This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
I've uploaded it into Commons, here: (original caption) The 16th-century population collapse in Mexico, based on estimates of Cook and Simpson (). The 1545 and 1576 cocoliztli epidemics appear to have been hemorrhagic fevers caused by an indigenous viral agent and aggravated by unusual climatic conditions. The Mexican population did not recover to pre-Hispanic levels until the 20th century. Note that it's from reference #1 in the article currently (Acuna-Soto et al, EID 2002), which I added earlier. EID's content is in the public domain. — soupvector (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what this means? How to parse each of the numbers? The epidemic began in August of that year and at one point killed "10, 20, 30, 40, 50 to 60, 80 people" in the village of Tlatelolco.? I can't make any sense of it. — soupvector (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a quote by a doctor in a village. I didn't add a link to the village because their are multiple pages with that name and I do not know which one it refers to. JerrySa1 (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, we should generally avoid quoting (and if we do, it should be done explicitly); rather, we should WP:paraphrase. Second, and more importantly in this case: if neither of us can figure out what that sentence means, why include it? — soupvector (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source translated says some thing like "In that year of 1576, in the month of August, according to sources, say sprang a terrible epidemic in the new Spain. Affected mainly the indigenous population causing a brutal slaughter. Sahagun says that in Tlatelolco they died daily "10, 20, 30, 40, 50 to 60 to 80 people and now I don't know what will be in this pestilence"" It's not perfect but it's close. I added it to show how bad the epidemic became in one village.
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: Moved to Cocoliztli epidemics. Aggregating the viewpoints, although somewhat presented with differing subtleties; there's general support to move to this name. Other suggested titles can be redirected.
(non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of the page, I wouldn't mind just making this change if you change the name to "16th century Cocoliztli epidemics", since there were two epidemics in that century. The 1545 epidemic for whatever reason had less sources for it then 1576 so I gave up on that and made it about a specific year. Jerry (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "Cocoliztli_epidemics" then? There are many disparate epidemics. Cocoliztli seems the best name since it includes etymology etc +. I'd support both "Cocoliztli" and "Cocoliztli epidemics" Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: I fully support changing it to Cocoliztli epidemics if it has info on the other epidemics, which I wish I would have. It's basically irrelevant to have an article on one epidemic I agree. Jerry (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I removed Medical Hypotheses as a source - because it's a terrible source that has been found repeatedly at WP:RSN to fail as an RS, let alone a MEDRS, and is listed on WP:CITEWATCH as a journal to almost never be used anywhere for anything - and the claim cited to it, that large scale haemorrhagic fever played a role in the Classic Maya collapse. Shibbolethink replaced the claim, and listed two new cites that don't in fact support the claim in any way: [1][2]
You're absolutely right that the original claim should not be included as-such, since Med Hypotheses is a non-RS journal. That's why I rewrote it to be a subjective citation of a hypothesis in-and-of itself. It's not the claim itself that needs backing up, since I re-couched the claim as a subjective hypothesis posed by the authors.
Instead, it's now necessary to demonstrate that the claim from Soto et al. is itself a notable "hypothesis." It's been so heavily cited, and I put in two other citations that A) support that the Soto et al. hypothesis is itself notable as an idea, and B) support the fact that it was most likely a climate catastrophe and not Cocolitzli.
Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, we can cite the Soto et al. idea as just that, an idea, a hypothesis, a concept. And it's factual that someone has prominently proposed the idea. I've now also demonstrated that it is a notable hypothesis, with 50+ citations and mentions in journal articles from prominent sources (PNAS, Science). The concept itself is probably bunk, but that's not for us to decide. The prior usage of it as factual information was flawed, but we can include it as a notable hypothesis. See articles like Waldorf education or Hermeticism or List of topics characterized as pseudoscience for examples of what I mean. People like Rudolf Steiner think inaccurate and unsupported and even racist things, and it is our job to write down those thoughts as subjective assertions if they are notable. Not only portray thoughts that are "correct". --Shibbolethink(♔♕)13:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a list of cites to the paper, or to the claim? I don't think you can include the claim without something that clearly backs the claim. Are you trying to show that this is a notable paper? That's a different thing - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your distinction is weird, since the paper is making the claim. I would prefer to say the important distinction is subjective claim made by the paper vs objective fact of their hypothesis. And I'm asserting that the subjective claim is notable as a claim, but not proven reliably as a fact. So we have to, then, couch it in lots of subjective wording and also include the objective facts of the situation to be kosher. Does that make sense? --Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting back the trash journal that should never be used as a source for everything is not fine. Please desist. Particularly as you have two reasonable sources for the claim already - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: Wait, wait, I think we've had some sort of miscommunication. Primary sources that are typically considered non-RS, when paired with two RSes, are considered kosher for matters of fact, not interpretation. Right? So sayeth WP:PRIMARY (quoted below). That's what I was doing, including the primary source to the claim that Soto et al. had made that hypothesis, as referenced in the other two independent secondary RSes. Isn't this the only place where primary sources are okay? What am I doing wrong?
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
You are bending over backwards to add a known trash source when you already have two good sources, for unclear reasons. Why are you so wedded to the bad source? - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: Please do not derail the conversation. I'm not wedded to it! I really have zero connection to this source, theory, idea, etc. My research is on hemorrhagic fever viruses, but at the molecular level! Seriously research me and my user page etc. you will see that I have zero connection to this.
I just think now it could be confusing to refer to the theory without having a link to the actual theory itself. Like if I'm a random wiki-reader and I come to this page, and I think "oh, I wonder which theory is being referred to in this sentence, by Soto et al.? I could A) go to the RS and search through their references, which is annoying especially if they may not be Open Access, or B) I could google it and try and figure out which Soto paper is the one in question. Both not super desirable options.
I would urge you to AGF.... I think it's fine to not add it and I'm not really that excited by the idea even, I just have the opinion that it's a slight bit more confusing now than it would be if A) it was just not mentioned at all, remove both sentences, or B) if it was mentioned, with maybe the original Soto source after the first sentence, and then the two good RSes after the second sentence.
I have to say, though. You didn't address my original contentions in your reply... You just called out my intentions, which isn't very good wiki-praxis... I think you're in good faith trying to remove pseudoscience and pseudoscientific sources, a thing I applaud! I am very partial to that myself.
In this case, I just don't think we're harming the wiki by including the info as I've described above. It's not pseudoscience, it's conjecture. It's not bad in a public health sense and it doesn't really delegitimize or challenge any current scientific paradigm... I just think what's happening is that you're applying a very broad hammer of "remove every single Medical Hypotheses reference on the entire wiki (overall a very good thing), and in the process removing one or two things that probably belong here. Not because Med. Hypoth. is a good source -- it isn't, I agree with you there.
But because, in this case, removing this info just because it originated in a non-RS is too prejudiced. It's non-discriminatory of what should be included as a notable hypothesis (like string theory is unproven, but it is a notable theory) vs. what should be removed because it's being used as a factual source when it isn't. Do you see what I mean? No ideology, no crusade on my end, I promise. And this is not very important to me. It feels like it's just a difference in value judgments between us. --Shibbolethink(♔♕)19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge the two articles. There has been unanimous support for the topic and the two articles have already been merged somewhat in content. Jerry (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with the understanding that no information from the 1545-1548 article should be lost in the process. And that it would probably be best if the merge was accomplished by just mkaing a new section on this page specifically for that epidemic.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I made this article originally for the 1576 article, and consensus had it to change this article to one about the disease in general. I see no reason that this article shouldn't have the same. Jerry (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Surachit:@Shibbolethink:@Glendoremus: As there hasn't been any disagreement so far, I went ahead and went about partially merging the articles in my sandbox, and as of the time I've written these comments, this merged version has been inserted into the article. Different sections have been placed along with different areas of this article, and I've removed redundant areas and other places I thought needed cutting. Tell me if this is satisfactory. I may go about redirecting the 1545 page to this one, but I'll wait to see if everyone else is fine with this version first before I do.Jerry (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no more specific subheadings here than just ‘other’? I would add more here if I had expertise enough, are there really no editors equiped to flesh this section out properly? 194.230.147.32 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
