Talk:Panakas

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

HELP, HELP, HELP[edit]

HELP, HELP, HELP I am ready to update this article but there is a problem its title is plural. The correct name should be Panaka.

What can I do?

  • Option one: Wiki editors will be so kind to help me and change the name to Panaka
  • Option two: I cancel all the text from the current article and insert a #Redirect Panaka

What can I do?? Thank you in advance Aga 15:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least on the Spanish ad French wikis, you are not allowed to cancel an entire article just to copy and paste it to an existing redirect. You an however just redirect the article, by using the button "move" on the right side of the image (but I don’t think there is any not already existing as a redirect possibly for you. Both panaka and panaca are already existing pages or redirect…). Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needs new title[edit]

As I just have anotated in the Spanish version of the article, it is not clear that the word panaca was ever used for 'royal kin' among the Incas. Contemporary Andean studies are correcting this previous unfounded assumption. Contemporary Andean philologists are proposing etymologies and meanings for the word. As such, contemporary historians are abandoning the term panaca as 'royal kin' or 'royal aillu'. 2001:1388:4463:9074:F05F:728B:C59:5938 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable contribution. Since long time I am trying to (re)write the article about panaka (singular, please).
Please take a look at the draft I am preparing here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aga_Khan_(IT)/sandbox/Panaca
If you have sources supporting your position please send me the links so that I can read and use them.
If possible identify yourself as a contributor to Wikipedia
Aga 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s missing some info (easy to add), and has some grammatical problems, that seems like a nice draft. I can only encourage you to modify the article. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for writing. I have not been able to read in detail your proposal. But there are some comments I can offer. First of all, although it is a matter of dispute, Andean studies specialists tend to prefer to retain old Spanish spellings for well-known Andean indigenous words. You could review the note about that by Paul Heggarty and Adrien J. Pearce's in their book History and Language in the Andes (Palgrave, 2011). My second point is that there's no current consensus about the existence nor the meaning of panaca(s). So a lot of things have been said about a thing we are not sure existed. For Wikipedia purposes, I would argue for re-writing the article and renaming it in terms of what is known about Inca royal families or Inca royal aillu(s). That is what I have advocated for in the Spanish wikipedia counterpart. Finally, I can suggest some readings, all three of them in Spanish. The best summit of the literature about panaca(s) is Francisco Hernández Astetes', here: https://journals.openedition.org/bifea/3282#tocto1n2 He is the one who notices the intepretation of panaca as 'Inca royal lineage' is due to Luis E. Valcárcel and is not founded in colonial documentarion. He has also a book abour Incas and ancestry. Best analysis of the possible origin and colonial documentation of the term is by linguist César Itier here: https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/190099 His proposed meaning of the word as some specific official is not consensual, though. For example, linguist Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino offers a different analysis and etymology in several lectures. You could read this latter specialist in his book Las lenguas de los incas: el puquina, el aimara y el quechua (PL Academic Research, 2013). I hope to read carefully your draft soon. 2001:1388:4463:EC92:F831:30F2:E938:6775 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out there's a text online (uploaded by the author himself) in which Cerrón-Palomino offers his etymological proposal. Here: https://www.academia.edu/40236493/La_tesis_del_quechuismo_primitivo_y_su_efecto_distorsionador_en_la_interpretaci%C3%B3n_del_pasado_prehisp%C3%A1nico He says he explains in detail his analysis in another text. 2001:1388:4463:EC92:A1CD:DDA2:4F10:9740 (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pretty clear consensus (for good or bad) for the existence of the panakas (which can be written with an s in plural, as a historiographic term, used in other languages, and not a Quechua term). Otherwise, interesting post. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your references, some of them I had read, but I will go again through them and also read the Cerrón-Palomino's article you mention.
Many Inca-related terms have been invented by chroniclers, and archaeologists (e.g. kallanka) but they are now part of the terminology currently used. So I would stick to "panaka" (or panaca) since in the article I explain the origin and next year I will probably give an even better explantion
Let's keep in touch. Aga 17:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1. Reiner Tom Zuidema already mentioned this thing in 1962, it’s nothing new. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SantiChau23 moved the page to "Panaca (Inca Empire)". He was reverted because there was not a previous consensus. I think aforementioned movement was correct. Maybe @Aga Khan (IT) will agree. Greetings. Nawabaonbake (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I’ve heard of that book, it’s one book, and it’s far from consensual. We don’t need articles for words unless there is cultural context. Reiner Tom Zuidema was already talking about this in 1962. Neither Zuidema, nor Itier, nor Cerrón-Palomino, nor someone else, present consensual propositions. It still doesn’t justify moving the article. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know where to post this exactly, so I'm leaving it as a reply to @Nawabaonbake. The reason I moved the page title to "Panaca (Inca Empire)" was because it reflected better and gave more information about the article succinctly. First of all, regarding the spelling of panaca, as with many Andean words, there are multiple spellings and none of them are "conventionalized" in a sense. The spelling <panaca> seems to be the best for the English-language article since (1) it follows the English-language tradition of using the Spanish version of the name (e.g. Huayna Capac, huayno, Ollantaytambo, etc.; cf. a more Germanicized spelling like Wayna Kapak). (2) The spelling of <panaca> has a longer tradition in general (since the very first documentation thereof) and is used extensively nowadays, just compare a quick Google search of the term: <panaca> has 1 million hits vs. <panaka> with 600 thousand. This is even true in academic circles, where, now in a quick Google Scholar search of the terms, <panaca> received around 4 thousand vs. <panaka> with 1 thousand. In further analysis, by collocating them with incas (to exclude other possible usages, as I've seen many of <panaka> relate to some historical o cultural Indian concept), <panaca> results in 2 thousand and <panaka> in 248 hits (in Google Scholar). (3) The term <panaka> is kind of speculative in terms of the "original" pronunciation. It is true—or at least just by looking at how modern Quechua dictionaries write the word—that most Andean speakers (i.e. speakers of Quechua and Aymara) pronounce the word as /panaka/. However, in terms of its original pronunciation, there is debate, where Itier (2011) proposes *panaka and Cerrón Palomino (2013) proposes *paña-qa, with a uvular. So this may cause confusion in that respect, but in general I think this is a weak argument to argue in favour of <panaca>. In fact, it's more in support of <panaka> as it reflects the actual (or at least majority [?]) pronunciation of indigenous people. At this point, I don't think <panaqa> is a good candidate for the title, its use is either purely speculative or a modern hyper-corrective use derived from Cerrón Palomino's hypothesis. However, <panaqa> does have 31.5 thousand hits in normal Google and 178 in Google Scholar, so it's not like it's unused by people—indigenous or otherwise, and in fact it's comparable to <panaka> in academic circles.
All in all, I am well aware that all of this might be prescriptivist in nature, but to be fair all orthographical representations are, especially when there's a lot of variation in spellings (just take a look at American and British spellings on Wikipedia articles). I support <panaca> because it is common in academia, in non-academic circles and reasons (1) fits the English tradition of imported Andean terms and (2) <panaca> has a long tradition in general and the aforementioned more common use.
Now, onto the pluralized form panakas (or panacas), I don't think it should be put in the plural (1) simply because I think terms should usually be cited in their base form. However this is not only the case of encyclopaedic entries, it is also the normal practice for other indigenous peoples' governors or clan entities, like the Hawaiian aliʻi, the Maori rangatira, the Andean sapa inca, etc. The only plural forms are those borrowed from plural nouns in the original languages but are treated as singulars in English (like Inuit or calpulli). Lastly, I added "(Inca Empire)" to give the reader a better understanding of what it was related to, but upon further analysis of other pages, there's no "Ali'i (Hawai'i)" or "Calpulli (Aztec Empire)" or something alike, and that's because there are no other types of panacas or ali'is or calpullis, it just refers to the Incan clans.
In summary, I think the article should be moved to "Panaca" preferably, maybe "Panaka"—definitely not "Panaqa" (yet)—and it should be in the singular form, without "Inca Empire" as there is no risk of confusion. SantiChau23 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see the importance of moving Panaka to panaca, or kuraka to curaca for that matter. Not that it bothers me, it just seems rather unimportant.
As to the plural, again, I can't deduce from what you’ve just wrote why it’s so important to change the title of the page. The ali'i are referred to in plural in the first sentence, the sapa inca(s) were rulers, not various cuscan (and therefore royal) ayllus, and the rangatira are perhaps not referred to as "rangatiras" in literature? Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new topic so this doesn't get tangled with all the other discussions. Maybe you can repost your answer there so I can explain in full. But in short, it's unimportant in the sense of "who cares about Wikipedia articles". But a Wikipedia article gives importance to the variant of a term, and tells other people that is either the preferred or most common form of the name, which panaka does not reflect. Moreover your argument can be used against that same point since if it doesn't matter why not change it to "Panaka" singular and problem's done. As to the plural, I was just saying that the title should change to a singular since it's a common term that refers to the elite Cuzcan clans. The same way the curacas were different "Tawantisuyan local rulers" and the ayllus were different "Andean family clans" so to speak—but, again, their article titles are in the singular, neither with the English -s or Quechua -kuna. SantiChau23 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically on abandoning the term, this isn’t quite true, the convention still exists, and will probably continue to exist in the following decades. It’s an easy distinction between royal and non-royal ayllu Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about renaming this article (now entitled "Panakas") as "Panaca (Inca Empire)". Greetings. Nawabaonbake (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I know. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Cuzco Academy dictionary for Quechua etymologies[edit]

Hi. I am just editing the first paragraph so it does not imply that the word panaca was used for this meaning in pre-Hispanic Quechua. As explained in the etymology section, that is pretty disputed.

On top of that, I sincerely suggest not to use Academia Mayor's dictionary for Quechua etymologies, as was used for well-stablished terms as Sapa Inca and auqui. I am erasing references to that source. For starters, while such a dictionary may be a good reference for contemporary Cuzco city meanings, it is just rubbish for ancient meanings or etymologies. It is full of false etymologies (e.g. Cajamarca as containing the Southern Quechua word qasa 'frost') and wrong language attributions (e.g. Mochica-origin word cholo as a Quechua-origin one). The best review of such monumental bad work is by linguist César Itier (2009). Other linguists have also proved such source's unreliability.

Nawabaonbake (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again. This is about a damn concept, an idea, not about a word. The intro is fine. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally do not know what you are talking about again. Nawabaonbake (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is fine. How do you not understand what I mean? You cannot make wikipedia a dictionary, this article is about what most historians refer to as such, one section for some linguistic debates, fine, but this article is not about the word Panaka. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to doubt the content added by @Aga Khan (IT):, which literally stated Garcilaso didn’t identify with a panaka, citing Rostworowski… Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That content is using sources without regard for their original sense, and giving to much importance to a not-known, and minoritarian postulat. I am going to be working on this page tomorrow (with sources). And there is no word yet on Reiner Tom Zuidema… This is going to be hard work. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article's title[edit]

The reason I moved the page title to "Panaca (Inca Empire)" was because it reflected better and gave more information about the article succinctly. First of all, regarding the spelling of panaca, as with many Andean words, there are multiple spellings and none of them are "conventionalized" in a sense. The spelling <panaca> seems to be the best for the English-language article since (1) it follows the English-language tradition of using the Spanish version of the name (e.g. Huayna Capac, huayno, Ollantaytambo, etc.; cf. a more Germanicized spelling like Wayna Kapak). (2) The spelling of <panaca> has a longer tradition in general (since the very first documentation thereof) and is used extensively nowadays, just compare a quick Google search of the term: <panaca> has 1 million hits vs. <panaka> with 600 thousand. This is even true in academic circles, where, now in a quick Google Scholar search of the terms, <panaca> received around 4 thousand vs. <panaka> with 1 thousand. In further analysis, by collocating them with incas (to exclude other possible usages, as I've seen many of <panaka> relate to some historical o cultural Indian concept), <panaca> results in 2 thousand and <panaka> in 248 hits (in Google Scholar). (3) The term <panaka> is kind of speculative in terms of the "original" pronunciation. It is true—or at least just by looking at how modern Quechua dictionaries write the word—that most Andean speakers (i.e. speakers of Quechua and Aymara) pronounce the word as /panaka/. However, in terms of its original pronunciation, there is debate, where Itier (2011) proposes *panaka and Cerrón Palomino (2013) proposes *paña-qa, with a uvular. So this may cause confusion in that respect, but in general I think this is a weak argument to argue in favour of <panaca>. In fact, it's more in support of <panaka> as it reflects the actual (or at least majority [?]) pronunciation of indigenous people. At this point, I don't think <panaqa> is a good candidate for the title, its use is either purely speculative or a modern hyper-corrective use derived from Cerrón Palomino's hypothesis. However, <panaqa> does have 31.5 thousand hits in normal Google and 178 in Google Scholar, so it's not like it's unused by people—indigenous or otherwise, and in fact it's comparable to <panaka> in academic circles.
All in all, I am well aware that all of this might be prescriptivist in nature, but to be fair all orthographical representations are, especially when there's a lot of variation in spellings (just take a look at American and British spellings on Wikipedia articles). I support <panaca> because it is common in academia, in non-academic circles and reasons (1) fits the English tradition of imported Andean terms and (2) <panaca> has a long tradition in general and the aforementioned more common use.
Now, onto the pluralized form panakas (or panacas), I don't think it should be put in the plural (1) simply because I think terms should usually be cited in their base form. However this is not only the case of encyclopaedic entries, it is also the normal practice for other indigenous peoples' governors or clan entities, like the Hawaiian aliʻi, the Maori rangatira, the Andean sapa inca, etc. The only plural forms are those borrowed from plural nouns in the original languages but are treated as singulars in English (like Inuit or calpulli). Lastly, I added "(Inca Empire)" to give the reader a better understanding of what it was related to, but upon further analysis of other pages, there's no "Ali'i (Hawai'i)" or "Calpulli (Aztec Empire)" or something alike, and that's because there are no other types of panacas or ali'is or calpullis, it just refers to the Incan clans.

SantiChau23 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I don't think it is so much important whether to write it with C or K, I agree with you argumentation. The entry may be well moved to Panaca (Inca Empire). Nawabaonbake (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panakas&oldid=1227398866"