Talk:Tlali

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tlalli will replace a monument to Christopher Columbus not to "erase history" but to "deliver social justice"? Source: "Mayor Sheinbaum [...] said that relocating the statue was not an attempt to "erase history" but to deliver "social justice"." (BBC)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Berger (meteorologist)

Created by Another Believer (talk). Nominated by Tbhotch (talk) at 03:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

• The article is new enough and long enough. It is cited throughout and QPQ has been done. Earwig is clear. The hook is cited to a reputable source and interesting to a broad audience. This is good to go. Desertarun (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Desertarun: the project was modified and it is now uncertain if this bust will be the chosen one. Because of that I propose at the very least: ALT1: ... that Tlalli was proposed to replace a monument to Christopher Columbus not to "erase history" but to "deliver social justice"? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P5

Should this article be merged?

Should Monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma), Tlalli and the Women Who Fight Roundabout be merged into an article? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC opened on behalve of @Hesperian Nguyen: The first comment on the topic by Nguyen summarizes their opinion, but they can freely explain why they should be merged.

If you are unaware of what's going on with them, the background at Women Who Fight Roundabout summarizes most of the situation.

I have to add that I preferred RFC over the merging venue and AFD as RFC tends to generate more comments than merging, and AFD is pointless as these articles won't be deleted.

And lastly my opinion on why they should not be merged. It is explained above but simplified: they are all independent of each other. Nguyen apparently sees this as WP:FORKs because "if they hadn't removed Columbus, Tlalli wouldn't have existed, and without the Tlalli controversy, the WHF wouldn't have existed", but cause-and-effect is not a reason to merge pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• No, the articles should not be merged. I've been following the discussions on all three talk pages, alongside the development of each article. I see no reason to merge because each subject has received sufficient secondary coverage. I vote to close this discussion sooner than later unless someone can provide some very convincing reasons why these should be merged. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Do not merge, as they all appear independently notable, with independent coverage of each. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Are other editors allowed to open an RFC on "behalf" of another editor and summarise discussion on behalf of another editor? I did not request this to be done, nor authorise this action, nor do I think it is necessary at this time. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Fairly outrageous case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by Tbhotch here, not to mention Another Believer for trying to railroad and rush the discussion at every opportunity. Requesting a moderator close this totally not 'on my behalf' RFC. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I've responded appropriately and reasonably. I'm not trying to "railroad" or "rush" anything; I've merely ask you to let other editors weigh in since you've already expressed your concerns. This is how Wikipedia works. I'm certainly not opposed to closing this discussion. Based on comments by Tbhotch, ScottishFinnishRadish, and myself, there's not a consensus to merge the three articles. Any concerns about the specific entries can be shared on respective talk pages. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This is how developed: I kindly asked you to explain your point. I even proposed to you the creation of an article titled "Removal of the monument to Christopher Columbus (Paseo de la Reforma)". On October 10 apparently you let this die , but the next day you restarted it. What's the point of your suggestions about them being merged if when you are given the option to merge them you are going to withdraw your proposals? And no, this should not be closed because you want it to be closed. When you say "I want the dust to settle down" you mean that as this is popular at the moment there is no point to discuss the merge, but once it is forgotten, then you will want to discuss it because "[you] feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way." Well, then let the community decide that. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I do have doubts about the notability and intentions of these 2 articles (one is a cardboard cutout with accompanying graffiti and the other is a still in-progress artwork) and I flagged it by starting a discussion on a talk page *3 days ago*, then I linked that on the other article's talk the following day. I provided links to Wikipedia Guidelines on request. This is how Wikipedia works. Further, these discussion can develop over days, weeks, sometimes years. It is especially wise to give these things time given that the events are still unfolding, interconnected, and we don't have a crystal ball to see into the future. The aggressiveness and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing has increased over the past 3 days to the point of being lambasted for making a coding error, posting a poll "on my behalf", summarising my arguments incorrectly, and trying to force an end to the discussion as quickly as possible as many times as possible. This to me is suspicious, disruptive editing not taking place in good faith and that is approaching harassment. Dropping the stick here and, as always, I will continue to boldly make neutral, encyclopedic edits. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:REHASH? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a RfC matter. Please follow the guidance at WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits (COI disclosed)

Hello, I have a conflict of interest to disclose: I am a member of Pedro Reyes’ studio. In accordance with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines, I am proposing specific changes here for independent editors to review.

I believe some parts of the article may benefit from clarification or more precise sourcing. I have broken down the proposed edits into smaller, transparent changes below.

---

Change 1: Lead – spelling clarification

Current: Tlalli (Nahuatl pronunciationⓘ; land or earth; Spanish transliteration: Tlali) is a sculpture...

Proposed: Tlali (based on the Nahuatl word “tlalli,” which often leads to confusion regarding the correct spelling of the title) is a sculpture...

Reason: Clarifies spelling inconsistencies found across sources and usage.

Source:

• https://elpais.com/mexico/2021-09-13/pedro-reyes-y-su-escultura-tlali-mas-alla-de-la-polemica-de-colon-mi-mayor-reto-es-que-sea-hermosa.html
• https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Dan-marcha-atras-a-escultura-Tlali-de-Pedro-Reyes-en-Reforma-20210914-0079.html

Comment(s):

• Comment: In my opinion, there may be some benefit in having a line or paragraph in the body of the article discussing the spelling difference. I don't think the detail regarding the spelling best first right in the first sentence of the article. There is some detail behind the name in Tlali#Description, but perhaps an additional subsection regarding naming could be featured here, with the detail related to name from the Description section put into a new section. I have marked this proposal as answered; to re-open, please change |answered=yes to |answered=no in the {{edit COI}} in the template above. Thoughts? Spencer^T•C 02:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 2: Lead – update current status (LACMA)

Current: ...a similar sculpture named Tlali, will be installed...

Proposed: ...a similar sculpture named Tlali is currently housed at the Geffen galleries at LACMA.

Reason: Updates outdated future tense to reflect current installation status.

Source:

• Sheets, Hilarie M. (2026). "Pedro Reyes Opens the Doors of His Monumental Studio in Mexico City". Galerie.

Comment(s):

• Comment: It appears that the article has been updated since the proposed edit and this change is no longer needed. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 3: Lead – clarification on project status

Proposed addition: Although the city government never formally declared the project canceled, journalists and scholars have generally regarded it as such. As of 2022, the proposal remained under consideration, but The Young Woman of Amajac had been given priority.

Reason: Provides additional context supported by later reporting and improves completeness.

Source: (Additional sources can be provided upon request)

Comment(s):

• Comment: The sentence proposed appears to be already there in the lead section and it is explained at Tlalli#Cancellation. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm marking this as answered after reviewing the above comment from Tbhotch, unless there is anything additional you would prefer to have changed. Spencer^T•C 02:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 4: Petition wording clarification

Current: ...who called to "decolonize Paseo de la Reforma".

Proposed: ...who supported Tlali and called to "decolonize Paseo de la Reforma".

Reason: Clarifies the relationship between the petition and the project.

Source: Same as current citation [8]

Comment(s):

Is there additional information regarding the original letter from the 5,000 Indigenous women? While I see the call to decolonize Paseo de la Reforma in the source , I'm not seeing mention from them supporting Tlali. This seems to be a reasonable request, but just needs some additional sourcing to support the change. I have marked this request as answered; to reopen with more information, please change |answered=yes to |answered=no in the {{edit COI}} template above. Spencer^T•C 03:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Partial follow-up: I'm not sure if Tlali#Response_by_Indigenous_women addresses this, because this says "second petition in support of Tlali". I'm not sure if the first petition is the one referenced earlier in the article and where this change was requested, the petition mentioned in Tlali#Selection_of_Reyes_as_sculptor, or a different petition altogether. I'm not able to view the reference for the "Response by Indigenous women" possibly due to a paywall, but this may have the corroboration we're looking for. Spencer^T•C 04:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 5: Production details – workshop claim

Current: ...being sculpted in three workshops located in Iztapalapa, Chimalhuacán, and Coyoacán...

Proposed: [Removal of this sentence]

Reason: This information appears inconsistent with other descriptions indicating production in the artist’s studio in Coyoacán. Requesting verification or revision if a reliable source supports the current claim.

Source:

• https://elpais.com/mexico/2021-09-13/pedro-reyes-y-su-escultura-tlali-mas-alla-de-la-polemica-de-colon-mi-mayor-reto-es-que-sea-hermosa.html

Comment(s):

Comment: From a Telediario interview: "Reyes explicó que la escultura se está trabajando en tres talleres por mujeres artesanas y escultoras que se encuentran en pueblos originarios de la capital: Iztapalapa, Chimalhuacán y Coyoacán, y quienes trabajan simultáneamente en la talla de la piedra." Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Marking this as answered per review of the reference and above comment. Spencer^T•C 03:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 6: Material and fabrication clarification

Current: Tlalli was planned to be made of volcanic rock...

Proposed: Tlali is made of volcanic rock. In Coyoacán, 150 stone blocks were produced for the sculpture...

Reason: Updates wording to reflect completed fabrication and improves clarity.

Source:

• https://galeriemagazine.com/pedro-reyes-opens-the-doors-of-his-monumental-studio-in-mexico-city/

Comment(s):

Appears to now be incorporated into the article. Spencer^T•C 03:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 7: Name spelling note

Current: The sculpture was named Tlalli...

Proposed: The sculpture was named Tlali (sometimes misspelled Tlalli)...

Reason: Addresses recurring inconsistency in spelling across sources.

Comment(s):

This appears to have been addressed. All occurrences of Tlalli have been replaced in the article except for references to the Nahuatl word and for a discussion regarding the spelling. Spencer^T•C 04:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 8: Interpretive paragraph (Medina)

Current: [Paragraph beginning “For Cuauhtémoc Medina González...”]

Proposed: [No immediate change proposed]

Reason: This section may benefit from additional context or balancing with other sources. I am flagging it for editorial review rather than suggesting removal.

Comment(s):

Marking as answered; no actionable change requested. Talk page discussion should be sufficient for flagging; no need for the {{edit COI}} template. Best, Spencer^T•C 03:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 9: “Neoindigenism” critique

Current: [Paragraph including “desperate neoindigenism”]

Proposed: [No immediate change proposed]

Reason: Some statements may benefit from additional sourcing or broader context. Flagging for editorial review.

Comment(s):

Marking as answered; see above reply to change #8. Spencer^T•C 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 10: Minor wording correction (Sheinbaum quote context)

Current: ...the rejection of her original proposal in favor of Columbus...

Proposed: ...the rejection of Tlali...

Reason: Improves accuracy and avoids potential misinterpretation of attribution.

Source:

• https://www.infobae.com/america/mexico/2021/09/18/polemica-por-tlali-relucio-el-clasismo-y-racismo-en-la-cdmx-sheinbaum/

Comment(s):

I tweaked the wording for clarity as requested. Spencer^T•C 04:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Change 11: Typographical consistency

Current: Mix of "Tlalli" and "Tlali" throughout.

Proposed: Standardize usage as "Tlali" with note on variant spelling where appropriate.

Reason: Improves consistency and readability.

Comment(s):

This appears to have been implemented in subsequent edits. Spencer^T•C 04:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Note

I am proposing these changes rather than editing directly in order to follow Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. I welcome independent editors to review, modify, or partially implement these suggestions as appropriate.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Orozcogiacomo (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I am the main author and I don't normally manage COI cases. I don't have personal connection to the article, I wrote it at the stage the sculpture was under development before its assumed cancellation in 2022. I'll leave the review to someone else as an additional peer-review benefits the article. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tbhotch Based on the edits you've made to the article since the move, would you consider any of these requests resolved? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be under the consideration of the person who made the requests/proposals instead. Courtesy ping @Orozcogiacomo:. At most, I can speak about #Change 7: Name spelling note and #Change 11: Typographical consistency as potentially resolved. But, for example, I haven't focused on #Change 8: Interpretive paragraph (Medina), #Change 9: “Neoindigenism” critique (among others) since I only focus on what exisiting sources say, regardless of the positive or negative outcome, and if other sources exist that are omitted do exist, they are welcome for review (Tlali#Response by Indigenous women) was added recently by the proposers and the section is still there, for example). I've left those open for any independent reviewer to determine if a change is required. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Orozcogiacomo:; I have reviewed your requested edits above. In case you would like to reopen any of them, please change |answered=yes to |answered=no in the {{edit COI}} template at the top of each subsection. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Additional courtesy ping to @Tbhotch: to let you know I took a look at the above requests, in case you ran into any additional contributory information in your research for the article. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2026

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Tlalli → Tlali – I must start saying that I'm neutral here, I mostly wrote the article and at the time this was created, only a couple of English-language sources existed. Also, I'm sorry for the long rationale below but this will explain the situation here.

The sculpture was named either "Tlalli" or "Tlali" (from Nahuatl Tlalli, meaning earth, both pronounced TLAHL-lee) by the author (most likely "Tlali", as explained below). Since this is a Nahuatl word, Spanish-speaking media was replicating in on their articles. The project was assumed dead in 2022, so nothing new really happened after that and Tlalli with two Ls was left as is.

Then this year, people associated with the author started modifying this page (this is already solved and it was explained to them regarding COIs, which is why I'm opening this RM). If you refer to their request #7: #Change 7: Name spelling note, you'll see the reasoning: "Addresses recurring inconsistency in spelling across sources." Basically, this is an implied move request.

The thing is that since the Mexico project died and the US project exists, now recent English-language sources exist (all listed above in the {{refideas}}), and they use the name the author explicity gave to the new project: "the artist also removed one “L” from the sculpture’s original title, “Tlalli,” the Nahuatl word for earth", said hyperallergic.com. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
• I don't know all of the ins and outs, but I trust Tbhotch's judgement, having followed along the development of this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

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.