Talk:La Ciudad Blanca/Archive 2

In 2001 there was an expedition to Mosquitia led by Ray Mears, renowned expert in expeditions, bushcraft and aboriginal survival skills, along with actor Ewan McGregor. This video is on Youtube. They found traces of this civilization: roads paved with slabs of stone, stone containers, tables, carved stones... This is the link to the video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1W7XwYGKk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.4.123 (talk • contribs) 11:05, November 28, 2012‎

Mentioned @ 17:50--Auric 14:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added references to "Jungle" Jim Ewing and Ted Maschal (a.k.a. Ted Danger), explorers and aspiring filmmakers who popularized the search for Ciudad Blanca in the early 1990s. Additional citations to newspaper and magazine articles about their work can be provided if necessary. Hoopes (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jungleland

The sections on Christopher Stewart's expedition and popular book should be expanded with more specific references to his methodology, where he traveled, what he found, and what (if anything) his work contributed to the legend. Hoopes (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see more content in this article from Stewart's recent book, which seems likely to play a significant role in contributing to the legend of Ciudad Blanca. I have not yet had access to this source, so contributions from an editor who does would be welcome and would help add a variety of perspectives on this topic. Hoopes (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what is being requested in the way of a citation for the following:

"There are several pre-Hispanic sites with significant architectural structures in this area, among them Guayabo de Turrialba and Las Mercedes in Costa Rica and Ciudad Perdida and Pueblito (in Tayrona National Natural Park) in Colombia.[citation needed]"

The existing, hyperlinked Wikipedia articles in this passage and the citations provided within them make it clear that these sites have significant architectural structures and are located in the cultural-geographic unit known as Isthmo-Colombian Area, which includes both Costa Rica and Colombia as well as eastern Honduras (for which sources are cited in that article). What additional citation is needed?

Another question: Many of the citations in this article reference a recent, popular article in the New Yorker magazine by Douglas Preston rather than the original source material to which Preston himself refers (such as the New York Times article about Morde). Wouldn't it be preferable to cite the original sources of this information, especially when using direct quotations?

Wikipedia is never a valid source, so a hyperlink is not a substitution for a source... Of course, it would be preferable to cite the NYT directly. However, it's not a big deal unless you think Preston is making stuff up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Preston is making stuff up, but I do think he is being selective about how he presents the (uncited) source material. He is a popular writer, not a scientist, and his article in the New Yorker provides no citations of primary material, including sources on Morde. I realize that a hyperlink is not a substitution for a source, but you seem to be saying that a source in a hyperlinked Wikipedia article must be repeated in the article that contains the hyperlink in order for the point in the hyperlinked article to be make again. Is that correct? I still don't understand what citation(s) would be needed to assert that well-known sites in Costa Rica and Colombia are actually located in those countries and that those countries are actually part of an established cultural-geographic unit. Are you seeking references to additional sources for every fact in the article? Hoopes (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they need repeated. I tagged uncited paragraphs. Every fact should be supported. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you may disagree, but I think it's fairly obvious that Theodore Morde is an extremely unreliable source. From what I can tell, he was an explorer and spy with no archaeological credentials whatsoever who was funded by George Heye to bring huge collections of undocumented artifacts back from Honduras. His story of a "City of the Monkey God" seems likely to be a complete fabrication designed to titillate investors, generate news stories, sell his book, and generate buzz at upscale cocktail parties. (There are no references that I know to any "Monkey God" in either Mesoamerica or Central America, although Hanuman is a popular Hindu monkey deity.) The quality of Morde's scientific contributions seems to be nil, so we are probably fortunate that he never returned to Honduras to damage any archaeological sites. If a moderately reliable source (Douglas Preston) cites a mostly unreliable source (Theodore Morde), does that somehow make it reliable? Shouldn't preference be given to the most reliable sources, namely doctoral dissertations from accredited universities, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and books published by reputable university presses? Hoopes (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, the only thing Morde is cited for is Morde's story. There is no illusion that it is true. You can not deny that his story, whether completely made up or only exaggerated, is an important part of the legend's history. This is not an article about meso-American archaeology (there are several on Wikipedia though) but rather the history of a cultural phenomenon (legend) that relates to archaeology. And, I don't think you will find too many academic sources talking about the legend. (Although I have tracked down one written by Begley and published in some obscure journal, which I have requested on inter-library loan.) Plenty talking about real archaeology in the region, sure, but again that is not the subject of these article.

Also, it seems he did not become a spy until after his Honduran visit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I count no less than 4 qualifying phrases ("reported", "claimed", "according to legend", "supposed"), or five if you count "adventurer", in the two paragraphs about Morde. I don't think it could be more clear that what is written about is a story he told, not anything resembling archaeology. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but discussions of the thousands of artifacts that Morde supposedly brought back from Honduras for the Heye Foundation should not be considered proof that he found any "lost city." It seems likely that the objects he exported were not the result of excavations (much less scientific excavations), but perhaps purchases of objects with unknown provenience. Hoopes (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at, as the article certainly does not speak of "proof" of anything. However, it obviously relevant that he brought back artifacts. There is a big difference between a story only and a story + artifacts. As to the source of the artifacts, that is pure speculation on your part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you've restored the assertion, "archaeologists have come to realize that the pre-Columbian peoples of Mosquitia were a lot more sophisticated than previously thought," you need to provide a source for that. A lot more sophisticated that who previously thought? When? ("Previously" can mean centuries, decades, years, days, or minutes ago.) Some clarification of what you mean by "sophisticated" would be helpful, as well as some parameters of time. More sophisticated at the supposed time of occupation of Ciudad Blanca? (And when would that have been?) More sophisticated in Paleoindian times? Note that I removed this sentence because it is relatively meaningless as it stands. You must justify its inclusion or remove it as something that reflects your own opinion and POV. Hoopes (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not my POV. I know the concept is difficult for you to understand, but I am just reporting what the sources say - not my opinion on anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another ad hominem. Will they never cease? Please stop the personal attacks. Read what I wrote: "You must justify its inclusion or remove it" is the part that matters most. If you can't, it's POV. Hoopes (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Says the master of ad hominem attacks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Say you in yet another ad hominem attack. Please stop. Hoopes (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The irony here is amazing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as a third party is coming here, someone needs to tell Hoopes in no uncertain terms that it is not acceptable to repeatedly assume by bad faith about another editor. Even if I am wrong about every point in dispute (and I don't even know what those are at this point), it is not acceptable to continually assert that I am editing to push a POV and refusing to believe anything I say about myself. I have denied these false claims more than a dozen times and yet they keep being repeated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you are pushing a POV is one of the issues that needs to be determined by a third party. It is one thing to assume by bad faith and another to have the impression of bad faith confirmed over and over by what appear to be statements and changes made in bad faith. At that point, it is not something assumed but rather taken for granted. If User:ThaddeusB is actually not acting in bad faith, then he should make a concerted effort to participate in and honor discussions on the article's talk page before reverting changes that have been made in good faith by other editors. Hoopes (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the perfect example of what I am talking about. User:Hoopes thinks I am acting in bad faitgh, so it is not a personal attack (according to him) to say it over and over and over and over and over again. What a joke. And for the record, I have participated in every single discussion on this page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. What I wrote was, "If User:ThaddeusB is actually not acting in bad faith, then he should make a concerted effort to participate in and honor discussions on the article's talk page before reverting changes that have been made in good faith by other editors." While you have participated in the discussions, you have also reverted changes without discussing them. I think what's required is a moratorium on either you or I editing this article until we have some third party responses either from administrators or others. Until then, the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss differences of interpretation or opinion. If you are not acting in bad faith, then you will honor this request until third party mediation occurs. If you don't, then I will presume bad faith. By the way, comments such as "What a joke" are not appreciated and contribute to what I interpret as a pattern of hostility. Hoopes (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting "if" in front of an attack, is a word trick. It does not negate the attack in actuality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not a "word trick" at all. It's what the words actually mean. Saying "if you are wrong" is not the same as saying "you are wrong." Hoopes (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying one person specializes in the archaeology of Honduras (and even eastern Honduras) while another specializes in the archaeology of Mexico (and even Michoacán, Mexico) is a significant distinction. While the analogy is imperfect, saying someone is a specialist in Mesoamerica is like saying they are a specialist in Europe. The differences between specialists in the UK and Romania are significant. Furthermore, note that the part of Honduras in which Ciudad Blanca is rumored to exist is not a part of Mesoamerica, although it may have been influenced by distant Mesoamerican cultures. Hoopes (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Part of the reason the distinction matters is because the archaeological features and architectural styles of Mexico, and especially Michoacán, are radically different from those of the Isthmo-Colombian area. Someone who is familiar with one may mistakenly identify the features found in another. The same is true for settlement patterns and the recognition of "cities". These are issues that matter. Hoopes (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)The statements about Joyce and Fisher that you changed were not inaccurate. They were absolutely correct. You are making arbitrary decisions based on your own ignorance and are reducing, not increasing, the quality of this article. Hoopes (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The descriptions are inaccurate. Neither describes themselves the way you do. Both have done research related to multiple countries. Their areas come from your original research about their qualifications, not reality. It is a great example of your POV pushing that Fisher is unqualified and Joyce is high qualified. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not my POV that Fisher is unqualified and Joyce is highly qualified and you are being disingenuous to claim that. Fisher is highly qualified with respect to the use of LiDAR to identify archaeological features under heavy vegetation and Joyce is highly qualified in issues pertaining to the archaeology of Honduras. However, Fisher has never done fieldwork in eastern Honduras--an area whose archaeology is quite different from that of his main area of emphasis in Mexico--and Joyce (a more senior researcher) also has experience with interpreting LiDAR imagery. You are inserting your own POV in attempting to portray them as individuals with no differences or distinctions in their qualifications, information that would run counter to the narrative that it seems you are attempting to support--that the UTL team has actually found a "lost city" that might be the one mentioned in a "legend of Ciudad Blanca." Hoopes (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual your assumption about my motives is false. The description of Fisher's expertise comes from you and no one else. When I asked for a source, you claimed it was ridiculous to ask for one. The description of his expertise is even disputed by the man himself. Yet you insist you are right. If that isn't inserting your POV, I don't know what is.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying (including your snide "as usual" comment) is hostile and incorrect. When you asked for a source, I did not claim it was ridiculous to ask for one. (Read the first comments in the talk page section on "Fisher.") In fact, I provided one (to his own website). What I said was ridiculous was your unwillingness to identify as an expert someone who was a tenured professor with a particular area of specialization. (Also known as expertise.) You say the description of his expertise is disputed by the man himself. Do you have a source for that? Hoopes (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that I have not made an assumption about your motives. What I said was that "it seems you are attempting to support" a particular narrative. To me it actually seems that way, but that I am not assuming that is true. If it is false, then please make that clear. I have doubts and would like to be persuaded that what seems is not actually what is. (It is the latter that would be an assumption.) This is at the heart of why I think you are pushing a POV. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. To be as clear as possible, please assure me that you are NOT attempting to support a narrative that the UTL team has actually found a "lost city" that might be the one mentioned in a "legend of Ciudad Blanca." I would be much more comfortable with your edits if I could believe that. Hoopes (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

(As I said previously more than once), I 100% absolutely am not trying to push a narrative that the UTL team found la Ciudad Blanca. My actual interest was (pretty much gone now) to get to the bottom of where the legend came from (as much as possible) and to correct the many inaccuracies surrounding it found in careless sources. I was made aware of it because of the UTL news coverage (not Preston's article) sure, but no I don't think "the White City" is what UTL found. My aim on all my edits on all articles I edit is to accurately reflect what sources say, not push my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources used to support the sentence are Preston's article (which I know does not say anything about Fisher being a Mexican specialist) and a LA Times article which describes Fisher merely as an archeologist with no specialization listed. The article is about a Mexican site, but it is you who makes the jump from "studied this Mexican site" to "specializes in Mexico". --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Preston may not mention Fisher's specialization, but I provided a citation to Fisher's own website. You are making meaningless semantic distinctions. Maybe you have a basis for complaint in saying that reading Fisher's website to find out what he specializes in is an example of original research using primary sources, but that seems really trivial. Hoopes (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And "Fisher's own website" [1] Clearly says Mesoamerican, not Mexican. --ThaddeusB (talk)!

Fine. If you want to go with "Mesoamerican" instead of "Mexican" for Fisher, go ahead. The reason I used "Mexican" was to create a parallel construction with "Honduran" for Joyce. All of Michoacán is in Mexico and most of Mexico (including Michoacán) is in Mesoamerica. All of Honduras is not in Mesoamerica. Hoopes (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to edit the article again until the arguments die down. However, if you now realize you misremembered your source (LA Times, not Fisher's personal website) and agree that categorizing him as a Mexican specialist unfairly diminishes his authority, then please make the edit yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that categorizing Fisher as a Mexican specialist unfairly diminishes his authority, but I have made an edit myself citing a reliable source on his geographic area of specialization. I hope that will be satisfactory. Hoopes (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No further diminishing his area of study by using a popular science website while ignoring his own website does not in any way address my concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this is an excellent example of why it is important to use sources about Ciudad Blanca specifically whenever possible. As used in the original article, the descriptor is a compliment on Fisher's ability to assess the Mexican archaeology in question. As used here, it subtly undermines his ability to assess Honduran archaeology. In other words, it is an unfair synthesis on your part. (And the characterization clearly does diminish his authority or you wouldn't have described the edit by saying "The distinction is significant.") --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If you wonder whether I have any knowledge of these things, you can check my own background and areas of specialization. Hoopes (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that you feel your personal background gives your opinions special authority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• It seems like User:Example is a giant douchebag who wants to destroy Wikipedia! (Don't worry, there is no personal attack here I only said it seems like his is a douchebag, not that he is one.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in here - I would indeed prefer not to be labeled as a 'Mexican' specialist. I find it to be inaccurate and limiting. Mexico and Mesoamerica do not reference the same geographic region. Mesoamerica includes parts of Mexico, but also of course many other Latin American countries including Honduras. Sometimes the phrase 'Mexican specialist' is used to refer to a scholar that studies colonial or post-colonial Mexico - 100% not my area of expertise. Also, though I have worked and published on prehistoric societies at the northern Mesoamerican frontier (Zacatecas) my knowledge stops there and does not include the vast regions of Mexico to the north. A more apt description might be a Highland Mesoamerican scholar though I do have experience in the Lowlands. And of course as a Mesoamerican scholar that is dedicated to a comparative approach I try and keep abreast (as best as one can) of the academic literature from throughout the region - not just Michoacán for example - including the northern and southern frontiers. I also reserve the right to research the archaeological record globally to better understand anthropological questions that may interest me. As such I have also worked in and published on the European and North American archaeological record. Therefore, if I must be labeled, it should be as a Mesoamerican specialist.

In terms of Rosemary Joyce, though I am uncomfortable speaking for her, I would assume that same would apply. It seems to me that labeling her as a 'Honduran' rather then 'Mesoamerican' specialist has the effect of diminishing her extensive contribution. Tariacuri (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. According to ThaddeusB, we must use what is reported in secondary sources and provide citations for those. Hoopes (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ThaddeusB has also made it quite clear that it is important to use relevant sources. What you have done is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. By taking a comment in a news article about Mexico intended to be a compliment (i.e. that Fisher is qualified to talk about the archaeology in the article) and applying in to an unrelated context (Honduran archaeology) who have created a situation where the implication (he is less qualified to talk about the archaeology in question) that is not supported by any source. That is the definition of original research by synthesis. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and I think you are mistaken. I fail to see how I have created a situation where there is any implication that he is less qualified to talk about the archaeology in question, an interpretation that reflects your personal prejudices and POV rather than anything in the content of the article. You are reading conclusions into my citation that are not there. There is no WP:SYNTH content, so you are mistaken. Making edits on the basis of your personal interpretations of "implications" rather than the actual content of the article and what's actually said in the article is what I'm referring to as heavy-handed application of your own POV. That is inappropriate. Hoopes (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The source used is about an unrelated project. The description used there doesn't automatically apply everywhere and to force it to is synthesis. The fact that you insist this information is important pretty clearly indicates that it does lead to an unfair conclusion just like "Tariacuri" (aka Chris Fisher) says. 140.254.45.34 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not an unrelated project. In fact, it is the project that established Fisher's authority on interpretations of LiDAR imagery for identifying architectural features under dense vegetation. There is no implication of an unfair conclusion. A specialist in Mesoamerica can be identified as a specialist in the ancient Maya without diminishing their general area of expertise. Similarly, a specialist in Mesoamerica can be identified as a specialist in West Mexico without diminishing their general area of expertise. Identifying someone as a specialist in Honduras does not imply that they do not have expertise in Mesoamerica any more than saying that someone who is a specialist in Mars does not have expertise in planets. Hoopes (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, why do you insist on pushing it. Fisher's own website and his words above dispute your POV. The source you used is verifiable false - Fisher does not specialize in Mexico. Why do you insist on including this falsehood if it is not to diminish Fisher's ability? 140.254.45.34 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So which is it Hoopes? First you say "The distinction is significant" between being a specialist in Mexico and Mesoamerica. Now you say it does not imply anything. The information you wish to include is synthesis, despite your insistence it is not, but more importantly it simply is incorrect. Fisher is a much better source for Fisher's area of specialization than some random news article. Furthermore, the relevant information is included in the very next sentence. The two sentence combination

"In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."

is both more direct (less redundant) and more accurate than the two sentence combination you are pushing

"In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a specialist in Western Mexico and LiDAR applications, joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."

Again Fisher is not a specialist is Western Mexico; nor he is a specialist in LiDAR. His own website makes no such claims; his own words above directly contradict this assertion. And if you still don't believe it, check his published work - it most certainly is not exclusively or primarily about Mexico. Yes a reliable source said he was a specialist in Western Mexico. However, better sources say otherwise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)OK guys. I want to help here but I don't feel like wading through 10,000 words of invective. The issue here is sources. What sources are you using? Can you quote them? If you're not using sources, then I don't want to know. Serendi^podous 17:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, Fisher is both a specialist in Western Mexico and a specialist in LiDAR. In fact, it was because he is a specialist in LiDAR that he became a member of the UTL team. I really don't know how you're interpreting the phrase "a specialist in," since a person can have many areas of expertise. What Fisher said in his comments is that he doesn't want to be identified as "a specialist in Mexican archaeology." That completely makes since, because Mexican archaeology is a huge field. It's such a general identification as to be virtually meaningless when it's said that someone "specializes" in it, in part because territories of cultures such as the ancient Maya go well beyond Mexico into Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. However, saying someone is a specialist in Western Mexico (or even a specialist in Tarascan culture) is more useful because it is more focused. Regardless, any identification must be supported by a source. If there were a source that said Fisher specialized in Tarascan culture (a.k.a. Purépecha people), I would use that. However, the full quote from the source that I have provided says, "An archaeologist specializing in Western Mexico, Fisher studies the way environments affect and change cultures. LiDAR has helped him repaint the picture of ancient Mexico, bringing the little-known Purepecha empire a lot more historical prominence." If you have a different source that provides alternative facts, please cite it. I don't think it's fair to remove information because it doesn't represent your personal POV. As User:Serendipodous points out, the issue here is sources. If User:ThaddeusB is making his own interpretation based on his own reading of Fisher's list of publications and comments that Fisher has posted in the talk section of this article, that is WP:OR and does not belong. Hoopes (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoopes wishes to have this wording:

"In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a specialist in Western Mexico and LiDAR applications, joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."

based on this source about a Mexican project of Fisher's ("An archaeologist specializing in Western Mexico, Fisher studies the way environments affect and change cultures."). My position is that the context of that article makes the statement a compliment, but when it is applied to a different context, the statement gives the wrong impression. Chris Fisher himself has said above that this is an inaccurate description of his work. ("I would indeed prefer not to be labeled as a 'Mexican' specialist. I find it to be inaccurate and limiting.") I propose the following simplification which does not take a position on his area of study:

"In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."

In addition to Fisher's own words, his website says he studies Mesoamerica in general, not specifically Mexico. ("Dr. Fisher has active research projects in two areas of Mesoamerica"). A listing of his published work shows that most items are not specific to Mexico (a GScholar search shows likewise). Additionally, the relevant part of the material (that Fisher has used LiDAR before and where) is already conveyed in the second sentence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are now engaging in original research rather than citing a published source. If you have a reliable published source identifying Fisher in the general way that you think he should be identified, then please cite it, which is what you requested that I do (and what I did in response to your request). By interpreting primary material, you are engaging in WP:OR. Furthermore, removing a reference to his focus on West Mexico (the Purépecha) diminishes, not increases, the information quality of this article. There is no reason he cannot be identified as someone who studies "Mesoamerica in general" as well as being someone who is "a specialist in Western Mexico" (as was stated in the source that I cited). Both are factually correct and represent WP:NPOV rather than your personal interpretation. However, as you have repeatedly insisted, assertions must be backed up by reference to specific sources. Hoopes (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First, why is this an issue? Does it really matter? You both agree that this person is a Mesoamerican scholar; is there some specific reason to mention his specialisation? Other than that, I mostly agree with Hoopes. ThaddeusB's sourcing borders on synthesis and original research, so if it must be included, I'd prefer a direct source like Hoopes's. Serendi^podous 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please reread, I am advocating to not take a position on his specialization (which is what you seem to be saying, yet you "agree" with Hoopes). The above info was cited to prove Hoopes' source is wrong, not to be included in the article. My position is to stick with what dircetly relevant sources say about his specialization - which is nothing. As to why it is important, Hoopes' edit summary to (re)-add the specialization says there is a big difference between Mexico and Mesoamerica. Chris Fisher himself agrees and says the description provided by Hoopes is wrong. Should we take an out of context description by a reporter as authoritative while ignoring Fisher's own comment? Or should we stick to what sources about La Ciudad Blanca have to say on the matter which is simply that he is an archeologist with experience using LiDAR? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, The reliable source I used to support my edit describes Fisher precisely as I do - simply as "an archeologist" with no further qualification. The same is true about every other news article about Ciudad Blanca - not a single one describes Fisher as a Mexican specialist, but instead call him "an archeologist". The only source for this supposed Mexican specialization is an older article on a Mexican project. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear; I would prefer a wording that left out the man's specialisation entirely (even simply calling him an "archaeologist" would be good enough). But if the subject must be broached at all, then I would prefer a direct source, like the one Hoopes provided. Serendi^podous 20:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am 100% in agreement that the specialization bit should be left off and removed it per your suggestion. Unfortunately, Hoopes has restored it and tweaked it to read "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico". This does not fix my concerns (and is less consistent with the source). I you could please (re-)remove the material yourself, I would appreciate it as I do not wish to revert any further. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that an appropriate decision about how best to handle this--with or without any edit--should be made by a party other than ThaddeusB or myself. I will not revert any changes that are made by an identifiable third party who understands the issues and is able to honor WP:NPOV and WP:OR. This would recognize that only paying attention to the concerns of ThaddeusB is not neutral. (It's my own feeling that the "Mesoamerican specialist" identification requires a source, as has been provided for reference to the direct quote, "An archaeologist specializing in Western Mexico," but I'm willing to compromise by not insisting on that.) Our agreeing to this would represent a true consensus. Hoopes (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that you have just said anyone who disagrees with you (supports my conclusion) either doesn't understand the issue or is non-neutral, right? I'm sorry but that is not how things work. You don't get to decide someone is non-neutral\doesn't understand the issues because you don't like their conclusion.

And you have again misrepresented by position. I do not wish to say Fisher is a "Mesoamerican specialist" - I wish to say nothing at all. The dispute is between "archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a specialist in Western Mexico. joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico..." and "archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico..." The only difference is you want (some version of) the bold part and I do not. Adding more words is not a compromise; it is just a different version of the same thing. Serendipodous if you still prefer the version w/o the added words, can you make the edit? If I make the edit, Hoopes will revert it and claim I misunderstood your words. The relevant section is here. (Note the current wording is "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico") --ThaddeusB (talk)

Well, no. The dispute is whether or not to change the current wording (including the citation): "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico,^[1] joined the UTL project." You say you "wish to say nothing at all" based on your own WP:OR and I wish to include wording and information (including the citation to Fisher's previous research in Western Mexico) from a cited source that strengthens the quality of the article. Since we are each claiming that the other's position violates WP:NPOV, the issue should be settled by an experienced and objective Wikipedia administrator. Hoopes (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources about Ciudad Blanca say nothign about Fisher's qualifications. We should do likewise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite my request that the issue be settled by an experienced and objective Wikipedia administrator, User:ThaddeusB has just gone ahead and made the reversion anyway. As I've pointed out, this change is being made on the basis of his violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. This is, for me, evidence of WP:ABF on his part, which is unacceptable. Hoopes (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This statement is false. Hoopes most recent wording is still in the article. False accusations of wrong doing are unacceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. What I assumed was incorrect. I saw the reversion on the history page and assumed it was the one we'd been discussing. I apologize for the mistake. I was wrong and that was a violation of WP:GF on my part. However, it was yet another reversion of my edits. Hoopes (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)