Talk:Maya Codex of Mexico

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grolier Codex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 18:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Review

I will review this article over the coming week.

• Some observations:

1. I find that one aspect of the codex's known history is missing: its return to Mexico. One paper suggests that this is a signficiant event in itself. Vitelli, K. D. (1977). The Antiquities Market. Journal of Field Archaeology, 4(4), 459-472. on page 461 writes: "The 1970 United States-Mexico artifacts treaty should also be well known to all. This treaty covers all archaeological, historical, or cultural property of Mexico and as such is more extensive in its scope than PL 92-587. To invoke this treaty, however, the Attorney General of Mexico has to make a request to the Department of Justice to use any law at its disposal to recover an item by civil suit. Because of the complicated machinery of the treaty it has been invoked only a few times, notably in the seizure and return of the Grolier Codex to Mexico in 1976." She suggests reading Karl Meyer's 1977 "The Plundered Past" for more information. Unfortunately my library only has the 1973 edition of this book, which presumably does not include this information. Perhaps including the information from Vitelli would be a good idea?

• Thanks for this: I don't have access to the book either, but have pulled the relevant info from the journal article as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please take a look at the journal article: Vitelli, K. D. (1977). The Antiquities Market. Journal of Field Archaeology, 4(4), 459-472.. It appears to be is incorrectly cited by Jstor. Vitelli is the editor of the "The Antiquities Market" section of the journal but the relevant section is actually written by Bruhns, Karen Olsen "Seizure of Precolumbian Antiquities in San Franciso; The Relevance of Current Legislation to Stopping the Illicit Commerce in Artifacts", pp.460-462. In her article Bruhns does not cite where she got information concerning the extradition of the Grolier Codex back to Mexico. ACMelendez (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC) (talk)

Yes, regardless of who wrote that section the information is cited to Meyer 1976 (who apparently talked with Coe already on the first showing of the Codex). Btw. other publications also cite this as Vitelli 1977 for some reason, I wonder if we should follow that practice or cite it as Bruhns in Vitelli 1977.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For scholarship, I think that the reference should be cited as Bruhns in Vitelli. If you read the text box at the beginning of the "The Antiquies Market", Vitelli is inviting "reports" from potential contributors, meaning these "reports" are written by persons other than Vitelli. Also, in Meyer 1977 (paperback) does this reference indicate that the 1977 is a "second edition" or is it only a paperback edition of 1973. We have Meyer 1973 hardback 1st ed which has same page numbering as 1977 paperback (which we don't have). In the 1977 do you see reference to the US Attorney General extradition of the Grolier Codex to Mexico. ACMelendez (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the Bruhns reference, and placed Vitelli as the editor. I must admit, I just pulled the referencing info from the JSTOR summary. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The representation of Nikolai Grube's viewpoint bothers me for some reason - We only have access to the first supportive statement in Baudez' summary and I have not been able to access the 2000 book to check it. It is interesting to be sure, but also seems a little odd to add two contradictory statements by the same scholar without further discussion. Maybe writing Grube an email to ask about what made him change his mind would make sense? It would be OR, of course to include in the text but it is allowed in order to make better sense of sources and make editorial decision about best how to include specific information from sources. What is Baudez' credentials and what specifically makes him reject its possible divinatory functions? Based on scholarly reputation alone I would weigh Grube's statements about the accuracy of it as a venus almanac above Baudez, since Grube is a well established authority on glyphs and calendrics.

• My (earlier) source states that Grube considered that the codex was genuine. Someone came by later to add that his opinion had changed. Baudez is (or rather was - French wiki says he died recently) a French Mesoamericanist, archaeologist and iconographer, specializing in Mesoamerican ritual. I think the difference is that Baudez has written a fairly lengthy critique of the codex, whereas I have not seen an equivalent study from Grube (even the cited article is in German, which I don't speak). Simon Burchell (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, I think this needs to be clarified and both sources need to be consulted if we are to attribute any view to Grube. If we are not sure what he currently believesor what he has in fact written then we shouldnt attribute a view to him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've sent him an email, if he replies that may help with this point. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The doubts that have been cast on Saenz' acquisition could probably use some more fleshing out. At present it stands almost as an innuendo.

• This sentence really refers back to the Discovery section, however I've added a little detail from Yates. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The opening of the "authenticity" section is a little odd, jumping from 2012 in one sentence and back to Thompson in the next. A better formulation would perhaps be that it has been disputed ever since its first public appearance.

• Fair point. I dropped that sentence in recently, to try to give a marker for future article development (i.e. find decent sources later than 2012) - I've moved the sentence. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Who considers the sense of perspective in the illustration on page 9 to be alien to Mesoamerican art? (attribution in text would be good) Also I dont actually see any perspective whatsoever in the illustration - looks to me as if the head is simply drawn larger, which may look like perspective but isnt necessarily meant that way.

• The detail in question is the lower portion of the captive; the legs are viewed as if partially from above, which is certainly unusual - the upper legs overlay the partially visible lower legs and feet, at an angle that I certainly haven't seen elsewhere in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican art. Baudez considers this viewpoint to be anachronistic; this sentence is cited to him, but I will drop his name into the para. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

1. In 2008 it was reported - but by whom? And who had done the tests? (is it the Ruvalcalba tests mentioned further down - if so the order is confusing) Reference to the actual report of the tests would be good. There are a couple of passive constructions like this where direct attribution would be better "this is considered unusual" etc.

• I used this particular construction because the investigation results were published in 2008, but the date of the investigation itself was not specified. I've rephrased the sentence. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine to just refer to the year of publication. "A 2008 study by Ruvalcaba et al. reported that" would be best I think.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I have added Michael Coe (1973a) "The Maya Scribe and His World" (which I have in front of me) to the reference section. It is a primary reference and I have begun to cite it as the primary rather than secondary references such as Baudez, etc. when applicable. Also, you should be aware that the Coe (1973b) "The Grolier Codex" is in actuality an edited document compiled by Randa Markenke, the author of the "MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING The Ancient Maya Codices: The Grolier Codex" for FAMSI. Working with Justin Kerr, Marhenke has compiled Coe's text from the primary source document "The Maya Scribe and His World" 1973, p. 150-154 and added set of Kerr photographs (which were NOT published in the 1973 "The Maya Scribe and His World"). Please note how this document is described on FAMSI webpage [1] "For the complete set of photographs of the Grolier Codex by Justin Kerr with commentary from The Maya Scribe and His World by Michael D. Coe click here". The Kerr photographs used in this edited "The Grolier Codex" PDF document are the same Kerr photographs linked via the "External Link" on the Grolier Codex Wikipedia article page. ACMelendez (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary, but in this case it looks fine. Either reference would stand, but be aware that, in order to prevent overproliferation of citemarks, the cite may be placed at the end of several sentences (or an entire paragraph) written from the same source. If placing another reference in the middle, the original reference (at the end) needs to be re-applied to any text prior to the text you are citing, in order to maintain clarity of referencing.

EXAMPLE:

This is the first piece of information. All of this is cited to the same source. But another reference will be added later. Which will break the flow of referencing.<Simon says>

Then we add an additional reference:

This is the first piece of information. All of this is cited to the same source.<Someone else says> But another reference will be added later. Which will break the flow of referencing.<Simon says>

It now appears that the first sentence is referenced to the newly-inserted reference, when it should be cited to the original reference:

This is the first piece of information.<Simon says> All of this is cited to the same source.<Someone else says> But another reference will be added later. Which will break the flow of referencing.<Simon says>

Simon Burchell (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Other than this I think the article looks fine and pending your response and any edits you may make in response to my comments I think it will be an easy pass. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'm editing from my Kindle, so will respond properly in a day or two when I'm better connected, but will drop in a couple of comments now. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with each of your points above, and await your feedback. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, I will proceed to the formal review shortly.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• IN this piece Houston, Baines and Cooper clearly write from the assumption that the codex is authentic and that is displays a penetration of central Mexican iconographic principles into the Maya area. Last Writing: Script Obsolescence in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica, Stephen Houston, John Baines and Jerrold Cooper. Comparative Studies in Society and History Vol. 45, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 430-479. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the article you mention, and its info on the Grolier Codex seems to be sourced entirely from Coe's 1973 publication, without reference to later studies of the document. However, I will summarise its interpretation in the article, hopefully later today. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped in a sentence referencing the article in the Authenticity section. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have corrected the FAMSI reference to the following: Marhenke, Randa (2012-02-15). "MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING The Ancient Maya Codices: The Grolier Codex". Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). See author's title page, last rev. date, & table of contents. One can see Marhenke stated as author of the "MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING The Ancient Maya Codicies", the last article revision date (2012-02-15), and the table of contents with link to "The Grolier Codex" webpage here [2].ACMelendez (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   3. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Rsult: So bascially even if I wanted to fail this article I would have no excuse. Congratulations with another well researched and written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Article is outdated

What we know about the Grolier Codex has changed significantly since this article was written, mainly due to the extensive research published over the last year by Stephen Houston's team. A lot of the statements in this article are now either incorrect ("Maya Blue pigment could not be confirmed") or need to be balanced against new arguments. The recent research strongly supports the authenticity of the Grolier Codex, but the overall impression one gets from this article is that it is unlikely to be authentic (as we give considerable coverage to skeptics, without covering new research that has debunked their arguments). I was considering putting an {{Update}} tag on the article and possibly even proposing it for good article reassessment, but I wanted to get thoughts from Simon Burchell first. Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We need to be cautious here, Coe, Houston et al have been proponents of the Codex' authenticity all along and they have not published any new evidence yet as far as I can see. There is press coverage, but I am not seeing any of that published research you mention. Even the press coverage suggests that they are mostly reviewing existing evidence and finding it to confirm the opinion they already had. I cannot determine from the press coverage if they have done any independent testing of the codex. In any case we should wait untill there are signs in the literature that skeptics are convinced before we take the word of those who were already convinced to be final. An encyclopedia has to be conservative in this kind of situation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus, there is nothing new in the opinions of Coe (who has a vested interest), Houston, and Taube, who have always supported the authenticity of the document. They have published a new paper reaffirming this, but there has been no new physical analysis of the document. Mention of the new paper and reaffirmed support has been put into the authenticity section, so the article is not outdated. Until we see long-standing opponents of the document's authenticity changing their opinions, we should not jump in and blindly give undue weight to claims of authenticity from a group of scholars who claimed it was authentic from the beginning and have never wavered. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I havent actually been able to find the new paper yet, only the advance press coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I say new, I believe it was December last year, but I couldn't get at it because it was paywalled. It was published in a book, Amazon link here [3]. This prompted a belated press report (this month) at Brown University, which was then picked up elsewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll write Houston and ask for a pdf copy. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have the pdf now, and I have to say that this is doubtless the single most thorough and detailed study of the Grolier to date, and the iconographic analysis is largely new and much more detailed than previous ones. The conclusions seem justified to me since they demonstrate the extreme amount of often prescient knowledge (or luck) the forger would have needed to make the codex without making any mistakes. It should definitely be included in the article quite prominently. I wouldnt say that it is a strict requirement for retaining GA status (as long as the arguments and conclusions are included), but for FA it would certainly be indispensable to engage it with more detail.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll update the article if and when I can get access to the new source... probably won't be any time soon though... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have created a Resource Request for the latest info on the Codex. @Maunus: and @Simon Burchell: might be interested in it as well. Le Loy 08:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

public display

The article said it was not publicly displayed, but I found an item where it was recently displayed.

http://remezcla.com/culture/maya-codex-pre-hispanic-document/

So it's probably still displayed. Y-barton (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Substantial Article Content Update

On 30 August 2018 el Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) published a press release declaring that El Códice Maya de México (CMM, and formerly called the Grolier Codex) was not just an authentic Prehispanic manuscript but also the oldest known Prehispanic manuscript in all of the Americas. During 2018, INAH also published a book sharing their research teams' findings proving the authenticity of the CMM written in Spanish, which may have been a limiting factor to accuracy of information collected on the current Grolier Codex wikipedia page.

To this end, substantial content update to this page are heavily recommended. Among the first edits I shall implement will be a change of title to better reflect the manuscript's official name, El Códice Maya de México (The Maya Codex of Mexico). Although another wiki page with a similar name exists, it is a Spanish article containing a modest update about the manuscript's authenticity that does not reference at all the substantial 2018 INAH publication that further supports INAH's findings. By relaying the Spanish-language content of the 2018 INAH book in English I hope to ensure that English-speaking audiences will gleam some of the most recent research covering the CMM. Beyond the problem of the current title, I also propose that the entirety of the page be updated using a draft I am working with as the main framework for the updated article. This step is not one I adopted initially but one suggested to me by an editor currently reviewing the draft linked above, who felt that given the need to update the Grolier Codex Wikipage, a BOLD edit was not only required but encouraged.

I shall begin to roll-out these edits in the coming days in hopes of receiving feedback from fellow editors interested in making this wikipage a more accurate resource for everyone. I look forward to working together with our community of editors.GenxM (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot has happened since I first brought this article to GA... It certainly needs some serious work to update it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot of developments have certainly unfolded since this page was published but I have just rolled out substantial edits with the in-text citations to come. Please feel free to jump in and help with any edits you feel are necessary for the content to be more accessible.GenxM (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Grolier_Codex - the changes are so substantial (and frankly GenxM's grasp of basic editing policies so weak) that it should be delisted as a GA straight away, as it is not the same article. The title is I think unsustainable - it should probably be Maya Codex of Mexico, though there is a case for keeping the old title until the English-speaking world has got more used to the new one. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the current page should be delisted as a good article due to how substantial the edits are at the moment. Once the edits are complete, I do believe submitting for a GA review is in order but these edits are not yet complete. In regards to the my editing abilities, it is exactly for this reason that I began this thread as a forum by which we may all collaborate to bring about a more accurate article together. As far as the title goes, please do go ahead and switch it to something that is more sustainable (however you define that term in this context) so long as it keeps the integrity of the official name declared by the manuscript's stewards, INAH.GenxM (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the local consensus that the article should be delisted pending re-review, I have delisted it as a good article. Any editor may renominate it at any time by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Art and architecture}} to the top of the talk page and any other editor may begin the review at any time. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I just tweaked the intro so that the first sentence describes the subject instead of the renaming, and then caught up on talk pages and now better understand why it was in upheaval. I appreciate and admire y'all for your hard work balancing bold updates with a longstanding good article. Looks like this was the big edit, yeah? I was going to start to try to incorporate the old well-formatted references from before that edit but am overwhelmed at the moment… Tophtucker (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)