Jump to content

Talk:Olmec colossal heads/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Referencing style

My edits to change the referencing style to what has emerged strongly as a convention was reverted. I removed the use of the {{aut}} template and used two columns. I did this for appearance, which is admittedly admittedly a low priority. Since there are the virtually no instances of the {aut} being used on new articles we should apply the "sinking lid policy" to its use. Policy and/or guidelines can be probably be quoted to oppose my changes but I would argue that policy needs updating to suit convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the change: there is no "convention". Check out the fifth pillar for starters. Secondly, this referencing style is used consistantly within WikiProject Mesoamerica; it's got through FAs, some fairly recently. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style, specifically A consistent style should be used within any given article, but it is not necessary to maintain consistency between articles. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes there is a convention. If you check the style of new articles and any heavily edited articles you will find that none of them use {aut, and that all use two or three columns if there are numerous references. I will take you on your word that {aut} is used within WikiProject Mesoamerica but I feel that Wikipedia-wide consistency on this matter is more important. Finally, I agree fully with the need to have consistent citation style within an article, and that is why I changed all the citations. That last point is a red herring made on your part.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The referencing within the article was already consistent. I really don't think the talk page of an article is the place to discuss changing referencing policy, there are other more appropriate place for that. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know it was consistent within the article, and I changed it to another style that was consistent with the vast majority of other WP articles. And yes I agree that this is not the place to discuss discuss referencing policy (or guidelines for that matter) but it can still be discussed in the context of this particular article. It is also a method of gauging community reaction to potential policy or guideline changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally I use two, or three, columns, but it is important to stamp hard on this nonsense about "emerging conventions" - there aren't any and there shouldn't be. The guideline is very clear. Alan Liefting, you should know better by now! Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, have a look at the doc for template:Aut. It is very clear why it is to be used neither in CS1 nor CS2 citation templates. These families include cite journal, cite news, etc. How this got past FAR is beyond me. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps because, as far as I know, complying with COinS metadata isn't a part of WP:MOS. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but irrelevant. The CS1 and CS2 templates are not expected to work with {{aut}} embedded, and they do not. An article talk page discussion won't change that. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Olmec colossal heads/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

beginning review
  • lede
  • "owing to the discovery there of a colossal head in the 19th century." would "spurred by the discovery there ... etc. be ok.
  • "The smallest examples weigh 6 tons, while the largest is variously estimated to weigh 40 to 50 tons, although this was abandoned unfinished near to the source of its stone." - not clear what "this" refers to - the largest head?
  • Dating
  • "Due to these factors, the period of production of the colossal heads is not known, nor whether this spanned a century or a millennium." this? Would "it" be ok?
  • Manufacture
  • "In terms of the workforce, they would have included sculptors, labourers, overseers, boatmen, woodworkers ..."
Suggest: "The workforce included sculptors", etc. or "The workforce must have included..." or something similar?
  • I'm not comfortable with such frequent use of "would". Seems like it did include (included), as far as we can determine, or must have included, as far as we can speculate. Whereas "would" is unclear. (And Tony1 hates the use of "would" in prose. So, if the use of "would" could at least be reduced. . .)
  • I found only 4 instances of "would", two of which I've reworded. The other two instances seem to be appropriate to the tense being used - conditional and a "future in the past" tense "the stone that would (later) be fashioned". Simon Burchell (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Mathew. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!

Milhist?

Feel free to say "no", this article certainly isn't strictly what Milhist focuses on ... but it seems to me that's the problem! Here we have a very high quality writer (Simon) writing about artifacts/artefacts that, as the article says, symbolize rulership. It just feels very artificial to me to have a large project devoted to covering historical conflict, but then to push articles aside if they're covering something directly connected to military rulers that isn't specifically about bashing someone's head in. It's not the approach that military historians take to military history, certainly not these days. Having made my case ... I'm quite happy to go either way, and certainly, Milhist editors will always be interested in your articles, Simon, regardless. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My unauthorized opinion is that it would open up Milhist for more than battleships and battles. Milhist articles do seem to be all alike after a while, to none Milhist people like me. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, Milhist isn't really my area - I think Spanish conquest of Guatemala is the only article I've written that I thought fell directly within military history (although thinking about the amount of Maya sites I've written about that include details of their campaigns against other Maya cities, there are certainly more that could be included). I'm certainly not against including an article there if Milhist editors are happy to have it. I'm pretty sure that the article makes no mention of conflict though. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, after some talking and thinking, my preference would be a relevant task force or subtag in WP:ARCHEO. I'm going to be busy through Wikimania ... I'll do some thinking in D.C. and come back to this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, probably more relevant. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite right. All rulers are "military", and almost everything is affected by rulers, so ... everything belongs to Proj. Milhist! The question you need to ask is: is there any real chance that being in Proj Milhist will help this article in any way, & would that be a sensible place for a reader or editor with a query to go, if here doesn't work? Answers, no and no. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I was bold and reorganised the lead yesterday, perhalps hastly, but mentioned it in the FAC. The article was promoted before Simon came back online, kind of removing his right of reply on the way the lead is at present. This seems a bit unfortunate and unfair to me; for the record, I dont espically have a problem with being revert here, if the earlier version is prefered. My issue was with the opening sentence only; I wanted to get to what the stones actually were soon than had been stated. Congratulations by the way, and all the best. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Map suggestions

The map shown is inadequately captioned. I don't know what the yellow and red mean.

I suggest making a new map that is more explanatory (feels like you just grabbed what was in Commons). Show all the details known of the head locations, show the location of the Olmec "heartland", show the boulder source, Tabsco and Veracruz state borders, Guatemala border (one head is from there), etc. You can get one of the mapmakers to collaborate with you if you make the effort (don't have to do the work yourself).

I'm not to good with maps, and I did grab this one from Commons - if you feel like producing another one, feel free! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Known monuments

The Known Monuments section begins with an incomplete sentence, which appears to be missing its first half. If anyone knows what may have originally been said, could it be re-added? Thanks--Chimino (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure when it disappeared but I've put it back - thanks for letting me know. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Size

It is disappointing that the lead section makes no mention of how tall the heads are. This is compounded in the main page's summary, which doesn't indicate weight either, and therefore gives no idea of how large these "colossal" heads are. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a picture on the right side. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is information on weight at the end of the lead, but adding similar rough average/maximum height info would be good I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I see he's talking about the main page TFA blurb; I'm talking about the article itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
My first sentence refers to the article's lead section. My second sentence refers to the main page's summary. Regarding the picture, not all readers can see the photo (due to disability or browser settings). Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Countries where located

No mention in the introduction paragraphs of what country or countries the heads were discovered in. I acknowledge that the article mentions Mesoamerica, but adding modern political geography would add clarity and interest.--137.191.241.9 (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of this is unclear: " Seventeen confirmed examples are known from four sites within the Olmec heartland on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Most colossal heads were sculpted from spherical boulders but two from San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán were re-carved from massive stone thrones. An additional monument, at Takalik Abaj in Guatemala,...."? Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction accepted thanks; the tone of the response was a bit direct. Mexico and Guatemala does not appear on the main page.--137.191.241.9 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I should have realized today was main page day & the "blurb" version should have at least mentioned Mexico - same applies to previous section. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, main page day indeed, abbreviated to MPD perchance. I looked at your user page; I am very impressed with your work and the high quality of the work. Thanks again.--137.191.241.9 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Addis Abeba

In the Ethiopian-Italian War before and during World War 2, Mexico stood on the side of Ethiopia. For that reason, the Mexican send an Olmec colossal head to Addis Abeba, as a symbol of their friendship.

Thanks for that - I'll drop a mention in. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has refs and footnotes

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every fact and datapoint in the whole of the writings of humanity had somebody write it. But per WP:INTEXT, editors are to avoid clutter and use the refs and footnote systems. Another way to think about this is as follows:

If one writes, "With sand cats being very susceptible to respiratory infections, they have to be kept in very arid enclosures where humidity and temperature do not fluctuate.[1]" then what one has is an assertion backed up by a primary source.
If one writes "Karen Sausman states that sand cats are very susceptible to respiratory infections and they have to be kept in very arid enclosures where humidity and temperature do not fluctuate.[1]" then what one has is a primary source talking about itself. Also, from the point of view of the readership, who in the fuck is Karen Sausman? The readers of this encyclopedia are here to get an overview, not an exhaustive literature review.
Finally, if a statement is uncontroversial, then it represents the consensus view among scholars and there is no need to call out the name of a particular scholar who said it. If a view doesn't represent consensus then one is more likely to see a name used, but then it must be asked; should this be in the article at all? Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly normal to attribute particular suggestions of scholars to them in text. There is a large middle ground between "the consensus view among scholars" and things that shouldn't be in the article, into which these fall. So having asked the question, the answer is yes. Please don't revert again unless you achieve consensus here. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the WP:POLICY, WP:No original research takes precedence over your opinion. It is WP:SYNTHESIS and a misuse of primary sources to clutter up the article with the names of non-notable scholars. Look, if I say, "there is a debate between Scientist A and Scientist B over blablabla", I'd better have a secondary source by Scientist C to back that up. Little old me, the Wikipedia editor, cannot find two primary sources that disagree and claim that is a debate. Abductive (reasoning) 06:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Are they actually disagreeing? I'm not sure they are. I don't follow your reasoning at all. By the way you have breached WP:3RR, which is a very clear policy, and are liable to be blocked. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
How is WP:No original research at all relevant here - all this is sourced? WP:No original research means no original research by the editor. This is all sourced to scholars; in this case the means of transport of massive monuments is a subject of ongoing debate - which is why this is refelected in the text. This is by no means unusual on Wikipedia. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Who are Leslie and Richard? I see no reason to include unlinked names of people. It reads better without the names, the references are there for those interested. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Olmec colossal heads. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Olmec colossal heads. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Olmec colossal heads. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Olmec Heads

They have features commonly associated with people of black African descent. Why is it such a stretch to think that such a civilization couldn't have reached the Americas in antiquity? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A 2021 genetic study dismissed the existence of an hypothetical Australasian component among Native Americans. See: Genetic_history_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Ancient_Beringians 98.227.1.201 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: FYSEM-UA 900 Busting 11 myths about the archaeology of human evolution

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Olmec_colossal_heads/Archive_1&oldid=1253666573"