Talk:Tucson artifacts

Untitled

Apologies for the back to back editing. This is my first wiki article/page and I am still working out a few kinks when it comes to the correct code/syntax. Thanks to everyone who has helped update or edit the page so far. -Jason Vunil (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible rewrite

I'm not really happy with the outline of section headings - supporters, whatever, phantom sculptor. I think the article should be recast. I'll think about it. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is terrible and does not offer adequate references regarding the people listed in association with this incident. For one I would very much like to see proof that A.E. Douglass supported the belief in this obvious hoax. I really doubt Douglass would have supported the belief that the Tucson Crosses are genuine. He was fired from his astronomy position in Flagstaff, AZ for not supporting the belief that there were alien constructed canals on Mars. I do not believe he would support such dubious claims in this case either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.35.246 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Williams says he did, and wrote that "I have also made use of the biography of Andrew E. Douglass by George E. Webb (1983), who helped me to find Douglass's own materials". Douglass even tried to get support from the National Geographic Society. Williams says Douglass was skeptical at first but convinced when he saw some being excavated., and that there is nothing in Douglass's files unequivocally denying they were authentic although he did quietly withdraw any support. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is still not as well organized and written as it should be and is missing some detail. Nonetheless, I hope my additions and citations will support the conclusions of most scholars who have looked at the matter and provide a little clarification. The article needed to have at least some improvement and additional detail because of History Channel program which could lead to edits saying the artifacts have been proved genuine. Those who read the scholarship, especially Burgess, and those who viewed the program more critically and not as definitive as it might superficially have sounded, will conclude that the artifacts were created about the time they were discovered, or in any event no more than about 40 years earlier. The Burgess article has all the facts and details at length and cites much of the literature on the matter. Donner60 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. The History Channel has a lot to answer for. I think we should remove Cyclone Covey - minor fringe writer with a self-published book (Vantage Press, one of the oldest vanity publishers). Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the Covey section. I'm going to also make some additional copy edits, and possibly attempt a little restructuring per the above. The supporters and skeptics sections seem to need some help, and should perhaps be combined or integrated elsewhere into the article. - MrX 13:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Til Eulenspiegel objects to the removal of this section. Perhaps they can articulate why. - MrX 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again. You explained why you removed it in an edit summary and it was discussed here, but Til didn't explain why he restored something sourced to a self-published book. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Practically all sources published since 1975 to discuss the Tucson Crosses at all. also talk about Covey's book. Yet once again, information that is freely available FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE ON THE SUBJECT ONE CAN FIND, yet its very existence being mentioned or even whispered about on the article is verboten by Doug Weller. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a deep breath—we're all on the same team. Can you point us some reliable sources that cite Covey's work? - MrX 17:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For starters, Charles Hapgood, Donald Panther-Yates, and David Childress have all published books where they noted and reviewed Covey's work on this subject. But we're not even being allowed to mention its existence impartially in connection with this topic? This should be sufficient evidence that the school of thought really does exist and is not a figment of anyone's imagination. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we are working on different definitions of reliable sources. And as an aside that Donald Panther-Yates article is pretty bad, partially because of an SPA who created DNA Consultants, Yates's company.

But I'm wrong about removing it as it was reliably sourced - the fact the Williams, who unlike the others is a reliable source, mentions it is sufficient. I've replaced it - it does need a new section heading. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding from experience with WP:RS/N is that these sources are sufficient for mentioning that a school of thought exists, even if you as a wikipedian judge your personal expertise to be higher than that of these authors. But if that's not enough evidence that the school of thought honest-to-god exists (whether you ap[prove of it or not), Covey's theory is also cited in Frank Joseph, Discovering the Mysteries of America, Jim Brandon Weird America, Carol Patterson-Rudoplh, On the trail of Spider Woman: petroglyphs, pictographs and myths, Joseph Mahan, The secret: America in WOrld History before Columbus, University of Aricona Arizona and the West, the Journal of Mormon History 2005, and the International Bibliography of Social and Cultural Anthropology 1975. It is ridiculous to blackball each and every one of these sources simply because you think you are right and they are all wrong and therefore the suject cannot be mentioned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine, as long as his work was cited by other authors (I also have a newspaper source that I will add shortly). I've made some bold edits to try to make the article follow an overall chronological flow, while not completely losing the fact that there are both supporter and skeptics of a pre-Columbian origin. Please let me know if I'm taking too many liberties. - MrX 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DNA Consultants gets more and more interesting - I see they are publishing a book with an introductory note by Covey.[1]. Thanks Til. I see Mahan's book was published by J.B. Mahan, the Frank Joseph 'book' is by Frank Joseph and Zecharia Sitchin and is actually a collection of articles from the racist fringe journal Ancient American, William Grinstad (who wrote as Jim Brandon) was a collector of Forteana. The only possibly reliable source you've got there is Patterson-Rudolph and as the Amazon page that allowed me to search the book didn't bring up Covey but does bring up the index which doesn't list Covey or Tucson, it's unlikely she covered him in enough depth to be useful. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Childress regularly appears on Ancient Aliens as a supporter of the ancient astronauts visiting earth and influencing civilizations theory. Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

History Channel and Jason Colavito

If we must mention the HC we should use Colavito, a published author with a good reputation among archaeologists who are interested in front archaeology. See WP:PARITY also. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller I agree. I did that earlier. As I wrote then: This episode was subject to heavy criticism as to its methodology, its ignorance of the text on the crosses, and its conclusions. I thought it gave balance. I for one am NOT pushing a "Fringe theory" which was one of the claims User: Geogene advanced in an edit summary here. One of our editors, User: Geogene, removed it saying it was "self published" here. OTOH, I thought Colavito did a convincing and thorough job in punching holes in the show, which chose to ignore evidence and was hell bent on proving some "Knights Templar" thesis.

References

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen I've restored your earlier edit with some modifications which I hope you're ok with. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)