in the Tlapanaloya case, were replaced by Nahuatl collectors or lords because of the way in which the conquest of these towns was given. Later, during the colony, these calpixques and Nahuas lords were recognized by the Spaniards like natural lords of these populations.

In the case of Huexpoxtla and Xilotzingo, the documents coincide in that they had a proper lord, and as no reference has been found to the fact that the latter was Mexican, for which we might suppose that they were places with an Otomi lord. The case of Tequixquiac is more dubious, for in some documents reference is not made to the linguistic affiliation of the lords, but only it is pointed out that Otomies and Mexicans were mixed and that the latter were a minority; However, we can not yet ascertain whether or not Tequixquiac had his own lordship. In this work I propose that it did have a proper man and that this one possibly was Otomí.

In this way, I can point out that Tequixquiac, Tetlapanaloya, Hueypoxtla and Xilotzingo, were four rural altepeme of minor hierarchy within the organization of the empire, and that were subject to the tlatoani (of major hierarchy) of Apaxco.

In short, each altepetl and its tlaxilacaltin, both internal and external, were in dispersed settlements, possibly to be able to adapt to the geographical features of Teotlalpan, as a way to optimize land and resources. Finally, it should be noted that the dispersion in the settlement pattern has been considered a characteristic of the Otomi groups that not only occurs in the Teotlalpan, but also in the Valleys of Toluca and Valle del Mezquital, and in general in all Regions that at the time of the conquest were inhabited by Otomi.

James Acuña
Vladimira Palma wrote to James Acuña, need more information about this text.--Marrovi (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jaimes Acuña, 2014:101; literal he said: ''Los investigadores han establecido que antes de 1521 el grupo otomí había sido sujeto a relaciones de subordinación por los toltecas, primero, y después por los mexicas, casi sin oponer resistencia a la dominación, con excepción del Señorío Independiente de Metztitlán (Acuña 1896a: 105). Por lo que toca a las incursiones de los ibéricos en la región, la resistencia activa, si la hubo, no debió durar mucho, pues dominaron la zona en el mismo año de 1521, por lo que históricamente existen pocos indicios que nos hagan suponer que se trataba de un grupo belicoso. En cuanto a los testimonios posteriores sobre este pueblo, no es precisamente la bravura lo que se resalta como una de sus características distintivas. En la Relación de Tequisquiac, por ejemplo, se señala que ′por la incapacidad y desconciertos desta gente miserable, siempre andan enfermos: porque naturalmente son inclinados a la borrachera y a otros excesos, y a comidas y bebidas que los acaban′.

Jaimes Acuña, 2014:101; literal he said: Researchers have established that prior to 1521 the Otomi group had been subjected to subordination by the Toltecs first and then by the Mexicas, with almost no resistance to domination except for the Independent Lordship of Metztitlan (Acuña 1896a: 105 ). As for the incursions of the Iberians in the region, active resistance, if any, should not last long, since they dominated the area in the same year of 1521, so historically there is little evidence to suggest that It was a bellicose group. As for the later testimony about this town, it is not bravery that stands out as one of its distinctive characteristics. In the Relation of Tequisquiac, for example, it is pointed out that 'by the inability and disconcerts of these miserable people, they are always ill: for they are naturally inclined to drunkenness and other excesses, and to foods and drinks that finish them.

Other references [https://www.uaeh.edu.mx/scige/boletin/ida/n5/e6.html. Universidad Autónoma del estado de Hidalgo].

Ya sea en las narraciones de tradición náhuatl o en las crónicas españolas, tanto civiles como religiosas, encontramos en forma constante una referencia despreciativa hacia los grupos otopames. Es importante para este artículo hacer énfasis en la diferencia cultural que se establece entre los chichimecas cazadores recolectores en un extremo, los otomíes sedentarios con actividades complementarias de caza y recolección en medio, y los nahuas sedentarios urbanos en el otro. Recogiendo las tradiciones nahuas, Sahagún manifestó claramente la aversión mexica hacia los otomíes: Los otomíes de su condición eran torpes, toscos e inhábiles. Riñéndoles por su torpedad, les sueles decir en oprobio: ¡Ah, qué inhábil eres; eres como otomite, que no se le alcanza lo que te dicen, [...] todo lo cual se decía por injuriar al que era inhábil y torpe, reprendiéndole de su poca capacidad y habilidad.

La mayoría de los redactores de las Relaciones geográficas comparten esta visión: “Son indios de bajos entendimientos e inclinaciones bárbaras, de cuya causa acuden mal a las cosas de la doctrina y de su república, y de ordinario se embriagan con un vino que entre ellos se usa, hecho de miel de magueyes, que, en la lengua española, se llama pulque.” Sin embargo, también se reconocen algunas de sus virtudes: eran recios y para mucho, y trabajadores en labranzas.

Whether in narrations of Nahuatl tradition or in Spanish chronicles, both civil and religious, we find a constant contemptuous reference to the groups otopames. It is important for this article to emphasize the cultural difference that is established between Chichimecas hunter-gatherers at one extreme, sedentary Otomies with complementary hunting and gathering activities in between, and urban sedentary Nahuas on the other. Collecting the Nahuatl traditions, Sahagún clearly manifested Mexica's aversion to the Otomi:

The Otomies of their condition were clumsy, clumsy and inhabile. Restraining them for their torpedad, you often say in disgrace: Ah, how unkind you are; You are like Otomite, that you do not get what you are told, [...] all of which was said to revile the unskilled and awkward, rebuking him for his lack of ability and ability.

Most of the editors of the Geographical Relations share this view: "They are Indians of low understandings and barbarous inclinations, whose cause goes badly to the things of doctrine and of their republic, and is usually intoxicated with a wine which among them Is used, made from honey of century plants, which in the Spanish language is called pulque. "However, some of its virtues are also recognized:" ... they were hard and for a lot, and workers in tills. "


 * More information about Otomis.

[https://www.uaeh.edu.mx/investigacion/productos/5114/libro_pinturas_ixmiquilpan.pdf Las pinturas del templo de Ixmiquilpan ¿Evangelización, revidicación indígena o propaganda de guerra? Universidad Autónoma de Hidalgo.]



In the Relation of Tequisquiac, for example, it is pointed out that 'by the inability and disconcerts of these miserable people, they are always ill: for they are naturally inclined to drunkenness and other excesses, and to foods and drinks that finish them. People of Tequisquiac, always ill or drunkness?. Other authors are diferent opinion.

Por el año de 1415, Chimalpopoca sometió al pueblo de Tequixquiac tras una sangrienta lucha, quedando sujeto al imperio azteca. Tequixquiac fue un pueblo revelde a la autoridad azteca, sin embargo compartía los mismos enemigos, tales como: los tlaxcaltecas, los texcocanos, y los de Otumba...

By the year 1415, Chimalpopoca subjected the town of Tequixquiac after a bloody struggle, being subject to the Aztec empire. Tequixquiac people was a revelation to the Aztec authority, nevertheless it shared the same enemies, such as: the Tlaxcalans, the Texcocans, and those of Otumba ...


 * Who were the people of Tequixquiac? Subdued warriors or ill drunks? Was that text made mocking or really encyclopedic?.--Marrovi (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Once and for all
I would not to discuss this topic for two reasons; I had already done it elsewhere and it does not make sense to repeat the same thing over and over, and second, because I had already said that I do not want to argue with this user because it does not make sense for me to talk to someone who doesn’t understand reasons or accepts that I correct him. For record, right here also I’m going to put the misinterpretation of the data of the original author of the text.

The creation of the text. This has an antecedent in es.wiki, which turned out to be a hoax with personal interpretations without many references, many copy-paste of other articles. After a consultation it was agreed to delete it. You can see the final version of that attempt in Borradopedia, which is half the size of what the user wrote and so intended to defend it, he is the same user from here.

Here the article was created following the expulsion of the user on es.wiki. The first edition (06/04/2016) is a complete hoax, with wrong information that he puts on purpose. After a month already had a preliminary version (06/22/2016), you can appreciate its lack of clear references, as in the bibliography only mentions two books, which none use in the text. The user has been criticized for his unethical way of working on topics, with idle editions (100 or 200 to improve a paragraph), here I put the results of his links to better understand how he gets references.


 * The expulsion was a well-planned plan by him, Akapochtli, his courage led him to request the user Bernard my expulsion for an evading blocking of data incorrretos in the section of Lenguas nahuanas, a term that only he uses and That the Spanish term of Nahuatl and Nahuatlan languages does not exist as such, he knows perfectly well that this expulsion was a dirty job among several users involved, in which they incurred in a number of pitfalls to execute the blocking.--Marrovi (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)



Therefore we see that in reality he doesn’t read the books enough to understand the approach of the authors, in fact he is not even able to put the correct information of those works that "typing on google". Examples:


 * (First note) = Otopames, memoria del primer coloquio, Querétaro, 1995. Pag. 184. He said that was wrote by Fernando Nava, this is wrong. He even comments: “It is interesting, Fernando's book describe to Teotlalpan as soon as region.”

The right information is: Lorenzo Monterrubio, Carmen. “Las pinturas rupestres del Estado de Hidalgo. Una comparación”, in E. Fernando Nava L. (Compilador) ''Otopame. Memoria del primer Coloquio. Querétaro 1995''. UNAM-IIA, México 2004, pp. 181-185. ISBN 970-32-0639-5

So, we can see that really the article not is focus in Teotlalpan.


 * (Thus written in the bibliography) CEHINHAC (1978). Teotlalpan. Pachuca: CEHINHAC. /vs/ (Thus written here) Teotlalpan, CEHINHAC, Cuatro siglos de Historiografía Hidalguense, No.1, Enero-Abril 1973. Page 33.

Who is author? What it’s, a book, a journal?

The right information about this journal is: Ortega Rivera, Julio. “Pachuca, su historia y arqueología”, in Teotlalpan, No.1, Enero-Abril. Revista del Centro Hidalguense de Investigaciones Históricas A.C. (CEHINHAC) Pachuca, Hgo. México 1973, pp. 25-46

Actually, this journal only published two numbers. What said Ortega is a simply comment. Only until the time of the Mexicas was it called Teotihuacan, its true name is not known, perhaps or not the Toltecs knew it (900 a. D.); no longer during collapse of Tula (1200 a. D.), a lot less during rise of Tenochtitlan (1325 a. D.), and the alleged claim of this user who claims that the "Tepanecas" called this region (1395), Teotihuacan had nothing to do with Teotlalpan, Teotlalpan cannot be derived from Teotihuacan, it is simple coincidence and it is a misunderstanding.


 * (15th note) Estilo y Escritura de la historia tolteca chichimeca. Rosell, Cecilia. El origen, los nahuas chichimecas. Saberes y Razones, 2006.

The article is about Nahua pictographic writing and nahuas from Puebla, nowhere does it say that the Teotlalpan was administrated by Acolhuacan (hoax). Correct data about journal: Rosell, Cecilia. “Estilo y escritura en la Historia tolteca chichimeca”, in Desacatos, núm. 22, septiembre-diciembre. CIESAS, México 2006, pp. 65-92. The journal not is “Saberes y Razones”, this is a section name.


 * (fifth note and here with his picture) Sánchez Garcia, Alfonso; La provincial/intendencia de México.

Completely decontextualized, it is a fragment of a book in another book, it is not really known where the information comes from, not even to what year it refers. The territorial division is clearly explained in this text, where all the Corregimientos that were called Intendencias appear (where doesn’t appear Teotlalpan as a province).

Ending his version. In August 2016 ended his first stage leaving the article unchanged for a while, until December began a review that showed his intentions and where he wanted to take the text. This second stage ended in January 2017 (Only five differences notes. Only three books up references, none of them used), here he shows his greatest effort and a text that we can consider as "definitive" of his vision. On that poorly developed version focused on repeating the bad arguments, it was on that text that I reorganized, referenced and gave the article neutrality.

You can compare both versions and see the quality of each one, in addition it can be compared as there is no single source or accurate view because it places different bibliography in the different languages in which it was created. His editions in April were the result of the creation of the text in Spanish, with which he showed a clear dislike.

Another proof of his inability to understand the subject is the changes he makes to the data, which if he were really knowledgeable would have them very clear. Despite having reviewed it more than a year ago, he still does not decide the extent of the region he is intended to describe; in the section "Geography" we see a series of changes that it is difficult to know if already decided by something or not.

06/17/2016

06/21/2016

06/22/2016

07/07/2016… and etc. The last version that he placed does not agree with his map.

And his "conceptual maps": --Akapochtli (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the second map, the firts is only Mexico State.--Marrovi (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Geography
Next texts about geography Teotlalpan.--Marrovi (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Towns from Teotlalpan.
 * Tezcatepec
 * Tlacuitlapilco
 * Apazco
 * Zitlaltepec
 * Xilotzinco
 * Tequixquiac
 * Huehuetoca
 * Coyotepec
 * Tetlapanaloya
 * Hueypoxtla
 * Tetzontlalpan
 * Cuitzocuitlapillan (Santa María Cuevas)
 * Xomeyucan
 * Axoloapan
 * Tlaxcoapan
 * Atitalaquian
 * Axacopan
 * Tomatlan
 * Tornacuxtla
 * Pachuca
 * Tlaxiaca
 * Atocpan
 * Tepatepec
 * Mixquiahuala
 * tlahuelilpan
 * Tula
 * Michimaloya
 * Xochitlan
 * Atotonilco
 * Tepexi del Río
 * Ixmiquilpan
 * Chapantongo
 * Huichapan
 * Jilotepec
 * Nopala

We need texts about this references.

 * Braniff Cornejo, Beatriz. (2001) "La Gran Chichimeca", in Arqueología mexicana núm. 51 El norte de México, Editorial Raíces, México.
 * Descripción del Arzobispado de México hecha en 1570 y otros documentos. (1897) Notas y comentarios de Luis García Pimentel. Imprenta de J. J. Terrazas e hijas imps. México.
 * Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas; (1979) in Ángel María Garibay, Teogonía e historia de los mexicanos, Ed. Porrúa, México.
 * Jaimes Acuña, Hildebrando. “El imaginario jurídico en los litigios por tierras durante el Siglo XVIII: Los naturales de San Francisco Tlahuelilpan contra los Condes de la Cortina, 1713-1785”, en Estudios de Cultura Otopame, Vol. 9, UNAM-IIA, México, 2014. pp. 85-106
 * Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda (2006) Los otomíes: su lengua y su historia. UNAM, México.
 * López Aguilar, Fernando y Guillermo Bali Chavéz. (2002) "La distribución de los asentamientos del Valle del Mezquital como un modelo de desarrollo social", in Estudios de Cultura Otopame, Vol. 3, UNAM-IIA, México. pp. 17-36
 * López Aguilar, Fernando y Sabrina Farías Pelayo. (2014) “La cultura xajay: la historia de su descubrimiento,”  in Temas de la antropología mexicana, vol. II, coordinadores José Luis Vera Cortés, Fernando López Aguilar, Marina Anguiano Fernández, Xabier Lizárraga Cruchaga. Academia mexicana de ciencias antropológicas A.C. México. pp. 351-376
 * López Austin, Alfredo. (1993) “El cosmos según los mexicas", in Linda Manzanilla y Leonardo López Luján (Coordinadores) Atlas Histórico de Mesoamérica Ed. Larousse, México. pp. 168-171
 * López Austin, Alfredo y Leonardo López Luján. (1999) El pasado indígena. Colegio de México-FCE. ISBN 968-16-4890-0
 * Solar Valverde, Laura. (2003) Dinámica Cultural del Valle del Mezquital durante el Epiclásico. Publicado en el portal de FAMSI.
 * Solar Valverde, Laura. (2003) Dinámica Cultural del Valle del Mezquital durante el Epiclásico. Publicado en el portal de FAMSI.
 * Solar Valverde, Laura. (2003) Dinámica Cultural del Valle del Mezquital durante el Epiclásico. Publicado en el portal de FAMSI.

What pages?
We need texts when we can to read. --Marrovi (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * González Torres, Yolotl. (1992) Diccionario de mitología mesoamericana. Ed. Larousse. México.
 * Soustelle, Jacques. (1983) El universo de los aztecas. FCE, México.

Don't dalete information and texts
Akapochtli i'm reading all your references and other bibliography, please don't arase information about this topic. To delete articles is an act of vandalismus.--Marrovi (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Teasing

 * Las citas literales y las fotos (de mala calidad) son para niños de secundaria; si necesita ver el contenido de los libros vaya a leerlos en bibliotecas públicas.


 * No es vandalismo borrar información repetida, mal referenciada o que está siendo malinterpretada. Es usted quien no se apega a la normatividad; se le dio una semana para que modificara y presentara una versión coherente, el texto con sus modificaciones que revisé por la mañana no mejora en nada la versión que intento restaurar y que usted no permite. --Akapochtli (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Literal quotations and photos (of poor quality) are for high school children; If you need to see the contents of the books, read them in public libraries.


 * It is not vandalism to delete information that is repeated, misrepresented or being misinterpreted. It is you who do not adhere to normativity; Was given a week to modify and present a coherent version, the text with its modifications that I reviewed in the morning does not improve anything the version that I try to restore and that you do not allow. - Akapochtli | Akapochtli ( talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Some solutions
You must stop your edit warring, the information you want to put is isolated data that mentions "Teotlalpan" but none speaks or clarifies its integration and development, which is fundamental to sustain those what you want to write. Your references are random and you are manipulating them, these books are studies focused on other subjects and only repeat without reflecting Sherburne Cook's conclusion about Teotlalpan, they all repeat that it is a region but nobody explains its development, they only insert their topic (Epazoyucan, Mural painting, extraction of lime, etc.). The important thing would be to find a source that shows a pre-Hispanic map, to say how it was governed, how integrated, what is its characteristic pottery, the genealogy of the rulers.

Your information is not complimentary. The sections "Name", "Geography" are unnecessary, the information is already in version 04/13/2017, "See also" is also unnecessary because already in the text appear the links to those pages; What you do is redound and editorialize by turning the conclusion to support your regional-nationalist vision (WP:NPOV). You suppose a greatness and a transcendence that is not reflected in reality, if it were a well-constituted Province or Region there would be a book that would speak of:


 * Its political organization: Who was their Huey Tlatoani? Where did he live? What is the list of their rulers? How was the Province divided?


 * Its Culture and Society: What is their particular dress? What were their gods and what rites did they practice? What was the typical pottery made in the region?

If the region had been constituted and transcendent, after the conquest the missionaries or historians would have written extensively about it, then there would be books and even maps that marked it. You can see all the maps created during the sixteenth century, none draws the Teotlalpan; The modern reconstructions of the political divisions of that time do not mark it, as a living example and very relevant, the map drawn by Rene Acuña (which I am going to upload to Commons) derived from the "Relaciones geográficas" which shows the division of the "Kingdom of Mexico" in Corregimientos and Alcaldías mayores, there does not appear Teotlalpan. On the map of Peter Gerard of the Colonial Regions does not appear either (Historical Geography of New Spain, 1519-1821, UNAM-IIH, Mexico 1986).

If you cannot provide the information needed to sustain a historical relevance and a particular development, then that data belongs to another entity. I give you the option to revert your edits yourself, the historical information that you stubbornly want to put belongs to other articles, such as Hidalgo, you can even create the "History of Hidalgo" page or you can even insert the data in the " History of the Mezquital Valley ".

The information that you want to put is incorrect, you have an interest WP:COI That you believe the page belongs to you WP:OWN, you use ambiguous words that confuse, do not clarify in reality what sense they have, being too general and out of context. Your historical indications lack specific dates, you use facts that happened at a specific time but you project them to indefinite times, when they cease to have utility. The history section is also already in the improved text, the other historical data are also ambiguous and decontextualized. The version that you want to put is not the right wiki-text.

Then you have three options:


 * 1) Revert your version by yourself.
 * 2) Find reliable sources that help you understand the subject and improve this article.
 * 3) Put the important information (which you guess) in another article more indicated. --Akapochtli (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)--Akapochtli (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, don't delete information, we are growing this article.--Marrovi (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is what is, it doesn't need to grow. --Akapochtli (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What does nationalism have to do with an ancient land baptized by the Mexicas?
 * Teotlalpan is only history from Hidalgo State?


 * We need the text for this bibliography: Historical Geography of New Spain, 1519-1821, UNAM-IIH, Mexico 1986. Is very necessary to read this reference, all reference is very necessary to read by all people.--Marrovi (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting book, we need to read the text when is made the note, we need pictures about Teotlalpan in this bibliography.
 * It's other bibliography about this theme, we looking for more books, more notes, more information. My friend this article is for all, we can to add more text using references where we can to read the texts and notes.--Marrovi (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Analysing all references and adding more references
This secction pun in all information with references and notes with cheking, reading and references. Thank you.--Marrovi (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't delete information; this massage we need talking in this seccion. Akapochtli's massage (Your editions are breaking the policies WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:3RR) Accusation.

Neutrality tag
Must be accompanied by a talk page explanation of what is being disputed, specifically. El_C 06:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to reason with this user, he never mind.


 * First you asked him not to make consecutive editions; This has been asked several times and he didn't attend ever.


 * Second, you have asked him to explain the non-neutral reason, specifically, you will see that he answers.


 * He makes consecutive editions to confuse editors, it's his way of working, he's just looking for references to a subject he's supposed to know perfectly, which he should already have a clear vision of whether or not.


 * If you follow my editions, it will be easier to understand the main focus. His conclusion is that Teotlalpan is a well-defined historical region with a relevant history; I say, if it were so then there would be many books that would explain, specifically, its characteristics, just as there would be maps that depicted it. As these books and maps do not exist, then the most neutral thing is not to include a text that talks of its historical development, because it simply does not exist as such.


 * A reasoning as simple as this if it is not accepted is because of a conflict of interest, which causes an edit without neutral point of view, of someone who believes he is page´s owner for being its "creator."


 * All he is writing here is random, correct and clarify his comments is a matter of never ending, I prefer not to follow his game. The work of you administrators would be easier if you focused on three versions, a previous one of him, one of mine, and the one he is wanting to "improve". Regards, --Akapochtli (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Marrovi, I looked at a machine-translation of the Spanish Wikipedia's Teotlalpan article, which does appear to confirm Akapochtli's version over yours. How do you account for that? El_C 02:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you know the Teotlapan?, are you reading about Teotlalpan? I reading many books as many people, this article is difeferent, is the same to Borradopedia?, are you reading the same?, I started the firt edition in English, it's is very different, is necessery all texts, notes, references over this article, Akapochtli no author, he is editor, authors are Vladimira Palma, Molina, Remi Simeon, Acuña, and others. Akapochtli edited with many references and bibliography that you or me don't read text about Teotlalpan, I take pictures whith interesting themes about this article, or not?. Regards. --Marrovi (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That does not address my question—also, please proofread your comments better. It is rather difficult to understand and has many, many glaring errors. In order:
 * Are you know the Teotlapan? — That's not the point. The point is that the Spanish Wikipedia's version resembles Akapochtli's version over yours. You fail to address that and went on a rather incomprehensible tangent instead.
 * I reading many books as many people, this article is difeferent, is the same to Borradopedia?, are you reading the same? — I don't understand any of that. Different from what? What's Borradopedia? Reading the same-what?
 * I started the firt edition in English, it's is very different, is necessery all texts, notes, references over this article, Akapochtli no author, he is editor, authors are Vladimira Palma, Molina, Remi Simeon, Acuña, and others. — Very different from what? Necessary text to what? What does that "Akapochtli no author, he is editor" even mean? Please don't cast aspersions, in any case.
 * Akapochtli edited with many references and bibliography that you or me don't read text about Teotlalpan — That sentence doesn't make sense to me. I cannot make sense of it.
 * I take pictures whith interesting themes about this article, or not? — "Take pictures, or not." What does that mean?
 * Look, perhaps your grasp of the English language is just not up to par for the English Wikipedia (either that or you're not trying hard enough). Competence is required here. El_C 12:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Voy a ser claro; ¿Tú quieres que la versión de Akapochtli sea la versión correcta? ¿Por qué es la versión correcta? ¿Lo es porque tiene mucha bibliografía que tú y yo hasta este momento no hemos leído solo por el hecho que la menciona sin ver páginas reales o por qué él ya te mandó mensajes o pidió que pidieras referencias al tema con sus wikiamigos admnistradores que lo respaldan? ¿Es una versión correcta porque viene del español o eso basta? ¿En basé a qué lo respaldas, a que él asegura ser doctor en el tema cuando en realidad no hay editores en español que sean amplios conocedores del tema?. Hay otros temas más que seguramente quirieras abordar conmigo o preguntarme, pero no quiero revolverlos ni mezclarlos porque suena muy manipulador para despretigiar el trabajo que haya hecho en este artículo en base a conflictos sucedidos con anterioridad, lo que gustes preguntarme fuera del tema de Teotlalpan lo puedes hacer en mi página discusión o en otros portal, solo quiero centrarme aquí al tema de la Teotlalpan porque es lo que se supone que estamos discutiendo.

Mi versión fue la primera, la hice en inglés y se apegó a las reglas de edición aunque el señor no quiera entenderlo, él creó un taller en español y retomó mi bibliografía hacia su modelo en español ¿Eso te lo comentó él o omitó este comentario? , lo hizo por razones de generar conflicto conmigo pero no estuvo mal, ahora el tema se comenta y se investiga sobre la Teotlalpan lo cual yo creo que algo bueno que hizo en español porque se generó en español una discusión bastante hostil para borrarlo, estoy muy contento porque una vez más está abierto, solo que español no es lo mismo que wikipedia inglés, allá le podrán creer por ignorancia al tema pero aquí en inglés las cosas son diferentes; ya que hay bibliografía que él no tiene, razón por la cual yo le estoy pidiendo que me diga el número de página de lo que pone en blibliografía y en base a que se referencía, para que verifique si en realialidad tiene esos libros o solo los pone por poner. Sobre sus libros citados, simplemente quiero ver los textos y leerlos para ver que no satura de libros solo para manipular opinión con otros wikipedistas desconocedores del tema.

Si tuve muchos errores en español, lo cual ya está aclarado, gracias a que vivo en esta región y hay libros que hablan del tema y lo he relacionado y referenciado de documentos antiguos y bibliografía reciente, ahora estoy buscando la bibliografía que cita Akapochtli, pero muchos libros no los encuentro aún porque no hay páginas de consulta, ya visité algunas librerias y bibliotecas pero ha sido difícil encontrar los libros citados en este artículo y las páginas citadas de los libros ya encontrados al momento no mencionan nada sobre Teotlapan, los estoy buscando porque me interesa el tema y es gran importancia para nuestros cronistas e investigadores sobre la historia de nuestra región. ¿Es malo encontrar cosas diferentes a lo que Akapochtli argumenta dentro del trabajo de investigación?, ¿Se debe tomar la opinión del él como algo absoluto solo porque el asegura que lo sabe todo? Sé lo que es una enciclopédia y lo que es una fuente primaria, obviamente el tema no es bulo ni fuente primaria, ya que hay muchos, pero muchos autores que escribieron sobre el tema desde distintos análisis del campo del conocimiento; y prueba de ello, puedes ver fotos y textos ya encontrados sobre el tema. No seré experto en lengua inglesa, pero también hay una amplia comunidad angloparlante que puede apoyar y además tengo amigos que tienen al inglés como lengua materna y editan aquí en Wikipedia, por ese lado no veo problema alguno, lo que quiero es que este artículo que he iniciado desde su origen aborde los temas muy bien y que podamos ver las referencias para evitar ambigüedades con fines de crear conflictos conmigo por odio hacia mí porque edito en wikipedia.

Existe la gran oportunidá de crear un buen artículo en inglés y que nos sirva de referencia también ¿Por qué la versión en castellano debemos tomarla como una ley absoluta incuestionable solo porque hubo un conflicto? ¿Acaso el espíritu de Wikipedia no es el de mejorar todo a través de la edición libre? No creo que trabajar maquinando cosas sucias pidiendo voto político a otros usurios la ciencia avance, la ciencia avanza en medida que las personas se ponen de acuerdo aunque tengan opiniones diferentes, al menos los verdaderos doctorantes no actuan de formas dictatorial sobre los lectores, ni nos obligan a creer sus trabajos personales como verdades absolutas, solo nos sugieren sus documentos para relacionarlo al tema de nuestro interés, por ello me parece una incongruencia decir el artículo no necesita crecimiento, yo tengo la estructura general, los demás no; lo que yo edité en español es la verdad y más que la verdad, ''deben creerme porque este estúpido de Marrovi es de lo peor y lo puedo demostrar con las pruebas de un sucio trabajo que maquiné conjuntamente con otros o usuarios para intentar expulsar a Marrovi de las wikipedias haciendo uso de la legislación vigente. No lo soportamos, nos caé muy mal y muy gordo, no nos obedece porque tiene carácter y criterio y no es manipuble, nos da envidia su estilo de vida, creímos que era un enbécil pero resultó lo contrario, nunca pudimos manejarlo al antojo y por eso sigue siendo una amenaza para nosotros, más no para la wikipedia; ya que también es envidiable su trabajo hecho en las wikipedias como colaborador incansable; y aunque no estemos de acuerdo con él nos cuesta trabajo aceptar que sabe remediar el mal cuando ha hecho mal las cosas y también nos cuesta trabajo aceptar que también tiene razón en muchas cosas de lo que lo hemos acusado y por lo que lo atacamos''. --Marrovi (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Como dato adicional, en ningún momento he borrado el buen trabajo que ha hecho Akapochtli, sé reconocer que trabajó y que es importante conservar muchos datos y textos que el ha agregado al artículo, lo que no acepto es que quiera borrar mi trabajo de forma tajante e intolerante, que quiera hacerse parecer el único conocedor del tema ante los demás usando como argumentos lo que él mismo propició y que siga haciendo su guerra sucia por los motivos personales que él tenga, ya que no es creible que se haya involucrado en el tema solo por amor a la ciencia y la divulgación de ensayos, es obvio que lo hizo para joderme, porque todo este tiempo no ha editado temas distintos a los que yo edito, concentrándose solo a darme seguimiento y buscar conflictos o polémicas (claro, mañosamente argumentando un apego a las reglas de wikipedia para hacer evidencia).--Marrovi (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Amigo El C, si tu no te convences leyendo los textos de las fotos, leyendo las bibliografías que se pueden leer o las notas de diversos libros o documentos ya consultados, pues entonces ya no puedo hacer nada, allí están las bibliografías o fuentes disponibles y otras en revisión para ver si existen o no; si tienes duda, puedo fotografiarte los textos de los libros que tengo a la mano o googlear bibliografía en pdf para ver si podemos encontrarla en línea de forma gratuita. Y si tu crees que lo editado por Akapochtli es una ley absoluta, pues entonces estoy perdiendo el tiempo, Akapochtli no es la fuente única, afortunadamente hay libros y tesinas universitarias que podemos leer para entender el tema. En resumen; es una tierra o región que era llamada por los aztecas con cierta relación al Mictlan o el norte, que según diversas fuentes, tiene varias interpretaciones del náhuatl, aunque la más atinada es la relación con un valle de características secas donde vivieron diversos pueblos llamados chicihimecas, de los cuales sobresale la historia del pueblo otomí dentro de este territorio. Fue una tierra, en apariencia, de poco interés para los mexicas, sin embargo, si poblaron la región aunque no eran numerosos como los otomíes o los nhähñu; dada la conquista española, la región fue nombrada y referenciada también por los españoles hasta mediados del siglo XVII, luego comenzó a llamarse Valle del Mezquital; después de la independencia de México, surgió la división de estados y la antigua región quedó divida en México e Hidalgo. Lo que es muy correcto, a mediados del siglo XVII dejó de llamarse Teotlalpan y su nombre comenzó a quedar en el olvido; hoy en día solo se usa para hacer referencia de aquel territorio en tiempos prehispánicos y coloniales, hay mucha información que está consolidándose sobre el tema, ya que están surgiendo nuevas bibliografías que retoman y abordan a la Teotlalpan, de los cuales han surgido temas bastante interesantes para entender la complejidad de la región. El tema de nación otomí o la Nmui Nxihai, es otro tema diferente, es un concepto de reivindicación del pueblo otomí en plano siglo XXI, pero no es la Teotlalpan, es algo más grande que abarca Querétaro, Una parte de Hidalgo, Michoacán, México, Veracruz, Tlaxcala y Puebla; es una nación conceptual entre los otomíes, más no es territorial o geográfico, ni buscan secesión ni quieren un gobierno propio con ejercito, es solo un concepto de unidad e integración étnica.--Marrovi (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I will be clear; Do you want the Akapochtli version to be the correct version? Why is the version correct? Is it because it has a lot of bibliography that you and I have not read so far because of the fact that you mention it without seeing real pages or why he already sent you messages or asked you to ask for references to the subject with his wikiamigos administrators who support him ? Is it a correct version because it comes from Spanish or is that enough? Based on what you endorse, which he claims to be a doctor in the subject when in fact there are no Spanish-language editors who are knowledgeable about the topic? There are other issues that you would surely want to address with me or ask me, but I do not want to stir or mix them because it sounds very manipulative to disregard the work I have done in this article based on conflicts that happened before, what you want to ask me outside the theme of Teotlalpan You can do in my discussion page or other portal, I just want to focus here on the issue of Teotlalpan because it is what we are supposed to be discussing.

My version was the first [13], I did it in English and adhered to the rules of edition although the gentleman did not want to understand it, he created a workshop in Spanish and took my bibliography back to his model in Spanish. Omitted this comment? [14], he did it for reasons of conflict with me but it was not bad, now the subject is discussed and investigated on Teotlalpan which I think a good thing he did in Spanish because a rather hostile discussion was generated in Spanish to erase it, I am very happy because once again it is open, only that Spanish is not the same as English wikipedia, there you will be able to believe by ignorance to the subject but here in English things are different; Since there is a bibliography that he does not have, which is why I am asking him to tell me the page number of what he puts in bibliography and based on that he was referring, so that he verifies if in reality he has those books or only the Put to put About his books, I simply want to see the texts and read them to see that he does not saturate books just to manipulate opinion with other unacknowledged wikipedistas of the subject.

If I had many errors in Spanish, which is already clear, thanks to the fact that I live in this region and there are books that talk about the subject and I have related and referenced it of old documents and recent bibliography, I am now looking for the bibliography that quotes Akapochtli, but Many books I can not find yet because there are no pages of consultation, I have visited some libraries and libraries but it has been difficult to find the books cited in this article and the cited pages of books already found at the moment do not mention anything about Teotlapan, I am looking for Because I am interested in the subject and is of great importance to our chroniclers and researchers on the history of our region. Is it wrong to find things different from what Akapochtli argues in the research work? Should he take his opinion as absolute only because he assures himself that he knows everything? I know what an encyclopedia is and what is a primary source, obviously the subject is not a hoax or primary source, since there are many, but many authors who wrote on the subject from different analyzes of the field of knowledge; And proof of this, you can see photos and texts already found on the subject. I will not be an expert in English, but there is also a large English-speaking community that can support and also I have friends who have English as their mother tongue and edit here on Wikipedia, on that side I do not see any problem, what I want is that this article that I have started from the very beginning to address the issues very well and that we can see the references to avoid ambiguities in order to create conflicts with me for hatred towards me because I edit in wikipedia.

There is a great opportunity to create a good article in English and to serve as a reference also Why the Spanish version we must take it as an absolute law unquestionable only because there was a conflict? Is not the spirit of Wikipedia better to improve everything through the free edition? I do not think that working to do dirty things by asking political votes to other users, science advances, science advances as people agree, even if they have different opinions, at least the true doctorates do not act in a dictatorial way about the readers, nor do we They oblige us to believe their personal works as absolute truths, only suggest their documents to relate to the subject of our interest, so it seems to me an incongruity to say "the article does not need growth, I have the general structure, the others do not; What I edited in Spanish is the truth and more than the truth ,  you must believe me because this stupid of Marrovi is of the worst and I can prove it with the evidence of a dirty work that I worked together with others or users to try Expel Marrovi from the wikipedias making use of the current legislation. We do not support it, we fell very bad and very fat, it does not obey us because it has character and criteria and it is not manipulated, it gives us envy its lifestyle, we thought that it was an enbécil but it turned out the opposite, we never could handle it at will and for That is still a threat for us, but not for wikipedia; Since it is enviable also his work done in the wikipedias like tireless collaborator; And although we do not agree with him we have trouble accepting that he knows how to remedy evil when he has done things wrong and we also have trouble accepting that he is also right in many things of what we have accused and so we attacked him '. - Marrovi | ( talk) 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As an additional information, I have never erased the good work that Akapochtli has done, I know that he has worked and that it is important to keep many data and texts that he has added to the article, which I do not accept is that I want to erase my work from Form, and intolerant, who wants to make himself seem the only knower of the subject before the others using as arguments what he himself propitiated and continue to make his dirty war for personal reasons that he has, since it is not credible that he has been involved in The subject only for the love of science and the dissemination of essays, it is obvious that he did it to fuck me, because all this time he has not edited different themes to those I edit, concentrating only to follow up and look for conflicts or controversies (of course, ( talk) 18:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC) talk

Friend The C, if you do not convince yourself by reading the texts of the photos, reading the bibliographies that can be read or the notes of various books or documents already consulted, then I can not do anything, there are available bibliographies or sources and Others under review to see if they exist or not; If you have doubts, I can photograph the texts of the books that I have on hand or google bibliography in pdf to see if we can find it online for free. And if you think that the edited by Akapochtli is an absolute law, then I am wasting time, Akapochtli is not the only source, fortunately there are books and university dissertations that we can read to understand the subject. In summary; Is a land or region that was called by the Aztecs with some relation to Mictlan or the north, which according to various sources, has several interpretations of Nahuatl, although the most accurate is the relationship with a valley of dry characteristics where they lived several villages called chicihimecas, Of which stands out the history of the Otomí town within this territory. It was a land, apparently, of little interest to the Mexicas, however, if they populated the region although they were not numerous like the Otomíes or nhähñu; Given the Spanish conquest, the region was named and also referenced by the Spaniards until the mid-seventeenth century, then began to be called the Mezquital Valley; After the independence of Mexico, the division of states arose and the old region was divided in Mexico and Hidalgo. What is very correct, in the middle of century XVII stopped being called Teotlalpan and its name began to be forgotten; Today is only used to refer to that territory in pre-Hispanic and colonial times, there is much information that is consolidating on the subject, as new bibliographies are emerging that take up and approach the Teotlalpan, from which have emerged quite interesting topics To understand the complexity of the region. The theme of Otomí nation or the Nmui Nxihai, is another different theme, it is a concept of vindication of the Otomí people in plane XXI century, but it is not the Teotlalpan, is something bigger that includes Querétaro, A part of Hidalgo, Michoacán, Mexico, Veracruz, Tlaxcala and Puebla; Is a conceptual nation among the Otomi, but it is not territorial or geographical, neither seek secession nor want a government with its own army, it is only a concept of unity and ethnic integration.--Marrovi (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please write only in English on the English Wikipedia—this is not acceptable. El_C 21:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that if you can't manage to write in English (talk page is for all editors of the English Wikipedia), you may be banned from editing this article. El_C 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * One person sent me a message that you understand Spanish--Marrovi (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Marrovi, Less is more. This is still not acceptable. Try to be concise and avoid text walls. I asked you a specific question (about the Spanish Wikipedia), try to reply to it without being so distracted and longwinded. Akapochtli is able to be brief—why can't you? The length, coupled with the lack of flow, of your replies works to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Write with the reader in mind, rather than a stream of consciousnesses. El_C 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically, aim to show due weight. That your version enjoys consensus in the scholarship. Again, the fact that it doesn't enjoy consensus on the Spanish Wikipedia is, to me, a cause for concern. The onus, therefore, is on you to demonstrate that your version doesn't constitute original research. El_C 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to prove to English-speaking readers that Teotlalpan "was a pre-Columbian region"—you can't, especially when challenged, rely on just a single Spanish-language source, without translating the pertinent passage that proves your main premise (region). El_C 00:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

For me, Teotlalpan is a territory and old territory; for you, What is Teotlapan?--Marrovi (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A disputed encyclopedia entry, where one editor doesn't respond to points raised, such as rely[ing] on just a single Spanish-language source, without translating the pertinent passage that proves [the] main premise (region). El_C 05:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What is your question? What do you want me to answer?
 * Please sign your name to comments. I want to know why you only have one source for it being a region? El_C 05:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As well, you never addressed my five (numbered) points above. The polite thing would have been to start with that, concisely, and in order. El_C 00:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1.- Are you know the Teotlapan? No, Teotlalpan was a old territory or region when Aztec empire governed. I live in a place that was named Teotlalpan on last time.


 * 2.- I read many books to many people, this article is diffeferent, is the same to Borradopedia ?, are you reading the same? - I do not understand this question but I am not reading the same to Borradopedia, this English vertion was edited by me, it's different about Spanish version for me.


 * 3.- I started the firt edition in English, it's is very different, is necessery all texts, notes, references over this article, Akapochtli no author, he is editor, authors are Vladimira Palma, Molina, Remi Simeon, Acuña, and others. - I do not understand this question but Vladimira Palma, Molina, Remi Simeon, Acuña were book authors or writers in theme over Teotlalpan.


 * 4.- Akapochtli edited with many references and bibliography that you or me don't read text about Teotlalpan - I do not understand this question but is obvius put in refrences when all people can to read about this theme (Teotlalpan), put in bibliography without Internet links, pages and pictures when we can read the texts is ambiguous or dubious the information. For example; Salinas, Carmen; The grand Aztec Empire, Chicago University, USA, 2017., in this book, When can I read about the Teotlalpan topics?.


 * 5.- I take pictures with interesting themes about this article, or not? I decided to take photos because we need evidence from the texts, It's necessary to read about the subject and see the information.


 * Composure, please. This is unhelpful. El_C 05:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the bold font. Right now I just want you to concentrate on the section titled  Marrovi's last chance . El_C 05:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In postmodernism, less is boring, in according to architect Robert Venturi. Now we conclude the discussion, with these words approve the version of Akapochtli, have a nice night. However, we need references and notes that we can read to verify that it was not manipulation, but if you like I'll share a bibliography on the subject in case it serves you. Apologize me for having wasted his time, the science that defines what is Teotlalpan and not an user or politics. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not a fan of postmodernist thought and tend to view it as hollow sophistry. Anyway, if only you'd bother to address the points I actually raised instead of going on such a passive-aggressive tangent. I have no knowledge of the subject and no preference, but you are not helping you cause by being obtuse, be it in short or long form. I suggest before exploring your dispute resolution option, you review again our essay on required competency to edit Wikipedia. El_C 04:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Marrovi's last chance
I'm this close to banning you from the article, Marrovi, for lacking competence. You need to do better from now on. Last chance. El_C 05:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Prove that it's a region by citing reliable sources (if these sources are not in English, translate the pertinent passage). El_C 05:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

--

The firt reference : Nava L.; E. Fernando; Otopames: Memoria del primer coloquio Querétaro, 1995. pages. 183-184, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, 2004. ISBN 970-32-0639-5

Fue en ese momento cuando los otomíes ocuparon la región de la Teotlalpan (que abarca una porsión del Valle del Mezquital), que anteriormente era la tierra chichimeca.

English: It was at that time when the Otomies occupied the region of Teotlalpan (which encompasses a portion of the Mezquital Valley), formerly the Chichimec land.

It is interesting, Fernando's book describe to Teotlalpan as soon as region.

This reference says a region:

Fue en ese momento cuando los otomíes ocuparon la región de la teotlalpan. ---
 * Second reference.



En 1519, Teotlalpan, región que comprendía, Hueypoxtla, Apaxco, Tequixquiac y otras comunidades,contaba con más de 400 mil habitantes, aunque su población disminuyó considerablemente a 76 mil en 1570.

English: In 1519, Teotlalpan, a region that comprised Hueypoxtla, Apaxco, Tequixquiac and other communities, had more than 400 thousand inhabitants, although its population declined considerably to 76 thousand in 1570. - Was my reference April 8, 2017, no Akapochtli's reference. Akapochtli's image is dated in

Page 227 Historia de la producción de cal en el norte de la cuenca de México, Vladimira Palma, UAEM.

Hueypoxtla, Tlapanaloya, Tequixquiac y Xilotzingo son poblaciones que se localizan en el límite norte de la cuenca de México, dentro del actual Estado de México, en la región que fue conocida en la época prehispánica como la Teotlalpan, que iniciaba al norte del lago de Zumpango y se extendía hasta Actopan, Hidalgo.

English: Hueypoxtla, Tlapanaloya, Tequixquiac and Xilotzingo are populations that are located in the northern limit of the basin of Mexico, within the present State of Mexico, in the region that was known in the pre-Hispanic period as the Teotlalpan, that initiated to the north Of the lake of Zumpango and extended until Actopan, Hidalgo. --Marrovi (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Akapochtli, now that Marrovi provided sources that say it is, indeed, a region, how do you respond to that sourced assertion? In advance: please be concise. El_C 06:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that verifiable sources say it is a region is not the main point. Yes, they say it is a region, so how does it integrate? What towns belong there? The answer of Marrovi and its sources is imprecise, in the article mentions 40 towns, here above (section Geography, taken from a source) are only 32, and according to its "conceptual map" are 54 towns, what is the correct amount? The point is, if it were a well-recognized region then there would be consensus of its extension, but we see that the "reliable sources" of the user do not match.


 * What I am debating is the handling of information, many of his quotes are based on the same information repeated by various sources, none actually analyzes in depth.


 * I think my observations are quite clear in section Once and for all and section Some solutions. The information that "he extracts" from the sources is decontextualized. That information isn't neutral WP: NN and represents a minority point of view WP:WEIGHT, paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:


 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.


 * Therefore if there is no consensus the most neutral would be not to develop a historical section, as it would tip the balance to something that is not. Regards --Akapochtli (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Where can I read only 32 towns inside Teotlalpan?--Marrovi (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You wrote here a section named "Geography" and you wrote right there 32 town's name. --Akapochtli (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) (today this list have 35, I don't know when Marrovi changed it, but I counted it after this edition, right there was 32). --Akapochtli (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

[[File:Mapa de Vladimira Palma.jpg|thumb|200px|Vladimira's Map. Aldea nucleada grande/Great core village (altepetl) and aldea dispersa pequeña/Small village (estancia).

This explanation is a hoax. The map isn't of Vladimira, she take off from other book, William Sanders, et al. ''The Basin of Mexico. Ecological processes in the evolution of a civilization'''. New York, Academic Press, 1979. Where this authors don't speak about Teotlalpan. --Akapochtli (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)]]


 * Biblioteca Diginal del estado de Hidalgo, Centro Hidalguense de Investigaciones Históricas A.C., Teotlalpan 1,  Revista enero-abril 1973. (pdf)  The map in this magazine are 31 towns in (page 50) with 32 toponyms at apedix (pages 37-41).

(Pages 37-41) Apendix: Acayuca, Acxotla, Acolhuacan, Almoloya, Atlauimolco, Caliuacan, Cempohualla,Coscotitlan, Coya, Epazoyucan, Hueypochtla, Hueytlalpan, Huaquilpan, Iczocala, Motlapachocan, Iztapan, Nopalapan, Pachoacan, Teapetlatl, Techimalli, Tenango, Tetlixcac, Tlahuelilpan, Tilcuauhtla, Tlaxiaca, Tolcayuca, Tizahuapan, Xalla, Xalapa, Xochitepec, Xolostitla and Zapotlan.

(Page 50) Map: Texcatepec, Tepatepec, Actopan, Tepa, Mixquiahuala, Tecajique, Tecomatla, Tezontepec, Ulapa, Yetecomac,Tornacuxtla, Tlahuelilpan, Tulancalco, Ixcuincuitlapilco, Tilcuauhtla, Tlaxcoapan, Tetepango, Tenoaya, Tlaxiaca, Pachuca, Atitalaquia, Tula, Ajacuba, Atotonilco, Texcatepec, Huitepec, Acayuca, Tetzontlalpan, Zapotlan, Tolcayuca, Tizayuca, Apaxco, Tequixquiac and Zumpango.


 * Proved. You're manipulating the sources. This information is about a document, Plano de la congregación de Cempoala (out of Teotlalpan) where describing towns nearby Pachuca. --Akapochtli (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Link to map's description (in Spanish) and best image--Akapochtli (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)




 * About Zempoala

Teotlalpan es el nombre que recibió una extensa región del norte del Valle de México y que quedaba inscrita aproximadamente dentro de un polígono irregular, cuyos puntos extremos podrían situarse en las siguientes poblaciones hoy hidalguenses; Tula, como punto más occidental; Ixmiquilpan y Santa María Tepeji (hoy Nicolás Flores), como puntos más septentrionales; Pachuca y Zempoala, como puntos más occidentales; y Otumba, Ecatepec y Tepotzotlán, como puntos más meridionales, cerrando el polígono en Tula.

Teotlalpan is the name given to an extensive region of the north of the Valley of Mexico and that was inscribed approximately within an irregular polygon, whose extreme points could be located in the following towns today hidalguenses; Tula, as the westernmost point; Ixmiquilpan and Santa María Tepeji (now Nicolás Flores), as more northern points; Pachuca and Zempoala, as more Western points; And Otumba, Ecatepec and Tepotzotlán, as more southerly points, closing the polygon in Tula.

This fragment is in Ballesteros García's book; San Andrés Epazoyucan, arte agustino del siglo XVI, UAEH, 2006 (page 11). --Marrovi (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a hoax and you know it, the real sources are from 16th century where don't appear what saying this author. Show us where Las Relaciones geográficas, Descripción del Arzobispado or La suma de Visitas notice this. --Akapochtli (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to read a text of Cook, is very interesting to look for other authors. Zempoala and Pachuca is referenced by other authors as towns inside to Teotlalpan, not is clearly defined the Teotlalpan border lines, for to read about of Las Relaciones geográficas, Descripción del Arzobispado or La suma de Visitas, we need visit to Lecumberri palace, in Mexico City or Archivo de Indias in Seville, Spain; only I have got Suma de Visitas from Hueypoxtla, Tequixquiac, Apazco and Tlapanaloya; but Troncoso wrote in this theme with another towns.--Marrovi (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I'll answer you in a new section: Sources. --Akapochtli (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Proved. This sources repit the same datas, actually, this map is a copy from Sherburne's work (1949). --Akapochtli (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Vladimira Palma, in ''Huiypochtla, Tequixquiac, Xilotzingo y Teotlalpan, cuatro altepeme de la Teotlalpan bajo el dominio Tenochca, Expresión Antropolígica, Number 33.

She means altepeme and estancias (residencies or populated places). Hueypoxtla, Huehuetoca, Tequixquiac, Apaxco, Tetlapanaloya, Xilotzingo, Zitlaltepec, Tezcatepec, Tlacotlapilco, Tolcayuca, Zapotlan, Tlacuitlapilco (as altepeme), Cuitzocuitlapillan, San Mateo Hueycalco, Xomeyucan, Chiamilan, Tlalachco, Casa Blanca, Xaltemocan and Zizipique (as estancias). We need to define the altepetl (great core village) and small village subject to an altepetl; We don't know the number of villages or towns, no is very specific. --Marrovi (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So, don't they match about this, or yes? and Why you put a picture that we can't read (Vladimira's text)? --Akapochtli (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason I did not want to participate is this, your comments diverge attention and bring up less relevant things. And please, do not interfere in my answer FOR EL C, you will have time to comment again. --Akapochtli (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Of corse she doesn't draw this map, she's using maps from other persons in her archeological articles, I need to put the bibliography in this document.--Marrovi (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"A region well defined" Troncoso's note
Now we're making progress. So it's a region, after all. Now work on defining it. El_C 19:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Progress? Well defined? Where were you, buddy? I'm beginning a doubt... --Akapochtli (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misread your argument. Sorry about that. Marrovi, how do answer Akapochtli's argument that "region" is all based on Troncoso's aforementioned note—a note that actually constitutes a minority view in the historiography. Concisely and to the point, please. El_C 06:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * For me is old territory; but Troncoso's text is a good definition above region for Teutlalpa; Pachuca Mountains is a frontier by this author, I understanding this reason in Troncoso's notes. Many authors say to Teotlalpan as soon as region. When I started to read about Teotlalpan, this territory was named comarca by Spaniards, near to new comarca minera in Pachuca mountains. The term Teotlalpan was used until XVII century.--Marrovi (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This doesn't respond to it being a minority view in the historiography—that your sources are ultimately based on that note. How do respond to that. El_C 02:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not know statistics of how many people call Teotlalpan region or comarca, only I read diferent authors. Troncoso means as comarca, Peña, Vladimra and others name region.--Marrovi (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

To read page 8-9 Text about the colonial period (New Spain) between the Independence period, when was used the term comarca as was mentioned by Troncoso.--Marrovi (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Otro factor relevante en la economía de la región, fue la creciente producción pulquera del altiplano, que abarcaba desde la zona de los Llanos de Apan y Tulancingo hasta la del Valle del Mezquital, pasando por las tierras de la Teotlalpan. Finalmente, debe agregarse la privilegiada ubicación geográfica de esta porción del territorio novohispano, constituida en zona de obligado paso entre la capital de la Nueva España y las provincias del norte y los puertos del Golfo, lo que permitió el gran desarrollo comercial de regiones como las de Tula y Huichapan...

La segunda región se determinó con la comarca minera, que abarcaba las poblaciones de Pachuca, Real del Monte y Atotonilco el Chico, así como las tierras del altiplano pulquero que comprendían las Subdelegaciones (antiguas Alcaldías Mayores) de Tulancingo, Apan, Tepeapulco y Zempoala, en las que participaron, de manera muy activa, Antonio Centeno, Mariano Aldama, Vicente Beristaín y Sousa, Miguel Serrano, Eugenio Montaño, Pedro Espinosa, Miguel Inclán, Diego Manilla, y el más importante de todos: José Francisco Osorno...

Another important factor in the economy of the region was the increasing pulque production of the altiplano, which extends from the Plains of Apan and Tulancingo to the Mezquital Valley, through the Teotlalpan lands. Finally, it is necessary to add the geographical location of this part of the New Spain territory, constituted in the zone of forced passage between the capital of the New Spain and the provinces of the north and the ports of the Gulf, which allowed the great commercial development of the regions as The De Tula and Huichapan ...

The second region was determined with the mining comarca, which included the populations of Pachuca, Real del Monte and Atotonilco el Chico, as well as the lands of the pulquero plateau that includes the subdivisions (old Mayors) of Tulancingo, Apan, Tepeapulco and Zempoala, In which Antonio Francisco Centeno, Mariano Aldama, Vicente Beristaín and Sousa, Miguel Serrano, Eugenio Montaño, Pedro Espinosa, Miguel Inclán, Diego Manilla, and the most important of all: José Francisco Osorno...


 * Stop writing in Spanish without translation into English—don't do this again. That is a misuse of the talk page. It's time both of you stopped with the history and start getting into the historiography. There must be an indication as to whether "region" is a minority view based on that note, or whether the entire premise is original research. Akapochtli, as the one making that claim, the onus is actually on you to prove it by citing reliable sources from the historiography. El_C 06:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

May be all article in Spanish is original research, may be is essay from Akapochtli, many books can not read here, only is citated without links or external links as pdf documents, pdf books, original researches, libreries on line, is difficult to continue with Historiography without texts or references on line.

The name of Teotlalpan it is not debatable, we know is Land over desert valley or flat, we know this land is an old territoriry in northem of Mexico Tenochtitlan, was inhabited by diferents goups named chichimecas, the use the term Teotlalpan was mentioned until the firts years of XVII century. History, if is an region or comarca, the frontiers or geography is debatible.--Marrovi (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Then Marrovi: If you can't read it in your PC from net then those don't exist, it's original research. (Completely bullshit)
 * Please, Marrovi, I only ask you to put the name of a book from the beginning of the seventeenth century that mentions the Teotlalpan to verify your statement and I allow you to write the text however you want. That simple. --Akapochtli (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * only Suma de visitas in Archibishop of Mexico, was a documents in this period, but tomorrow, I'm away at home this night.--Marrovi (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Region: a minority view?
Akapochtli: to recap, you assert that "region" is a minority view which is based on Troncoso's note. How do you know this to be so? So, now it is your turn to demonstrate that assertion by citing reliable sources that confirm this. Otherwise, Marrovi's sources do demonstrate it is a region, as does Troncoso's note itself. El_C 05:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly a week, . Have you made any progress compiling the material? El_C 05:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * All my apologies, I am not compiling sources, I already have them. But I am also waiting for the answer from, it really does not make sense to continue arguing if the user can't tell us a single primary (or secondary) source that describes the historical development of that region. He has repeatedly stated: "The term Teotlalpan was used until the seventeenth century", "the use of the term Teotlalpan was mentioned until the first years of the seventeenth century."


 * He is completely sure of his sources, that is why I asked him to write (correctly) the name of an early 17th century chronicle. If he puts it I let him do what he wants of the article. (He will advance a response Suma de visitas in Archibishop of Mexico(sic), he must prove it with "his method", photo or link to googlebooks. Will it be true or fake?)


 * This would prove that it is a minority view or not.


 * As I have let the user know, two primary sources mention "a shire-province" (1569 and 1579 ca.), this is just a TERM, don't explain anything. Troncoso's comment comes from reviewing these works. This is the relevant period that must be confirmed with books, between 1585 and 1949. All the sources of Marrovi are later than this last date.


 * And honestly, in fact, Marrovi has not answered well the questions you have asked him. He is evading you with walls of text.


 * And I'll tell you again, I'm waiting for Marrovi's response since May 6, too. --Akapochtli (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Is region or not is region?.--Marrovi (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Quid pro quo. First answer us; and how many times I answer the same cuestion? I feel that we're going round in a circle. --Akapochtli (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor province in XVII
This area was mentioned the first years from Viceroy of New Spain, until XVII century; next years was named Mezquital.

Dimención Antropológica, Lopez Aguilar; Fernando.

Para 1791, el padrón levantado en la jurisdicción de Ixmiquilpan, lo cual denota que hacia finales del siglo XVIII, ya se hacía un uso generalizado del término y que se dejó de lado el de Teotlalpan, frecuente hasta finales del siglo XVI y la mitad del siglo XVII.

By 1791, the register raised in the jurisdiction of Ixmiquilpan, which denotes that towards the end of the eighteenth century, was already a widespread use of the term and left the side of Teotlalpan, frequent until the late sixteenth century and half of XVII century.

This picture is a text from book ''Estado de México, texto de su historia, Marta Baranda and Lía Garcia, by Instituto Mora, Gobierno del estado de México, 1987. ISBN 968-841-150-7. This page is 33.

In English: The territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain is divided into 23 mayor provinces of the five that are formed in the Kingdom of Mexico and in the minor provinces of Acapulco, Coyuca, Chalco, Matalcingo, Mexico (the city and the district), Metztitlan Independent pre-cortisian province), Pánuco, Suchimilco, Teotlalpan, Tezcuco, Tlahuic and Zultepec.

Akapochtli. With many author is region or comarca, other is minor province. Is region or not is region? What is Teotlalpan for you?.--Marrovi (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep repeating the same thing. They are new books, written in 1987 and 1997. Your second reference is incomprehensible in both English and Spanish. What does that mean? Which 23 provinces? Which five provinces? There they name 11 provinces ... where do they belong? What is the primary source? Can you honestly explain this to me?


 * Honestly you can not take as a reliable source a book that takes fragments from other books where the true origin of the information does not appear.


 * And I'm so sorry, but you have not put the reference I asked for, a book written between 1601 and 1650 (early 17th century). Because it appears in a book isn't necessarily correct, the origin must be verified; Please don't repeat what López Aguilar and Vladimira Palma say. It is better to reflect and compare. --Akapochtli (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think ? --Akapochtli (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

My brother I live in Mexico City now, my home is 2 hours, I'm working in Mexico City, I'm not many time for looking more information, at night I'm very tired. Are you understand it? Do you know many books when Teotlalpan is not a region?.--Marrovi (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact that is the point. There are no books that talk about precisely of a region, none described it. --Akapochtli (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Beautiful map, but we don't see, page, book or reference about Peter Gerhard map, What is the diferents about other authors as Vladimira Palma or López Aguilar?--Marrovi (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Marrovi did his part and provided those sources that mention it as a region. You've argued that was a minority view, but you had nothing to support that argument. Now it's (still) your turn to submit sources that illustrate it being a minority view in the scholarship. One map from 1570 that fails to mention it is a not enough. We need sources addressing Teotlalpan, specifically. Surely, those exist. (What do other tertiary sources say about it, I wonder.) El_C 07:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting bibliography, thank you very much; the quiestion is, What is Teotlalpan?--Marrovi (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Page 18, EL Problema Agrario In this reference Teotlalpan is called as an agricultural measure, means a land divisions for Aztec mapping system.--Marrovi (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Evidence
Well, here I go; I had to modify the text three times because putting the complete data was very extensive and the point was lost, I tried not to make it heavy. Reviewing googlescholar we find the reliable sources that speak of Geography, from the oldest to the most relevant for our times. The links are to that site.


 * 1) 1 (1540) The most important book and starting point to understand ancient geography is the Codex Mendoza. The File: Provincias norteñas.png that is placed in the article derives from this document, its delimitation has been widely discussed by many authors (see below). There it does not mention Teotlalpan as a region.

What is the reason for the mention Teotlapan? Codex Mendoza there are pictures about tlatoanis (empirors), Mexico Tenochtitlan mithology and populated place names (altepeme or towns) in Colonial period and also taxes; no Aztec regions, no Aztec countries.--Marrovi (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 (1579) One of the most used works to study the Aztecs in the Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España, is considered the Bible for historians of this period, it contains ample descriptions. There it does not mention Teotlalpan as a region.

This book is about antropology, no geography, was written by Bernandino de Sahagún in Tepeapulco (now Hidalgo State), he wrote about the Province of Mexico and relation with human groups, Teotlalpan wasn't province, Teotlapan was a part of Mexico Province in the first years of New Spain, next time was divided in other territories as Comarca minera (Pachuca), Cuautitlán, Actopan, Tula and Zumpango township (alcaldía mayor).--Marrovi (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 3 (1580) The work of Diego Durán speaks extensively of the campaigns of conquest of the Aztecs, describes regions and how the Aztec Empire was integrated. Like other contemporary sources of this author (Tovar, Ixtlilxochitl) does not mention the Teotlalpan.

This is the same reference about this link.--Marrovi (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC) '''???? They are different!''' --Akapochtli (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 4 (1615) The first great synthesis of the knowledge of ancient Mexico was written by Fray Juan de Torquemada in 21 books (published in 7 volumes by the UNAM); He compiles and cites the most important books written during the sixteenth century, in his eleventh book talks about geography (volume four of the UNAM) speaks of the division into regions and provinces. There it does not mention Teotlalpan.

This book is about descriptions of Jeronimo de Mendieta and Indian eclesial life, What is the reason by the mention Teotlalpan?.--Marrovi (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 5 (1746) Teatro Americano. Descripción general de los Reinos, y Provincias de la Nueva España, y sus jurisdicciones. (In two volumes) It is one of the first cartographic and descriptive works, it thoroughly collects all available data, it really is an almanac of populations and regions. There it does not mention Teotlalpan but it does mention Mezquital Valley.

This book is about kingdoms and provinces in New Spain. Teotlalpan was a Kingdom? Teotlalpan was Province?, pages 149-155 is relationed with Jurisdictions, Catholic curates and townships (alcaldías mayores) in Archibishop of Mexico. Teotlalpan is jurisdicton? Mezquital Valley was called in 1745 forward, before was named a part of Mezquital Valley as Teotlalpan. --Marrovi (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 6 (1786-1789) Diccionario geográfico-histórico de las Indias occidentales by Alcedo. A similar work to the previous one but of greater coverage, in five volumes in alphabetical order, in the last one the group "T" is grouped and we can consult it in this link. There it does not mention Teotlalapan.

In page 107, says Teutalpan, a town named San Andres Teutalpan in Zacatlan (now Puebla State), this reference is about old towns in Americas.--Marrovi (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 7 (1888-1891) Diccionario Geográfico, Histórico y Biográfico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Antonio García Cubas' work is even used today by many historians to understand historical Geography and see the achievements during the Porfiriato. In volume V, page 282 appears the entry and this is what it says: "Teotlalpan. District of the municipality of Tetla, district of Morelos, Tlaxcala State, with 264 inhabitants." There it does not say that it is a region.

This book is about town of Teotlalpan in Tlaxcala State, no region in Aztec Empire.--Marrovi (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 8 (1949) The Extent of the Empire of the Culhua Mexico by Robert Barlow is the first modern research that deals with ancient geography, and which all later researchers take up. He is the first to present a map of the Aztec Empire based on the Codex Mendoza, showing its territorial division. There it does not mention Teotlalpan as a region.


 * 1) 9 (1992) In this year Frances Berdan and Patricia Anawalt publish their study of the Codex Mendoza in three volumes, they mark great differences with the approach of Barlow, indicate a greater complexity in the integration of the Empire, being more profound its investigation. They do not mention Teotlalpan.


 * Beautiful book, but codex mendoza don't describe about Teotlalpan, only taxes on places or sites submitted by Aztecs, about mithic Aztec pilgrimage and other military themes.--Marrovi (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 10 (1996) Estructura político-terrritorial del imperio tenochca: La Triple Alianza de Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco y Tlacopan by Pedro Carrasco. It can be consulted in both English and Spanish, just as the previous reference is a more detailed study. This work takes into account the mention of Teotlalpan as a region and contextualizes it, showing doubt as to its validity, so that in its 29 maps showing Teotlalpan does not appear.

Beautiful book, very very interesting; this book is about performances, achievements, taxes and provinces; Teotlalpan is not province; I read a interesting text over Kingdom of Apazco (may be a Otomi goverment), military district of Zitlaltepec, Tax provinces of Hueypochtlan, Atotonilco, Axacopan and Tula, Pedro Carrasco describes only govement of Texcoco, Tlacopan and Tenochtitlan, no relations with the old territory named Teotlalpan about Teotihuacan background, cosmogonic land and deities. It's correct, this author no mention Teotlalpan as a region or old territory.--Marrovi (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

And again all my apologies for the delay ... I will continue waiting for the correct reference of the other user ... for a long time --Akapochtli (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , from that, it looks like the few mentions of it as a region that you provided, are not authoritative and may be a minority view. Perhaps that's why the Spanish Wikipedia's article also does not mention it as a region. Remember, I asked you to account for that a few weeks ago? I reiterate that question again. El_C 16:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't see your maps, only bibliography. Interesting biblography, thank you very much, the question is, What is Teotlalpan? a territory, a comarca, region, minor province, cardinal direction for maps or Mitic space land in relation about Teotihuacan culture?, If teotlalpan did not mentioned as a region, what is the reason why a place named Teotlalpan, inside a New Spain, at the firts years? If only was a northem of Aztec Empire, what is the reason to use an Aztec term inside Colonial Period? Is it only a cardinal referece or a place?. --Marrovi (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * For to give an opinion it's necessary to read Spanish, to know about Mesoamerica and to know about the first years of New Spain, I have the impression that all this list of books was made with some manipulation of opinion. Although all the books are very good and exelent bibliography, I can also find books that do not talk about Teotlalpan to argue that there is no such territory, and I can focus on other issues to argue that it's false as others have investigated. Exelent joke.--Marrovi (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)



En 1767, Teotlalpan was extinted, in those times this territory was named Mezquital.--Marrovi (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In 1767, Teotlapan was extinted, the next name was Mezquital, Alexander von Humboldt mentioned 12 intendences and 4 internal provinces subdivided in other provinces and intendences. Mexico was a kingdom, after Mayor province of Mexico divided in districs of Teotlalpan, Metztitlan, Xilotepec, Pánuco, Matlatzinco (Toluca Valley), Zultepec, Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco, Tláhuac, Coyuca and Acapulco. (Teotlapan is without question Tlapan)... Otomi-Mazahua zone between Mexico State and Hidalgo. Tax system named in those times Mezquital and the Metalic Mountains of Pachuca...--Marrovi (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC) You're manipulating this quote... but that is, Teotlalpan is not Teotlalpan. --Akapochtli (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is really surprising how people can fall into delusions when they do not know the topics under discussion, a simple list of very good books is capable of deceiving the human eye or putting maps that we can not see in real sources, deviations from the subject when it is not understood Spanish or pre-Columbian themes. The discussion is no longer whether Teotlapan was a region or not, now the discussion is whether there really exited a place called Teotlalpan or some crazy people use that Aztec word to refer to a place of little interest. Exelente joke, good night.--Marrovi (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Marrovi: Really laughable your attempt to get out of context reliable books where we can find the history of Mexican regions.


 * Your rhetorical and nonsensical questions are answered in the version of the article that I made. What is the point of answering it again?


 * Don't try to confuse us. And if you're going to reply do it with sources, not with bluff. --Akapochtli (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The bold is unnecessary—let's not do that again. So, you listed works that fail to mention Teotlalpan, but what about ones that do? What do those say? Arguing through omission is somewhat problematic. Perhaps it's time to send a message to the Spanish Wikipedia that we need help with this. I'm just not seeing ironclad proof, in either direction. El_C 20:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply
1. Wrong Marrovi. The codex covers several topics, Marrovi is diverting attention; the second section does show the territorial division in 39 regions, even appears Teotlalpan as a village in the region of Tlatlauhquitepec. This information is valuable and is confirmed by many other primary sources.

This Teotlalpan no territory, is a town in actual Puebla State. --Marrovi (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

2. Wrong Marrovi. Sahagun's work is encyclopedic, not "anthropological" since in fact there was not even anthropology as such in those times. It was not written in Tepeapulco, it was written in Mexico City, in Tepeapulco village compiled the "Primeros Memoriales" which is a different document. The "Historia General" is broadly descriptive and covers practically all subjects, from religion to everyday things like riddles, going through all the sciences of its time: botany, astrology, zoology, history, metallurgy, etc. It describes to the native races (among them the Otomíes, page 698 onwards) its origin and its territory. Sahagún wrote of Teotlalpan on page 159 where he says that it is a temple related to the north. In book XI he describes "plains and slopes of the earth", and of course gives the definition of "teotlalli" that clarifies the meaning of Teotlalpan.

Fray Bernardino de Sahagún no anthropologist, he was a pioneer in Anthropology., His book was considered and anthropological and encyclopic work, it's correct, don't is anthropological bibliography.--Marrovi (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I know that Sahagún wrote teotlalli, Could you look for this reference in pdf, website or picture, please?--Marrovi (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

4. Wrong Marrovi. He is completely lost if he confuses two different chronicles and their authors; I am quoting Fray Juan de Torquemada, not Gerónimo de Mendieta and his "Historia Eclesiástica Indiana." The work of Torquemada is very detailed in historical facts, he talks of the Toltecs, their origin, history and subdued territories; Also narrates the conquest of Mexico and how the colonization of New Spain developed, describes regions and the changes imposed by the Spaniards in the territorial organization.

9. Wrong Marrovi. The central focus of Berdan-Anawalt is not tributary, its main concern is the conformation of the territory in provinces and their relations, for this reason they make an ample review of complementary sources.

5, 6, 7, 10. If we are to find sources that talk of "regions" by simple logic are those cartographic works or that talk of the population and censuses. I chose the most representative ones, looking for which talks of Teotlalpan like "old region", only found books where it is applied to villages.

The history of political divisions, whether ecclesiastical, jurisdictional or of any kind, has much to do with the idea of a "region called Teotlalpan," since it was first mentioned by friars (Descripción del Arzobispado) and then by the Alcaldes Mayores and Corregidores that had to their position very precise jurisdictions (Relaciones geográficas).


 * Marrovi It is pathetic your lack of coherence, first you created "Comarca de Teotlalpan", then you emphasized as well constituted "Province of Teotlalpan", supported by a handful of books but now you are using them to maintain that it is not province or jurisdiction, but only one region. Contradicting you also insist that it is a "minor Province" and you accept what your source says is a "district" of the Intendance of Mexico. This is incongruous because the system of Intendencias was established after 1786, when according to the consensus of the sources we have reviewed, the notion of "Teotlalpan region" had already disappeared.
 * Why do not you show the complete pages? Why do you quote Humboldt without even having read it? Really do you want to know what wrote Humboldt? About "Historia del Estado de México". Authors like you, who are citing good books but decontextualizing fragments, the system of encomiendas had already been extinguished in the early 1600, has nothing to do with the Intendancias in 1800. --Akapochtli (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is Teotlalpan, is town in Puebla State, is a Mictlan or North of Mexico-Tenochtitlan? For me is old territory, What is Teotlalpan for you?--Marrovi (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I read a little bit to Alexander von Humboldt, he was in my village, was housed in the parish of Santiago Apóstol, there exists here a document that is awarded to him wrote where he writes that a priest struck an Indigenous people, but I would like to read what he wrote more about this region.--Marrovi (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC) -, no response, still? You two can keep arguing over this indefinitely, if you think that's a productive use of your time. El_C 07:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless...
of whether "Teotlalpan" is the name of a region or not, the lead is a collection of unconnected sentences and the rest of the article is a bad Google translate of the Spanish article. It's clear the article intends to contain information relating to what the term "Teotlalpan" can mean and pretty badly fails at coherently conveying it. But it fails at an even more fundamental level, in that it never answers why this term, be it as an obscure name for (some part of) the Mezquital Valley or a concept from Aztec cosmogony, deserves its own independent article. Is there really enough substance here to construct an article from what could just as easily be contained in 2 subsections spread across a couple broader, more substantive articles? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A579:E344:3220:C921 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, can you comment the coherence of this version?


 * If you wonder why, there it says: "Thus, in the absence of a better term, they used by simple logic the word Teotlalpan to demarcate indigenous towns inside north of the Valley of Mexico that showed more insulation populations and a drier environment." Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That passage lacks attribution. What source is that idea based on? El_C 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hell
Akapochtli; Hell is an ofensive word, my nickname is Marrovi. Offering users is an act of aggression that can lead to blocking. --Marrovi (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha. Do you guess? --Akapochtli (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Akapochtli's offenses in Italian
It's the site: it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Teotlalpan

È stata creata il 10 aprile da Marrovi in questo stato, come voce sulla regione precolombiana Teotlalpan. Qualche giorno dopo Akapochtli la riscrive così, chiaramente con uso di babelfish, trasformandola in una voce di linguistica storica sul termine Teotlalpan e sui suoi usi.

Su es.wiki, la voce è stata cancellata nella prima forma (come ricerca originale) e ricreata nella seconda; Marrovi è stato bloccato infinito per vandalismi e blocchi. Su en.wiki c'è una lunga discussione con annessa editwar e template P sulla pagina.

Vista la situazione, IMHO nessuna delle due versioni della pagina è accettabile: la prima per essere una possibile/probabile ricerca originale, la seconda per essere tradotta con traduttore automatico (e secondo me rientrante pienamente nel C3) - nonché con alcune parti che sembrano essere lì solamente per confutare l'altra versione. Visto l'inghippo, secondo me la soluzione migliore è cancellare tutto--Dr &zeta;imbu (msg) 19:29, 6 set 2017 (CEST)


 * Buon giorno a te Dr Zimbu. Grazie mille per l'avviso. Non ho problemi con le politiche di modifica, se ritieni che la pagina non soddisfi le necessarie, quindi prosegui, non mi oppongo alla sua cancellazione.


 * Permettetemi di fare due osservazioni: la versione che ho offerto deriva da una revisione approfondita dei documenti storici, cercando di essere il più neutrale possibile, cercando di metterlo in linea con la rilevanza che ha (che non è molto). In conclusione, a mio parere, vogliamo usare questo termine per esaltare l'orgoglio del regionalista, in opposizione a quello che ho fatto la mia versione; le informazioni esistenti sono scarse e la maggior parte dei ricercatori lo menziona poblemente, forse a causa di questo "il mio riepilogo" può sembrare "ricerca originale", che no, raccolgo dati che offrono un'immagine neutrale del soggetto (vedi semplicemente i riferimenti e la bibliografia).


 * Secondo punto, l'etichetta di "Non-neutralità" messo in versione inglese è stata posta dall'autore originale dell'articolo, che per vendetta vuole rovinare la versione che offro, quel utente dice che sono la causa del suo blocco permanente, l'espulsione è data dalle azioni proprie che ciascuno fa, non da un altro utente. Rimango ai tuoi ordini. (Scusa per la traduzione automatica) --Akapochtli (msg) 06:21, 7 set 2017 (CEST)

Is very necessary to read here; en:Talk:Teotlalpan, thank you very much.--Marrovi (msg) 06:35, 7 set 2017 (CEST)


 * Puoi annullare se non ha importanza, Dr, Zimbu, grazie mille per aver consigliato.--Marrovi (msg) 06:46, 7 set 2017 (CEST)

My bloking in Spanish is about Lenguas nahuanas [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Variantes_del_n%C3%A1huatl&action=history Akapochtli (discusión · contribuciones)‎. . (29 824 bytes) (+252)‎. . (Deshecha la edición de Marrovi u otro usuario agresivo desde cuenta no registrada) (deshacer)]. It is intolerant Akapochtli to mock that I am blocked is Spanish because he denounces to User:Bernard that my entry of correction of non-existent Spanish terms as Lenguas nahuanas o nahuatlanas (Akapochtli's terms) by temporary block, which was the perfect excuse to ask for my permanent blocking and to look for other blocks and ask for my general bannig. A person who acts with skills is not a good person for me.--Marrovi (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha, ha. Really? --Akapochtli (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This user is good person?, The mockery is the good spirit of Wikipedia?--Marrovi (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Teotlalpan is a fiction?
Is very necesary put in Original Research templete? Many book and many archeological articles talk about Teotlalpan.Marrovi (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The references in this article do not convince me that it is not fiction. And a lot of what the article contains, such as the etymology is Original Research where you reference dictionaries for parts of the word but not the actua word. This is synthesis which is a kind of original research. So yes, the Original Research template is very necessary. This is a major poroblem with your work on this topic that many many editors have told you before, so the facyt that you still persist in creating this kind of article is extremely problematic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If Teotlalpan does not exist, what is the problem with Teotlalpan? I understand your his position, but the people being does not speak of the things that do not exist, I do not believe that the researchers that address the issue are out of context. Akapochtli, Rosymonterrey and Ruberyuka are great researchers as Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, Vladimira Palma and others? Marrovi (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Maunus, I'm not Doctor, I'm not great researcher, I'm not sysop, I'm not good person, but I'm not crazy, I love reading, I love the history, I know this region because I live here.Marrovi (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This argument is the definition of "Original Research" - your living in the area has no bearing on how the area should be described or covered in Wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maunus, you understand Spanish language, you can to read this documents. . See you.Marrovi (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Teotlalpan" seems to have been simply the Nahuatl name for the Mezquital valley - there is no reason it should have a separate article, since there does not appear to be any weighty sources specifically about the pre-columbian province of that name. I have proposed a merge to "Valley of Mezquital".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same reason, that Teotlalpan" seems to have been simply the Nahuatl name for the Mezquital valley; but in Old Teotlalpan there are other altepemeh as Apaxco, Tequixquiac, Hueypoxtla, Jilotzingo, Tlapanaloya, Ajoloapan, Zacacalco, Huehuetoca, Nopala, Zumpango, Santa María Cuevas and Zitlaltepec, towns inside Mexico State. But Mezquital Valley now is a big region only in Hidalgo State; Mexico State no Mezquital Valley, this region was divided in two states since 1848, when was created the Hidalgo State. In Mexico state now is only Zumpango Region. I think, Teotlalpan need their article because Mezquital Valley and Zumpango Region are different regions now, when the last time both of them regions were the same region, named only Teotlalpan. Marrovi (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that there are any sources about the region that makes it merit a separate article. This is indispensable. The history of how the territory was originally oncstituted and then divided can be described in the articles on the Mezquitalk Valley and the Zumpango region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Teotlalpan was an old land in Aztec Empire and also on firts centuries the New Spain


In this map, the municipalities of Apaxco, Hueypoxtla, Tequixquiac, Huehutoca and Zumpango no inside Mexico Valley, because the cultural issues and climate is diferent. Apaxco, Hueypoxtla, Tequixquiac, Huehuetoca and Zumpango are arid o desertic lands, the same climate in Mezquital Valley. In Mexico State no Natural regions as in Hidalgo State, the Mexico State only has got a strange administrative division (Tejupilco Region, Zumpango Region, Atlacomulco Region or Toluca Region).

The natural and cultural regions in Mexico State are Tierra Caliente (Tejupilco Region and a part of Ixtapan Region), Matlatzingo Valley (Toluca Valley), Mexico Valley (Naucalpan Region, Tlalnepantla Region, Ecatepec Region, Tultitlán Region, Texcoco Region, Chimalhuacan Region and Amecameca Region), Mezquital Valley (Zumpango Region and a part of Cuautitlán Izcalli Region), Mazahuahcan (Atlacomulco Region and Valle de Bravo Región), Tlahuicapan (Ixtapan Region) and Otomi Sierra (Lerma Region).

But in Mexico State, no Mezquital Valley now, only Teotlalpan Region in many documents ans research, the old name of Mezquital Valley. Mezquital Valley is only Hidalgo State. If you want to name to Mezquital Valley as Teotlalpan, you must to include Apaxco, Tequixquiac, Hueypoxtla, Zumpango, Coyotepec and Huehuetoca in Mezquital Valley, but doing that will be much more confusing and there will be more conflicts than having Teotlalpan separately as an independent article.Marrovi (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument. You need to present actual sources, not more original research.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

When Vladmira Palma wrote her book, was named La Teotlalpan, la tierra de los dioses; la etnicidad entre los otomíes, no El Valle del Mezquital. When a great academic or searcher as Vladimira Palma Linares use the word Teotlalpan in her documents, no Original Search Vladimira Palma Linares.Marrovi (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are precisely making the same mistakes that got you blocked at the spanish wikipedia. You are making original research, creating articles that are not supoported by sources, and when confronted with the argument you behave problematically. You cannot for example remove a merge template untill there is a consensus that the article should or should not be merged. I will not waste much more time on this before I take it to some administrators who are unlikely to look favorably at your behavior given your known history of disruptive editing at other wikis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

''Como les encanta el chisme y hacer leña del árbol caído, las personas faltas ética revuelven las cosas y le sacan provecho a los errores del pasado, con el único fin de atacar a las personas que les hace ver su error. Almenos nosotros en la UNAM no usamos tácticas tan sucias y tan bajas comos estos comentarios que me dejaron en mi talk, solo ustedes saben con que fin lo hicieron. Para nosotros los pumas, la ciencia no es un guerra política que intenta respaldar la necedad del adversario, es el surgimiento del conocimiento y la ruptura de los viejos paradigmas.'' Marrovi (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * y los pendejos repiten perpetuamente los mismos errores que ya les metieron en problemas. Ya basta de intercambiar insultos?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Vladimira Palma wrote Teotlalpan in her documents
Arqueología De Género en El Sur De La Teotlalpan: El Caso De Comunidades Tributarias a La Triple Alianza is other Vladimira's book, she named The South Teotlalpan (in English) because in Mexico State no Mezquital Valley. Other case when Teotlalpan no Original Research Vladimira Palma Linares.Marrovi (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To say that Teotlalpan is the same territory to the present Mezquital Valley is to say the same as New Spain is the same territory of present Mexico. Now we know that the place that the nahuatlacas called Teotlalpan corresponds to the current territory of two states (México and Hidalgo), the firts Zumpango Region and the second Mezquital Valley Region. I agree to annex Apaxco, Tequixquiac, Hueypoxtla, Coyotepec, Huehuetoca and Zumpango into the Mezquital Valley, but it's a big problem when there are currently two dissenting political divisions of the same old territory.Marrovi (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The source mentions the word but is not about the topic. You cannot base an article on mentions of the word.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)