Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a251002429e9224d

Jump to content

Talk:Five Suns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Glass Egg 02 in topic Xipe Totec or Tlaloc?

Xipe Totec or Tlaloc?

[edit]

The first section of this article begins by listing the Four Tezcatlipocas as Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, Xipe Totec, and Tezcatlipoca. However, in the rest of this section, he is apparently replaced by Tlaloc. The articles of the five deities so far named do not resolve this conflict. Tezcatlipoca's article states that Xipe Totec is one of the four, while Huitzilopochtli's and Quetzalcoatl's both name Tlaloc. Neither Tlaloc's nor Xipe Totec's article bears any mention of this myth, though Tlaloc's does contain reference to events which may be part of it. While the rest of the article seems to clarify that this is the result of there being several different versions of this myth, the fact remains that the first section seems to be mixing several, and the other articles add to this confusion. 007bistromath (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Four Tezcatlipocas is an old story. The Nahua tell it, the Aztecs told it, and the Toltecs told it. I was taught that the four Tezcatlipocas are Xipe Totec, Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Tezcatlipoca. I have also heard versions with Xipe Totec or Mixcoatl, Quetzalcoatl, Tezcatlipoca, and Mictlantecuhtli or Tlaloc. Glass Egg 02 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move Duja 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply


Aztec eschatologyFive Suns — The scope of this article is really about the entire concept of creation/destruction in late Postclassic central Mexican/Aztec mythologies, embodied by the more usual term "Five Suns", than (only) eschatology. As such a rename to Five Suns would be appropriate, but needs admin intervention to complete as the target is obstructed by prior edits. cjllw | TALK 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Survey

[edit]
Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


the People of the Sun

[edit]

We could add a reference to the song of RATM, no? --Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why. People of the Sun is more about the EZLN, not Aztec cosmogeny. And I can't see that any disambiguation btw the two titles is needed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

physical plausibility

[edit]

Could the myth be physical correct if: Big Bang (1st sun) → Supernova_1 (2nd sun) → Supernova_2 (3rd sun) → Supernova_3 (4th sun), 4.6 billion years ago → Our Sun (5th sun) 2.247.241.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

In-universe style

[edit]

Parts of the article (especially the summary at the bottom) are written as if the events were factual. As I do not feel knowledgeable enough about the subject, and am not inclined to work on it, I have cruelly left this work for another editor, and cluttered up Wikipedia with tags. Balnibarbarian (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply