Talk:Hueyatlaco

[Untitled][edit]

I have made numerous changes in order to make this page intelligible to the average reader. I do not have experience with this subject, so I would ask anyone who does to please rectify any errors I might have introduced. Thank you--Spurius Furius 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The stuff under the section labeled "Dating" is inappropriately POV. But I don't know if I'm supposed to just delete it or what. Or mark it? Or tell somebody? Or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.132.102 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes POV is out, by the rules I dont think I have seen one page on wiki that actually follows wiki rules. The place is a blog.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger[edit]

Virginia Steen-McIntyre is not notable enough on her own. Her page is mostly just content about Hueyatlaco. I think the pages should be merged with Virginia Steen-McIntyre redirecting to here. Then the POV issues and reliable source issues can be worked out on just this page. Tmtoulouse 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the pages seems reasonable to me, unless there is any notable information relevant to Virginia Steen-McIntyre that could not be presented here. In other words, I support the proposed merger, unless someone can provide a good reason as to why the articles shoud not be merged.--Spurius Furius 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I might be the only ones interested in editing this material at all. I know its customary to wait a week or so after the proposed merger for further comment but I don't think anyone is forthcoming. I will probably start the merge this weekend and if someone comes around later and disagree we can address it then. Tmtoulouse 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea.--Spurius Furius 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before Virginia Steen-McIntyre is merged with this article I believe that more research should be done on the subject. The University of Arizona article from 2000 referenced below throws some light on the dating of the evidence that Steen-McIntyre used to come to her conclusions. radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/.../Number2/azu_radiocarbon_v42_n2_305_310_v.pdf&type=application/pdf. This article makes one wonder if it is Steen-McIntyre who was the unreasonable person in the Dating controversy. There has been 40 years (2 generations of archaeologists) to shake down the old structure but there have only been tweeks not earthquakes in the "accepted" theories. I believe that the best gain for this article will be the addition of the new evidence and evaluations that have come in the last 10 years. Uvallthegaul 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 24.46.18.165 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the controversy section appears to be a little biased and rather bitter.

I think the main point of keeping a separate page for her might best be based on the strength of the bias against open minded approach to science in general. As a result of the findings in a geologic discipline another science - that of archaeology - dismissed the results since they did not fit the larger paradigm - even though that is all it is, a large scale paradigm. Working past those acceptances proved to be impossible in her case although there did not appear to be any malfeasance on the part of the geologic findings or work product. True to the empirical method the work was tested then retested and the results presented. And my understanding is that she never worked in her field again. During my life I have seen continental drift become the current paradigm although it was initially scoffed at, and Clovis culture was held to for what appears to be far too long as a fact rather than the paradigm it was and to some extent still is - simply because of the vast numbers of people schooled in and working with a closed or limited perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess Smaale (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And today there is also Cerutti site, an who knows more 'pre-pre-pre' Clovis ones. Times are changing, not always to worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly, distressingly predictable[edit]

I have yet to see one article anywhere...one...where this site does not act as an utterly single-minded mouthpiece of the atheistic establishment. This is yet one more case in point, where the laughable obscenity that is this site's "policy," is used as a means of advancing the agenda of atheistic, scientistic trolls.

You make me sick, Wikipedia. You have my eternal contempt. I am also aware that the atheistic, pseudorationalist trolls will be falling over themselves in their haste to revert this edit of mine, as well. Go ahead, you cowards.

Jimmy Wales can keep asking for donations for as long as he wants. He will never see a single cent of my money, nor that of anyone else with any sense. Wikipedia has degenerated into a farcical waste of bandwidth, that should be removed from the Internet at this point.

Petrus4 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you'd be happier here. --LiamE (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most average readers cannot understand how political the issue of this archeological site and others like it are to the standard "out of Africa" theory upon which the whole of modern anthropology/archeology and human evolutionary theory rests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missaeagle (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

while it is true that these types of things hurt the credibility of the out of africa theory, it is just that (a theory). if it's wrong than it's wrong. we have to develop a new theory, perferably one that doesn't have to ignore and manipulate facts the way our current model ofhistory does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.97.26 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooparts[edit]

Shouldnt this be in the Out-of-place artifact article as a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.21.86 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repudiation[edit]

"have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community." Is this accurate? Aside from a link that fails, there is nothing in the article that suggests this, more that the discussion continues with dating on the side of the older dates.Halbared (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article does not detail any repudiation of the dating of Hueyatlaco. I edited the sentence to be more neutral. If there is information about a final repudiation of the findings, then it should be added and my edit can be reverted. 173.21.190.87 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]