Talk:Purépecha Empire

Requested move 23 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Speaking of imperio, the Spanish article is called es:Imperio purépecha. (Tarascan and Purépecha seem to be two names for the same language). And the infobox calls it es:Imperio de Tzintzuntzan. Those who consider this entity to be an empire will be happy to see the English article Purépecha Empire, which seems like it should be a redirect to this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Tarascan state → Tarascan Empire – Like Aztec Empire, Inca Empire. Spanish Wikipedia calls it "imperio" --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Eldizzino (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Tarascan+Empire%22

• Strong Oppose'. 1. It was not an empire, in any sense of the word. 2. the literature calls about it calls it "the Tarascan state". 3. What Spanish Wikipedia calls it is irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I think, more irrelevant than the Spanish Wikipedia is what a single Wikipedia editor thinks is true ("It was not an empire, in any sense of the word"), because that is WP:OR. I gave a google search link, you didn't comment on the results from there. So, here are some of the book sources:
  1. "During the Late Postclassic period the Tarascan Empire was the second largest in Mesoamerica" in Chapter 30 named "THE TARASCAN EMPIRE" [1] (Tarascan Empire 15 times, Tarascan state 7 times)
  2. "Driving Adventure: Michoacan: Touring the Tarascan Empire" By William J. Conaway [2] (a tourist guidebook, not written by a specialist, not about the precolombian state = not RS)
  3. "The Tarascan empire was at that time the second largest empire in Mesoamerica" [3]
  4. "Tarascan empire" in The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico MIT Press [4] (Tarascan Empire 4 times, Tarascan state 7 times)
  5. "Tarascan Empire" in Preindustrial Copper Production at the Archaeological Zone of Itziparatzico, a Tarascan Location in Michoacan, Mexico [5] (uses Tarascan state (not capitalized) 19 times and Tarascan Empire 12 times)

Eldizzino (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No it is not OR when what a single wikipedia editor happens to be the on who has actually read the literature about the topic and bases their opinion on knowing what the fuck they are talking about instead of just doing a google search. It is sometimes called "the Tarascan empire" in a non-technical sense, but Pollard and other authorities are clear that it was not an empire because it was not expansionist and did not incorporate different ethnic groups. That is why she calls it the tarascan state, and why the majority of sources follow her. "Tarascan state" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is the accurate title, so There is no basis for renaming this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• [6] Tarascan Empire 3 times, Tarascan state 13 times.
• [7] Tarascan empire 2 times, Tarascan state 3 times.
• Google Book hits: "Tarascan state" 546 hits, "Tarascan empire" 323 hits.
• Google Scholar hits: "Tarascan state" 385 hits, "Tarascan empire" 229 hits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

With that many hits for Tarascan Empire/Tarascan empire your stick to the above "It was not an empire, in any sense of the word"? Eldizzino (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pollard, H. P. (2008). A model of the emergence of the Tarascan State. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19(02), 217-230.
• Pollard, H. P. (1980). Central places and cities: a consideration of the protohistoric Tarascan state. American Antiquity, 677-696.
• Pollard, H. P. (1993). Tariacuri's Legacy: The Prehispanic Tarascan State. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Pollard, H. P. (1982). Ecological variation and economic exchange in the Tarascan state. American Ethnologist, 9(2), 250-268.
• Pollard, H. P. (1991). The construction of ideology in the emergence of the prehispanic Tarascan state. Ancient Mesoamerica, 2(02), 167-179.
• Maldonado, B. E. (2008). A tentative model of the organization of copper production in the Tarascan state. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19(02), 283-297.
• Haskell, D. L. (2008). The Cultural Logic of Hierarchy in the Tarascan State. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19(02), 231-241.
• Hirshman, A. J., & Ferguson, J. R. (2012). Temper mixture models and assessing ceramic complexity in the emerging Tarascan state. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(10), 3195-3207.
• Versluis, V. A. (2001). The iconography of the protohistoric Tarascan state of Western Mexico: the material expression of the state ideology. UMI Dissertation Services; Bell & Howell.
• Fisher, C. T. (2009). Landscape and the Tarascan state: labor, intensification, and land degradation. Polities and Power: Archaeological Perspectives on the Landscapes of Early States. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 80-98.
• Gorenstein, S., & Pollard, H. P. (1980). The Development of the Protohistoric Tarascan State. photocopied report to the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy, New York 1980).
• Haskell, D. L. (2003). History and the Construction of Hierarchy and Ethnicity in the Prehispanic Tarascan State: A Syntagmatic Analysis of the Relación de Michoacán (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Note that it is only capitalized when in title case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment User:Maunus claims Note that it is only capitalized when in title case. Now looking at the data, one sees it different, right in the first line: "A model of the emergence of the Tarascan State.". Eldizzino (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is sometimes called "the Tarascan empire" in a non-technical sense - this assertion seems to be WP:OR by User:Maunus. Eldizzino (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Whereas your misrepresentation of random google results is what exactly? Actually, don't bother to answer. I've presented sufficient arguments and evidence here that a closer will see that there is no basis for changing the title or capitalization - and so I shall not waste further time argueing with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you enlighten the readers and provide evidence for 1) there were "random google results" used by me and 2) "misrepresentation" of these? Eldizzino (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Maunus claims without source provided, (WP:OR?): "did not incorporate different ethnic groups". Now looking at [8], a source s/he provided one another occasion, one finds: "This was the Tarascan state [...] peopled by ethnic groups of matlazincas, tecos, mazahuas, otomíes, chontales, nahuas". Eldizzino (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Irechecua → Tarascan state – The title of this article was recently moved without discussion from "Tarascan state" to "Irechecua"; however, irechecua seems to simply be the Purépecha word for "kingdom", and has minimal usage in English-language literature. Ngrams suggests that "Tarascan state" remains the most common name for the polity ([9]), so I'm proposing a return to that nomenclature. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Nominator comment - When discussing Tarascan and Purépecha as terms, it bears mention that the term "Tarascan" is generally seen as derogatory when used to describe the present-day Purépecha people. However, as far as I'm aware, there is no derogatory connotation when using "Tarascan" to refer specifically to the pre-colonial kingdom. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Tarascan state is far and away better known and the common name. Walrasiad (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tarascan is largely seen as derogatory. I have yet to see anything that says that it being used for the pre colonial period somehow makes that not so, especially since Tarascan most likely was not a term until the colonial period itself. 261JAN (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. That's kinda ridiculous, honestly, I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn't derogatory in a pre-colonial context. The t-word's meaning, alluding to rape, emerges in a colonial context in the first place. The only reason it's the most common name is Pollard buys into Sahagun's explanation of the term despite him being wrong on every other thing he says regarding the Purepecha, as Pollard well knows. Even Spanish wikipedia prefers "Purepecha empire" (also wrong but eh) leaving t-word state as a redirect. The Purepecha community's website itself elaborates why it should be avoided.2600:8801:1093:6300:5478:EA35:9262:B76 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though historiographically more common, the word 'Tarascan' carries with it a heavy history of racism and coloniality. It is in the colonial period that our first known records of the word appear, alongside irechequa; it is also in this colonial period where a much less charged word is initially used, Michoacana/o, with the aforementioned other word rising to prominence nigh a century after that ([10]), while Tarascan state is first used much, much later, at least according to those same Ngrams (english, spanish). There has been a recent push to use the more accurate Irechekwa (in any of its various spellings) and the name of the capital city at the time ([11], [12], even Pollard of all people has used it). The use of the phrase containing the slur is neither responsible, nor respecful, nor specific, and thus would be best left as a redirect (which it already is) to the current one. Cornsnek (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Additional nom comment - Thanks to the recent commenters for the additional sources; it seems I was incorrect about the historical connotations of "Tarascan", and in light of the additional information I do agree that it's inappropriate for the article title. However, I don't think Irechecua on its own is suitable either, as it's a more generalized term with rare usage in English. What are people's thoughts on Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan? From what I've seen, the phrase Irechecua Tzintzuntzani is almost invariably used alongside that translation in English sources. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Ngrams etc. Tarascan clearly predominates. Irechecua tends to be used (if at all) in Spanish language sources. WP:COMMONNAME applies. Some comments about it being “derogatory” - irrelevant per WP:RGW. Also, closer should note that, to date, the opposers have an aggregate grand total of 76 Wikipedia edits between all of them! DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although others have already commented on ModernDayTrilobite's statements, it shouldn't hurt to unpack it a bit more and provide context. We'll focus on English language representation for a bit. The Purépecha as we know are in Mexico, where most of the research is done, although only somewhat moreso because 1) this is a niche topic in both countries that is 2) compounded by the Mexican government's lack of interest in either the history or welfare of indigenous groups that don't contribute to the national image. There's still a lot of indigenous prejudice against Purépecha communties today. Likewise, academic, unfortunately even historians and archaeologists (especially the older generations) are not immediately connected to these communities and so are distanced from those issues, which explains the lag in terminology change. In English archaeology, we've mostly just borrowed from the Mexican archaeological community without as much informational exchange as there probably could be, as well as from Helen Pollard who just uncritically took the term from Sahagun. However, it could be pointed out that Pollard is not the foremost authority on the Purépecha, just the most accessible English source. Even so, in more recent times that tide has been turning and as Cornsnek brought up, more recent literature is attempting to phase out the usage of "Tarascan". Even in the English language Ngram posted, you can plainly see that the usage of Tarascan has been on the decline while Purépecha has, for the first time ever, experienced a significant increase. You can also see this reflected in the Ngram for the Spanish terms; not only has "reino purépecha" surpassed "reino tarasco" at a little over 5 times the frequency of the highest English-language term "Tarascan state", but it too is at the highest it's ever been. There's actually a similar thing that happens with the "Eskimo/Inuit" terminology. Even though the former was by far the most commonly used in academia for decades, and is even still used in some modern papers, Wikipedia opts for the latter in describing the Inuit, at least for the ethnic groups themselves. Not so much when the E-word is used in language families and archaeological complexes, but even they at least mention the controversy.

Personally, not only do I oppose changing the article back to "Tarascan state", but I also support removing uncritical usages of "Tarascan" in favor of "Purépecha" in other articles. But that's a discussion for the talk page at WP:MESO.

Overall, though, I do have to agree that simply using "Irechecua", while probably the most sensible option and one that we might see more usage of in future literature, isn't currently as reflected in the literature as the usage of Purépecha kingdom/empire which is also more recognizable and more specific. As Spanish Wikipedia uses Imperio purépecha as the polity's primary name, I believe we should likewise try a change. I think I'm actually very much a fan of Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan. It's direct, it's got frequent academic usage and it's closer to its actual indigenous terminology than the other two most common terms, even though Tzintzuntzan wasn't always the capital (as with the Roman Empire, it's complicated). Should Purépecha kingdom/empire not be chosen, I'd prefer that before going anywhere close to "Tarascan".

At the absolute very least, there must be an expanded section on the names and the controversial status of "Tarascan". Spanish Wikipedia also does this already, to a point, but still more than what English wiki is doing. Leaving such an important part of this identity's name does not do well to represent the facts at all.

As for DeCausa's comments and concerns, I'm a bit confused by them. I've of course mentioned the part about Ngram and how they indeed show the paradigm shift away from Tarascan, as well as brought up the Spanish Ngrams. I think we've established that what the "common name" is is very much up in the air and subject to change (and far from the only example of its kind), so we may at least pick the least problematic one (which is also the one that appears to be gaining the most popularity). I do agree that just Irechecua isn't really used very much (though this could change) and isn't the best choice of article title, but if we're citing the Spanish language sources (as we should) to be against it then we should be using those very same sources to argue for a Purépecha focus. I also believe WP:RGW only barely applies here. With the apparent close exception of using "Irechecua" without a source, the issue at large isn't really using original research to "expose the truth" of a person, institution or topic so much as reflecting a well-founded history of Purépecha objections to a derogatory term, as well as changing uses of it in academia, in the form of...changing a single word on an encyclopedia to a less harmful one. One policy I think does apply is none other than the one we all learned in Wikindergarten: WP:AGF. Putting derogatory in sarcastic "air quotes" as if to either question the editors' motives or, worse, summarily invalidate the issue does, in all honesty, put me on alarm. I likewise am not going to jump to any definite conclusions to that but I would also still advise that everyone here is just trying to be constructive both for Wikipedia and its readers who use the information.

What I can't help but to see a bad faith argument in however is the last claim saying "the opposers have an aggregate grand total of 76 Wikipedia edits". I see no reason for this. How often one edits Wikipedia is not a proxy for how experienced they are in a particular topic. Many well-established and highly published professors barely edit Wikipedia, if at all (though they certainly should, IMO). If a couple of new experienced people want to come in and liven up the unsightly, poorly trafficked, referenced, monitored and fact-checked, cobweb-infested mess that is the Mesoamerican part of Wikipedia, they should be allowed to be heard without needing to make 500 more edits. So I don't know what this last part is trying to say, but it doesn't seem to be anything good. Please do not bite the newcomers. TangoFett (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr. I was referring to WP:SPA…obviously. Skimmed your meandering verbose WP:WALLOFTEXT and there certainly doesn’t seem to be anything good in that. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broader discussion on article title

Hi all – in the wake of my recent RM, I wanted to open up discussion about this article's title in a somewhat less formal way. I was overeager in rushing to the specific RM, and have since come to agree that it's inappropriate for us to use the term "Tarascan" in Wikivoice in the article's title; accordingly, I'd planned to withdraw my request, but since some !votes were cast in support of it, I didn't have the unanimous opposition I would have needed to be able to do so. Instead, I wanted to try to move the conversation out of the formalized RM space and into a more open conversation.

I'm still of the view that "Irechecua" is a suboptimal English title for the article – I also noticed that much of the opposition to my original proposal was based on the problems with "Tarascan state" as a title rather than outright support for "Irechecua", which suggests to me that I'm not alone in that perception. Therefore, the question I want to put out to the room is: what would your ideal title for this page be? My own preference at the moment is "Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan" – it's precise, it's used in scholarly sources, it's reflective of the state's endonym, and it's easy for laypeople to understand. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As the person who made the seemingly ever controversial move to Irechecua, the reason I personally did not move it to Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan was because the capital was not always Tzintzuntzan, it was also sometimes Ihuatzio and Patzcuaro. The term Purepecha Empire or State would work in my opinion, as it does on Spanish wikipedia, but I can see the hesitancy there due to Purepecha apparently meaning 'commoner' in the Purepecha language. So I propose another idea, Uacusecha Empire/Kingdom/State, which was the name of the ruling dynasty, descended from Ticatame. Personally I'm also fine with Irechecua of course, but it seems not many are, so Uacusecha Empire is my proposition.261JAN (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Uacusecha Kingdom" has been used in a very few sources, but unfortunately WP:COMMONNAME prevents us from titling things just at our discretion. Fortunately, that same policy also supports our anti-Tarascan stance since it allows for alternatives if the most common title is problematic. Furthermore, I've become distrustful of Ngram since although "Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan" shows up frequently in books and papers it doesn't seem to show up at all on there. Although as previously discussed the capital wasn't always Tzintzuntzan, I still think it's fitting as an overall term. Anyway, what we do have, Purépecha Empire, is also a valid term making a sharp rise in the literature since the 2010s and is also the title adopted by the Spanish Wikipedia. Again, not perfect, but policy-wise it's the best fit. In any case, I imagine it's more frequent anyway than Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan. I still believe there should be a longer section discussing the names in which we can include all the alternatives. TangoFett (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm definitely amenable to Purépecha Empire as well; I've seen that term used fairly often myself and I think it would be recognizable. (As for the scope of the section: feel free to add any other alternatives you'd like. I opted not to create a comprehensive list of possible titles, since I feel like the open-ended format would better steer the discussion toward options with concrete support behind them, but if such a list would help people then I'd definitely welcome it.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, "Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan" (irechecua tzintzuntzani) would make the most sense if there were separate articles for the earlier kingdoms centered at Patzcuaro and Ihuatzio. I don't think this would be dissimilar from how we have an Ancient Egypt article and then separate ones for the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. Understandably though, at least for the moment this isn't the case, and it might not even be the best approach given that to my understanding the same dynasty/government had continuity between the three capitals. So "Purepecha Empire" is probably the optimal solution, provided there's a line or two somewhere to discuss the endonym(s). It's relatively common, increasing in ubiquity, straightforward, and consistent with other articles on Wikipedia (for better or worse). The proposal of "Uacusecha Kingdom" solves a lot of problems and would also be internally consistent (reminds me of how we call it the Inka Empire) but I don't think is common enough (though there is some precedent) to work as the name for the article. The Uacusecha were part of the ethnic group today called the Purepecha though, and in those days they made up the majority of the nobility and ruling class of the kingdom, so ultimately I think it works despite Purepecha literally meaning commoner. Pooxel (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So, from the conversation so far, it appears that the "Purépecha Empire" title seems acceptable to everyone who's spoken up. Does anyone want to get the ball rolling on the formal page-moving process? I'm hesitant to do it myself – it feels a bit inappropriate given that I started the previous RM – but I'd love to see it happen while there's still a bit of momentum behind this conversation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll get on it. TangoFett (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Irechecua → Purépecha Empire – Per previous discussions, this is the most policy-consistent and harm-reductive option available. To sum up the main points:

• The initial rename that attempted to solve this problem, Irechecua (while having historical basis & some academic usage), does not meet WP:COMMONNAME criteria and can't stay.
• Nevertheless, the previous title employs the word "Tarascan" which is generally considered to be a pejorative label by Purépecha communities: 1 2 3. WP:COMMONNAME likewise makes room for avoiding such problematic titles — even when the title is the most common — and this is further bolstered when taking the advice of Wikipedia:Slurs. It, too, can't stay.
• Ngram evidence (which is admittedly very limited in this scenario), while still having "Tarascan" at the top, shows a sharp rise in frequency in the late 2010s following changing social trends. As West Mexican archaeology in the English language still largely mirrors the Spanish literature, it's important to note that the Spanish Ngrams not only show Purépecha on top but it's 5 times as frequent as "Tarascan state" is in English.
  • On the subject of Spanish academia — again, where the bulk of the research lies, this article's title in Spanish Wikipedia is already Imperio purépecha and has been for years.

Therefore Purépecha Empire, while the semantics of the endonym in this context could be debated, is nevertheless a form in common use by researchers and preferred by the subject ethnicity and the current article should be changed to this title. TangoFett (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - As laid out by the nominator, "Purépecha Empire" is a precise title that balances both recognizability and sensitivity. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom etc. Purépecha Empire is a good equivalent of the title we have at the moment given that Irechikwa is, going by its morphology, any large-scale polity (as opposed to Ireta, likely the equivalent to altepetl as a settlement). Makes it more accessible and is accurate enough, and since there's no attestation of a name a la Excan Tlahtoloyan, nor is the push to use Irechecua in academia a dominant one, this might be the best course of action abiding by human decency, accuracy, and wiki standards. Cornsnek (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.