Talk:Iztaccihuatl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petrology[edit]

Does anyone have very detailed information about the volcanic rocks there? Given the geography one would assume it's relatively felsic; but it'd be nice to have a decent discussion of it (and I am by no means an expert on it nor have I seen thin sections or samples from the area). 69.253.16.52 05:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put photo to commons[edit]

The link is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MountainIztaccihuatlMexico01.jpg Thanks.--Gengiskanhg 02:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)--132.248.36.43 02:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping/White[edit]

Somebody (189.135.53.57, whoever that is) keeps reverting "White Woman" to "Sleeping Woman" in this and the Popocatépetl article. The context is the (supposed) Aztec legend. Ixtaccíhuatl does not mean "Sleeping Woman" but does mean "White Woman". If the mountain is now locally called the "Sleeping Woman" in Spanish that's cool and might be noted elsewhere, but it is irrelevant to the legend. I'd go bail it is not called "Sleeping Woman" in local Nahuatl, unless by backtranslation from Spanish. (Kochtoksiwatl? Kochtikasowatl? Never heard of such a thing.)

Please leave it be, 189.135.whoever (and you might register, while you're at it.)

--Lavintzin 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iztaccihuatl and Popocatepetl[edit]

Many years ago, a beautiful Empree and Emperor had a beatiful daughter named Iztaccihuatl which means white lady. Izta grew up and fell in love with the captain of the tribe named Popoca. One day Popoca had to go to war and Izta father said to him if he brings the head of the enemy back he could marry his daughter. Weeks went by and a letter came for the Emperor, it said that popoca had died . When the Emperor should this to his daughter she could no stop crying. Soon after Izta had died from being so sad the warriors came home and Popoca had walk up to the Emperor with the head of the Enemy. The Emperor was so happy to see him , the emperor told him that Izta was dead . Popoca took Izta's body and went out of town , he told the army to make a funeral bed for Izta. He stayed there with Izta's body while the rest of his army went home the gods were touched by Popoca's sacrifice, that they turned Popoca and Izta into volcanos. Popocatepeti is the name for smoking mountain. popocatepetl is the only volcano to still be active, thay say the reason he still smokes is because it is still whaching over her. You now that is really the saying love concerns even death till they part from love.


When I lived in Mexico in the late '70s, we heard a version of the legend that said she would someday awaken and drive the Europeans from Mexico. Is there any corroberation of this? Triskele Jim (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew writing on Ixtla-something-or-other[edit]

User:Nima Baghaei, a ufologist and paranormal researcher, has twice put in a picture purporting to document some wierd occurrence or other, which I have twice removed. Could somebody with a bit of authority avoid a revert war here? --Lavintzin 15:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This event actually occured so I am not sure whats wrong with it. -nima baghaei 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say it occurred, I say it's bogus. In such situations, the disputed information should *not* go into an article unless there is pretty wide consensus that in fact it's (a) true and (b) relevant. --Lavintzin 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The pictures are not fake, I can even provide you with the video tape to show it is fact. You dont even ask for proof, you just remove it without taking the chance to view that it is true, so i have to disagree with you -nima baghaei 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've used up my three reverts. (Nima has gone beyond his/hers). Somebody else want to take over? One final appeal to reason: Nima, even if it were true, is the place for it as one of a gallery of pictures of Ixtaccíhuatl? Shouldn't it have it's own front page coverage? And while you're at it, spell December correctly, not to mention Ixtaccíhuatl, OK? --Lavintzin 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah dang, I didn't see the December mispelling... off it goes then (:OP (:O) I guess we could create an article dedicated to it, would be a good idea actually (but first i gotta fix the typo hehe) but the Ixtaccíhuatl spelling was ok (it is spelled differently by some). -nima baghaei 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my bluntness, but those that spell it that way can only be doing so out of carelessness or ignorance. It is certainly not the right spelling or pronunciation or whatever. --Lavintzin 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is *not* Ixtlacíhuatl[edit]

User: Nima Baghaei put Ixtlacíhuatl in as an acceptable "spelling variant" for the name of this mountain. It is not correct. If it were, it is certainly not a "spelling variant". The fact that it showed up on the (bogus imo) Hebrew writing picture does not make it right. Yes, you can find it on the Internet. You can find a lot of clearly false things on the Internet. People are not careful with spellings of things in other languages, and for someone who doesn't know Nahuatl Ixtlacíhuatl can look fine. It just happens to be wrong.

--Lavintzin 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are Texcoco and Moctezuma, but that doesn't stop people using them. Not to mention the fact that there was a good deal of variation in Nahuatl spelling to begin with, which makes it difficult to say what's "correct" and what's not.
"Ixtaccihuatl" gets 664 hits on Google Book Search, in books spanning the last 150 years. So it's definitely an established variant, regardless of whether it accurately reflects the original pronunciation. --Ptcamn 08:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops -- I thought we were talking about Ixtaccihuatl, not Ixtlacihuatl. Still, the same principle applies, although slightly weaker since it only gets 44 hits. --Ptcamn 08:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've normally seen "Ixtlaccihuatl" (448 google hits, mostly US, with a German site and a couple from Mexico). Maybe this is a US spelling? Vultur 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can get 115,000 Google hits with "New Yok", and 44,000 with "Chicargo". Want to include those as "spelling variants" in the New York and Chicago articles? (By the way, we've added to the Google hits just by discussing these misspellings.) Nima Baghaei sounded embarrassed that Decmember was misspelled, even though it Googles out at 545.
Calling Ixtaccihuatl "Iztaccihuatl" is like calling Toronto "Toronno": it is a spelling of a pronunciation that native speakers actually use, and does not change the meaning of the word at all. Calling it "Ixtlacihuatl" is like calling Pittsburgh "Potsburgh" or Fort Worth "First Wart": it changes the meaning, native speakers don't pronounce it that way--it's wrong. --Lavintzin 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there's a reason I used Google Book Search instead of Googling the web. The hits I quoted above are in printed books, not just random people typing on the internet.
Secondly, "native speakers don't pronounce it that way" is a fact, but "(therefore) it's wrong" is an opinion. Not everyone cares about matching the original language — we don't write "Muskva" and regard "Moscow" as a misspelling. --Ptcamn 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Book is better, of course, but still no great guarantee of accuracy. It returns 94 hits on "Popocateptl", for instance, and 537 on "New Yok".
I have no problem with Iztaccihuatl. It is perfectly standard, and "Toronno" (taken as a *spelling*) was a bad comparison in that regard. (In our culture place names are generally allowed to have one and only one established spelling.) It is quite reasonable to take Ixtaccihuatl as the variant and Iztaccihuatl as the standard instead of vice versa, but in fact both are well-established and common in ordinary and scholarly usage (= correct, as I'm using the term). But Ixtlacihuatl (or Ixtlaccihuatl) is a different story. (It would have to mean "woman by the side of the face" or "woman beside the maguey (agave)" or something like that instead of "white woman", for one thing. If it were Iztlaccihuatl it might mean "lie (prevarication) woman.") --Lavintzin 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do people in the area refer to the mountain as "Ixtla"? I heard that, but it doesn't make any sense if "Ixtlaccihuatl" is not a form of the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.17.94 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proofs of a negative are hard to come by, of course: the fact that I don't remember ever hearing of anyone calling it "Ixtla" —I don't, and I lived within sight of it for about 15 years out of 30 in central Mexico— certainly doesn't prove no one has done so. If they have, however, it proves little. There is a tendency to think every Nahuatl word must have a tl in it somewhere, and to put one in even if it doesn't fit. It's like the 's that gets put on restaurant and boutique names in an effort to make them look English, even when English wouldn't use it. Hamburger's, or Food and Job's, or ...
People do often call it Izta, and some (who know how to pronounce the [ʃ] "sh" sound) call it Ixta, but not Ixtla. There is a "Puente de Ixtla" town and municipality in southern Morelos state (etymologically Itztla "obsidian place") but it has no connection that I know of with the volcano.
--Lavintzin (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name again[edit]

Alivemajor had added the following sentence:

In Prehispanic times it was known as Itzactepetl "white mountain".

I've removed this for a couple of reasons. (1) The name is misspelled: it would be Iztactepetl, with the 'z' before the 't'. (Easily enough fixed.) (Prehispanic wouldn't need to be capitalized, either.) (2) This is unclear as to whether the name changed from Iztactepetl to Iztaccihuatl at the time of the Conquest, or if both names were used in prehispanic times and/or for a while afterwards, or what. It rather sounds as if Iztactepetl were the only prehispanic name, which I doubt was the case. But I don't know enough to say what was the case, so I'd rather not change the wording myself. (3) No documentation of the assertion is given: it would be a good idea, especially in view of other controversies over the name, to provide some references.

In sum, it's not a bad thing to put in the article, assuming it's true (and I believe the gist of it is). But I didn't think it was ready to go in yet. So, Alivemajor or whoever else, feel free to fix these things and put it back in, at least as far as I'm concerned.

--Lavintzin 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better reference(s)[edit]

Please see Talk:Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl#Better reference(s). -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 16:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iztaccihuatl. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iztaccihuatl. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iztaccihuatl&oldid=1207765227"