Talk:Maya peoples

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KennyBarrera, Wenjia0826.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): Keyriambrocio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change[edit]

I propose that this article's title be changed from Maya people to Maya peoples. Given that many different peoples, communities and languages come under the 'umbrella' term, "Maya", I think it would be more appropriate to reflect this diversity in the title, by using the plural (by parallel, we have Mayan languages, for example). Otherwise, I think we are implying a greater degree of homogeneity for the Maya than actually exists. Anyone object if it is changed? Regards, --cjllw | TALK 03:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on this; either title seems reasonable to me. Looking at other articles of diverse people/s, I see such examples as "Italian people", while "Russian people" redirects to Russians, so we don't seem to have any particular convention about using singular or plural forms in such cases. I will say that if you feel strongly enough to move the article, you should take care of changing the links to it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks Infrogmation. IMO it would be clearer to have this at Maya peoples, and will be happy also to take on the responsibility of amending the links- there don't seem to be more than about a hundred, anyway. I'll effect the change in the next day or two, if there are no other objections. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any way that someone can clarify how the name "Maya" to refer to these peoples came into being?

It is not known exactly how the name came into being, but curiously enough "Maya" is a word that appears fairly commonly certain Indian (i.e. Hindu) languages and also in Basque. A possible ancient connection! Also worth exploring, the cruxgammata, aka swastika connection.

Maya is a word made of two syllables with the very common vowel 'a'. As with the cruxgammata, the term is so simple that it could easily have arisen independently is several parts of the world. Chiss Boy 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mestizo identification[edit]

I removed the following statement,

"Especially in the western areas, even those of mostly or all Maya descent who speak Maya at home often identify themselves as "Mestizo", showing a degree of assimilation and identification with mainstream Mexican culture."

which it seems to me to give a misleading emphasis re the degree of 'assimilation/identification' with Mexican norms. Particularly in Q.Roo there are still a number of Maya communities who seek to maintain an autonomous attitude and identity, insofar as they are able. The statement should probably be turned around to emphasise that nearly a century after the formal conclusion of the Caste War, some independent-minded communities persist.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I put that bit in some years ago. Sorry I don't recall the exact source; it was discussed at a presentation at Tulane. Yes, specifically in the western parts of Yucatan and Campeche (not the East, QR) many people who speak Maya and to outside observers look Maya were found in census surveys to commonly refer to themselves as "Mestizo". This was part of a contrast between the Maya of eastern and western Yucatan. I'll keep my eye out for the source or see if I run into someone who recalls it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Infrogmation, thx for the clarification. I confess I overlooked the geographical qualification in the sentence when I read it, which makes a bit of difference in how it's read. Naturally there are many 'well-integrated' Maya communities and individuals, but it would be useful to find sources that can offer some quantification of this, such as thru census-type data as you say.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nawal Wuj publishing house?[edit]

While looking for links to companies that publish Mayan literature, I ran across several references to Nawal Wuj, based in Guatemala City; apparently the company has published books jointly with Cholsamaj. But I can't find a website for the company. Can anyone help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe Nawal Wuj is closely allied with Cholsamaj, and they are (or have been) run by essentially the same people, set up in the early 1990s. See for eg Maya cultural activism in Guatemala (1996), Edward F. Fischer & R. McKenna Brown (eds.), which incidentally has a few good contributed chapters that provide a bit of material on Cholsamaj and Mayan-language publishing efforts. See ch.7 by Circe Sturm, in a note on p.130 she says as much (Leopoldo Tzian was cholsamaj director at the time). Litografia Nawal Wuj is more of a graphics design and press/printing company I gather (see also p.39 of this thesis on Maya communities and IT adoption, partnered with Cholsamaj (ie Nawal Wuj's talleria does the print run for a number of cholsamaj's books, if you look at their titlepages). Nawal Wuj's office address on 1a Avenida in Guate [1] is just about the same as Cholsamaj's [2]. Libreria Nawal Wuj is/was also a bookstore on 9a Avenida (no 67) also in Guate zona 1, same company no doubt just that's the storefront. Doesn't look like Nawal Wuj has a separate website, but presumably they cld be contacted at the address or via cholsamaj.
Well, if it's more a graphic design company, then perhaps it's less important to include a link than it is to the publishing houses it works with? Thanks for the info! Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could also try OKMA, or universidad francisco marroquin.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Maya civilization[edit]

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.
No merge, by clear consensus --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Maya civilization should be done, as the older mayan civilisation is a precursor the the current one. The reference about mayans as an incorrect term for the current guatemalans, ... should be removed as a whole, a disambugation page can be placed here; it has no place at Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk • contribs)

The topics are certainly related, but I oppose a merge of the Maya peoples and Maya civilization articles. We have lots of info on both topics, and trying to combine them would make the article too long. I agree that "mayans" is a misnomer that certainly should be fixed. Infrogmation (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No merge, per Infrogmation. The scope of any combined article would be quite impracticable, and the concerns, society, structure, environments, etc of contemporary vs precolumbian communities are substantively different; it's entirely appropriate to have different article streams. We need an article (group of articles) on contemporary Maya, likewise precolumbian Maya, just as for ancient Greece, Rome, or anywhere else. Any continuities and social inheritances, such as they are, can be noted in each.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to keep the articles separate. Both articles are quite substantial already, and a merged article could be easily large enough to justify a split. This is a logical basis for a split, and provided we have proper cross-referencing, I think we should keep the two separate articles as is. Wdford (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree to this merge - Maya peoples, although linked to Maya civilization by history, are a wholy separate subject - broadly speaking, Maya civilization falls in the realm of history/archaeology while Maya peoples falls within ethnography. To merge them would be (very) roughly equivalent to merging Roman Empire and Romance languages. Maya civilization effectively ended with the final conquest of the Peten Lakes in 1697, while the scope of Maya peoples is very much with the modern ethnic groupings. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2009 (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.

Maya inherintly unmodern?[edit]

"Some are quite integrated into the modern cultures of the nations in which they reside, while others continue a more traditional culturally distinct life, often speaking one of the Mayan languages as a primary language."

"Modern cultures"? Perhaps this means "colonial cultures"? To make a dichotomy between "Maya" and "modern" sounds racist to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.182.212 (talk • contribs)

I see your point, though I think "traditional" v/s "modern" might be a reasonable anthropological distinction refering to cultural traditions rather than racism. "Colonial" (for, say 21st century Guatemala or Mexico) is IMO not approrpriate, as it generally refers to the pre-independence era. Perhaps "Westernized" might be a better adjective? Other thoughts? Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Americas are technically still colonial cultures, despite independence, since the colonizers haven't left. But I agree that "Westernized" might be the most neutral term to replace "modern," which does, I think, carry the implication of being better, as in not being old-fashioned, out-of-date, primitive, etc. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the image continually being deleted?[edit]

Is there something offensive about the photo that we should know about? I'm curious why it keeps getting removed. If there's a good reason why it shouldn't be kept in the article, we could find something more appropriate. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's being done by a single user, though not always on the same ip#, as the removal edits are identical. No reason for it I can see; unless we get some explanation I assume either undiscussed personal preference for no photo or simple vandalism. Infrogmation (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it may have something to do with previous attempts to replace that image with this one, File:24 UXM CulturaMQP b.jpg, allegedly but unconvincingly supposed to represent 'traditional' Maya dress. I'd reverted that attempt a couple of times as it struck me as a rather too commercial-looking img, almost like it's trying to sell the inauthentic trinkets being worn...whatever it's meant to show I don't think it belongs in this article (or anywhere, really).--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the last few deletions didn't give a replacement photo--they simply deleted the photo. Hmmm.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a suggestion, why not just inserting pictures of notable mayan people from ancient to modern times as it is done for other "peoples" articles. e.g. Han Chinese, African American,Romani People. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.221.32.18 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable idea - I might drop one or two in when I get a chance. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on further investigation, it looks like such pictures would be more appropriate at the Maya people article than here, that article deals with Maya individuals while this article deals with Maya ethnic groups. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually, on further investigation, it looks like such pictures would be more appropriate at the Maya people article than here", isn't this one the Maya people article you're talking about?
Whoops, you're right - it redirects here. In that case, this would be the place! Simon Burchell (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala civil war not mentioned?[edit]

The events during the Guatemala civil war should be mentioned, as it has been widely alleged that over the course of that war the Guatemalan Army was guilty of the genocide of thousands of Mayan civilians. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, the figure I hear most commonly is .25 million!--Yalens (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "alleged" is completely mistaken: The mass killings of innocent Maya civilians constitute a fact.77.162.130.139 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Readings - About What?[edit]

The Further Readings are not in tune with this article and rather belong with the Maya Civilization article.77.162.130.139 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I have removed several listings in that section that are about Pre-Columbian topics, not the post-Conquest and modern Maya. (I didn't remove the ones I wasn't sure of; possibly some or all of those may not be relevant as well.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed one more The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya - I have a copy and it's not relevant. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maya in El Salvador?[edit]

I know there is incontrovertible evidence that there were many Mayan-speakers in El Salvador in the prehistoric and Colonial periods. However, I am not aware of any self-identifying Mayas in the country today. The contury is heavily metizado, and self-indentifying indigenous populations are small compared to Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and Honduras. The modern indigenous people of El Salvador, to my knowledge, identify themselves as either Pipil/Nahua (as at San Antonio Del Monte, Perulapan, etc.) or Lenca (as at Cacaopera). Does anyone know of any sources that refer to Mayas in El Salvador today? TCSaint (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems terribly interested in this question. I plan to remove any references to modern Mayan-speakers in El Salvador within the next three months. I have looked over what I have on the subject, and I see no evidence to support the presence of Mayan-speakers or ethnic Mayas in El Salvador today. TCSaint (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to get back on this. Although in pre-Columbian times there were Maya in El Salvador, I am practically certain there are none today. I'll try to see what I can dig out. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

The religion section seems to suggest that the imported faith of Pentecostal Protestantism is related to the cult of the native folk saint Maximon. I doubt this. I tagged the section as confusing; I'm sure that both bits of information are worth mention, but that the section needs revision. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood Section[edit]

Thinking of editing this section to be more specific on the childhood section in regards to motivation behind the participation of Maya children within their communities. Currently working on changing the word chores to daily tasks or activities, as they are not seen as being chores in the Maya culture and wanted to add more description to this paragraph. Also wanted to describe their means of motivation behind their participation and pitching it such as knowing that they are contributors to both their families and communities. What does everyone think about that?Lauraem14 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


what a bunch of completely unseless sentences! wp is an encyclopedia, not a reading book for the sunday school.Mr. bobby (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the section looks somewhat out-of-place in this article, the content is encyclopedic - I think that rather than simply deleting the material, it should be moved off to a more appropriate location, such as Maya society (which needs a complete rewrite). Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a quote from the article: "Maya children learn much what they know through observation, imitation, and traditional nonverbal communication. For example, a girl from Yucatán, Mexico may learn how to make tortillas by simply watching her grandmother make the tortillas and imitating her grandmother's actions.[25]" I never read something more trivial and useless than these two sentences. There is no appropriate location for these sentences in the whole universe of articles. Mr. bobby (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-colombian population in intro[edit]

Is there any other sources, that link gives (unless I have missed something) a range. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a range I think, but the source is pretty useless so I've replaced it with a citation needed tag. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maya 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:

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) 16:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Source[edit]

I don’t know whether this information should go in this article’s talk, the Maya civilization article’s talk, or both, but the info at this link could shed very interesting light on the state of the ancient Maya and their civilization: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/maya-laser-lidar-guatemala-pacunam/ Centibyte(talk) 00:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Anthropology professor is skeptical about LiDAR Maya hype"[edit]

That's the title of this article. It's an interview with Michael E. Smith who says at the end of the interview:

"these data have tremendous potential to contribute to our knowledge of the ancient Maya. They can revise our figures for Maya populations, for their farming systems, their housing and domestic organization, and other topics. But right now, these things exist only as potential results, not as actual findings. So that is the “no” sense of my answer. Right now, with the available information, we have no greater understanding of the Maya. That will have to wait until the hard work gets done. The LiDAR data have to be ground-truthed (checked on the ground), processed by computers and analyzed carefully.

It is significant that these finds are reported by the National Geographic Society, an organization whose interest in publicity and spectacular claims often takes precedence over their interest in solid scientific results. Many public announcements of archaeological findings are based on technical articles published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a sign that there has been a real advance, sanctioned by colleagues and journal editors. The new LiDAR finds have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, because they are still preliminary. Another feature of the hype that comes from an organization like National Geographic Society is that the finds are announced as if they were the first time anyone though to apply LiDAR to the Maya area. But in fact, archaeologists have used LiDAR in other parts of the Maya zone for seven or eight years now."

A more detailed article by him.[3] There's a discussion at Talk:Maya civilization#"Anthropology professor is skeptical about LiDAR Maya hype" if editors want to discuss this, let's keep it there. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More information regarding genocide[edit]

I am going to add more information under "Genocide in Guatemala", regarding the scorched earth policy and fixing a statement that says there were 440 villages destroyed because I have found various resources that state 626 villages were destroyed. I am also be going to add citations where they are missing and rearrange some paragraph/sentence structures. Keyriambrocio (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1, 2.[edit]

The firsst is "excerpted from Wikipedia". The second says 1 million and very few of them are Maya. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya-Americans[edit]

I found this article (archive) referring to "Maya Americans", specifically "Births to Maya immigrant women created a sizable number of Maya-American children." And what follows comparing them to indigenous Maya children. Should diaspora be primarily mentioned in this article if someone were to write about it? Or should a "Maya diaspora" article be created? -- Donald Trung (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maya-Americans[edit]

Agree with Donald Trung, I added the estimated population from two sources that both stated 500,000 Mayan people in the United States. It goes beyond ancestry, there was a significant number of Mayan people who left Guatemala during the Civil War to the U.S. in several waves of immigration that took place in both the 20th and 21st centuries. The United States should be included in the population section as it is well known the Mayan people living in Georgia, the rest of the Sunbelt, Texas, and California. 201.141.125.21 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maya_peoples&oldid=1213966768"