Talk:Zapotec peoples

To do to improve

The article has a good start, but it is really, really short. Looking at the article history, it seems a lot of care was placed to bring it up to this level. However, considering that the Zapotec peoples are pretty influential in mesoamerica, much more can be here. How about the following:

• Pre-Columbian History section (the fr.wiki has a good start, so take a look there)
• Spanish Colonial History section
• Mexican History section
• Culture (pt.wiki does a good job here, including a map)
  • Photos would be nice (see either the fr.wiki or the de.wiki)
• Language - a paragraph devoted to this should be good. Be sure to have a "main article" link to the Zapotec language page.
• Demographics
• Contemporary social issues
• More on the "expatriot" community of Los Angeles
• More citations
• More links
• Comprehensive "Additional Reading" list would be nice, too.

BTW, the es.wiki is a stub, so it will not be of any help. Anyone fluent in Spanish who would be willing to bring that stub up to a "Start" class level? CJLippert 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The es.wiki has been converted into a disambiguation page, with a start class Zapotec language and start class Zapotec culture article pages. However, the Zapotec people article (es:Etnia_zapoteca) is still a red-link and needs to be started. CJLippert 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is a photo of General Heliodoro Charis. No further details about him are mentioned, so it's not clear why his picture is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.8.20 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I agree that the respective articles (Zapoteca Indians and Zapotec) as currently written cover much of the same ground- albeit poorly, and very sketchily, in both cases. However I think that it would be still useful to maintain two separate articles - one to cover the historical pre-Columbian civilization, one of the most likely originators of mesoamerican writing and calendrics and about which a great deal more needs to be written, and the other to cover the contemporary indigenous people, who again are worthy of a much more detailed treatment. I would suggest, that Zapotec be retained for the historical, and Zapoteca for the contemporary. Of course, both articles would cross-reference, one being the antecedant of the other.--cjllw | TALK 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum, a third branch also needs expanding on - Zapotec language.--cjllw | TALK 05:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree that there should be a Language(s) section. I only wish I had knowledge of this topic to contribute.Gaep13^(talk) 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - it seems that someone has nevertheless gone ahead with the merge. IMO there would still be soem virtue in maintaining separate articles, one for the historical civilization, the other the contemporary peoples, but given the parlous state of information in the now-combined article on either, I guess it may be premature to do so. Hopefully, the material can be improved and added to justify a re-splitting of these.--cjllw | TALK 08:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you cjllw.--Rockero 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed section re "Chronogram of Zapotecan Lineage"

I've deleted this recently-added section[1], unsourced and unverified, which contained what appears to be someone's personal biography and genealogy mixed up with modern esoteric interpretations (eg. mention of "galactic centre" in relation to Maya calendar). It remains to be demonstrated whether any of this can be independently verified from any reliable source.

It further confirms the need to split this article up (again) into separate articles - one for the historical Zapotec civilization, one for the Zapotec languages, and the other for the indigenous (contemporary) Zapotec people. Will look to do this in the next little while.--cjllw | TALK 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Zapotec language already have their page.Maunus 08:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, and so I see, though when I originally raised it there wasn't. We still need IMO to separate this article into one on the pre-columbian culture and one for the contemporary indigenous group. In terms of article naming, my first suggestion would be to retain Zapotec for the pre-columbian culture, and use Zapotec people for the contemporary communities - any thoughts, counter-proposals?--cjllw | TALK 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've split them now into Zapotec people, Zapotec civilization (needs a LOT of work) and a disambiguifier at Zapotec. I was bold, sorry I didn't take up the discussion. If it turns out to be wildly unpopular it can be changed back of course. I am now trying to clean up the links to the disamb page and link them directly to the page it wants. Maunus 09:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, Maunus, I think that arrangement should be fine, though "Zapotec culture" might also have done the job. Nice work.--cjllw | TALK 09:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Zapotec Women

I think the new section on Zapotec women is so important that it deserves its own article - and a summary in situ. I propose splitting it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There should also be some cross-referencing and perhaps some transposition with the Gender in Mesoamerican cultures article, in need of some attention. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spanish Moors focused on ascetic self-control and the limitation of sexual outlets as a point of honor as well as emphasizing a strongly dichotomous and hierarchical gender system that valued males and masculinity far more than females and femininity. Many of the indigenous peoples of the Americas were quite different in their gender system constructs and their ideas about what constituted appropriate sexual behavior."[2]

Why the hell are the Moors here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.29 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know the same thing. Lin linao (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too would like to know that. Moreover, I think this material really needs its own page. It's essentially an extended essay on women and gender roles in sociey; considering how little else there is on the page that makes for a very imbalanced page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplbm (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The first two sections on Zapotec women completely contradict each other. Did somebody have Native American Women's Studies from two different professors? Gtbob12 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

can someone remove the fuckin phrase "pussy-whipped"? what is this, high school? 24.187.192.146 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The research used to substantiate this section is outdated and horribly generalized. If gender roles are going to be a major part of this article (which they should), the strong economic and social power held by Zapotec women in the Isthmus needs to be discussed. This is a unique part of the Zapotec culture which has withstood European and Catholic gender norms, and is entirely contrary to other Zapotec regions in which yes women are often held to more familiar subservient social roles. Also may be worth noting the resulting faulty romanticism in contemporary popular culture of the Isthmus being a women and gay rights utopia. This may be a meager but worthwhile starting point: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11625000/analisa-taylor-malinche-and-matriarchal-utopia-western-oregon-/3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:8202:1C40:A5B9:3EB2:788A:D3FD (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Two paragraphs cut from Zapotec civilization

I've cut the following two paragraphs from the end of the Zapotec civilization article, since this article is about the pre-Columbian civilization, not the Zapotec peoples in general:

In 1850 there was another rebellion against the local government of Oaxaca, followed in 1866 by one against the Royal French Army, during the French invasion of Mexico. In recent times, there was an uprising against the local governor Manuel Zárate Aquino in the 1970s, supported by the Mexican Army.

Starting in 2006, a non-violent grassroots social movement against the current governor, Ulises Ruiz Ortiz, stemmed from the violent repression of a teacher's strike on June 16, 2006. Since then a statewide movement has grown, leading to the formation of APPO, the Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca, in which a large number of indigenous groups are involved.

There may be some usable stuff here, so I've pasted it here. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noel.salvador.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Four groups instead of two in Zapotec peoples

I changed the internal division of the Zapotec peoples from two to four, since in addition to istmeños/Isthmus Zapotecs and norteños/Sierra Juárez Zapotecs, there is a huge number of communities in areas that cannot be classified under either group geographically: Mitla, Zaachila, Tlacolula, Miahuatlán, Coatlanes etc. Zapotec languages are divided into these classes as well: Northern, or Sierra Juárez Zapotec, Central Valley Zapotec, Southern Zapotec and Isthmus Zapotec (see, for example, Tom Smith Starks or the Summer Institute of Linguistics' publications). Msalminen81 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Didxažoŋ

On the page, it says that this means "The Zapotecs", but "Didxa" means "language". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexicocamboya (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zapotec peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021220012803/http://zapotec.agron.iastate.edu/cultura.html to http://zapotec.agron.iastate.edu/cultura.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim that 100,000 Zapotec live in United States

I'm fairly certain that the first reference does not claim that there are 100,000 Zapotec people living in the United States, although the wording of the source is somewhat ambiguous:

"Experts say up to 100,000 migrants come to California every year. One fact, one anthropologist coined the term Oaxacalifornia to explain the migratory pattern. As more and more Oaxacan people come to the Golden State, more and more Zapotec-speaking communities are emerging."

From the context of the third sentence, it seems to me that these 100,000 are simply Oaxacan migrants and that among them there exist Zapotec speakers. The name "Oaxacalifornia" also seems to support this interpretation. Kduggirala (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)