Talk:La Ciudad Blanca/Archive 1

Editing and Revisions by User:ThaddeusB

User:ThaddeusB, after having paraphrased a popular magazine article from the New Yorker--not scientific sources--to substantially revise this article, has repeatedly made edits and changes with minimal discussion of the rationale for those on this talk page. I would like to complain about his heavy-handed and biased approach, which has ignored the role that talk pages for articles should play in discussions about changes or revisions to articles. User:ThaddeusB is using his status as a Wikipedia editor to insert personal bias and diminish the value of his article to users. Hoopes (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The only one trying to insert their personal bias is you. You have been repeatedly been invited to provide reliable sources to back up your claims and have repeatedly insisted you don't need any because they are true. See also WP:RS, WP:BOLD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is simply false. I have provided reliable sources for every instance in which one has been requested. I have not repeatedly insisted that I did not need them. If anything, I raised questions about whether source material from linked Wikipedia articles needed to be cited again in this article if the linked material made a fact clear. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly inserted personal bias through the inclusion of irrelevant paraphrased and quoted material from a single source (Preston's New Yorker article). You seem to have trouble understanding what's meant by bias. Hoopes (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Multiple examples have been given on this page (after you wasted days complaining about how you didn't need sources I might add). Others have been flagged and not fixed for extended periods. I have no personal bias and you stating it over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Using a source heavily doesn't mean I'm biased, no mater how very very badly you believe it does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The pattern of persistent edits of my changes by User:ThaddeusB is on that subtly but consistently gives the article a sensational character. This includes the use of direct quotations such as "Sartori ran out, shouting to Elkins, 'There's something in the valley!'" that really have no place in an encyclopedia entry as well as systematic repeated removal of relevant references to the background, experience, and specific academic qualifications of archaeologists Rosemary Joyce and Chris Fisher. This has the effect of highlighting the emotions of individuals with little archaeological training while diminishing the relevance of the credentials of qualified scientists. It gives the article an inappropriate, sensational spin (perhaps inspired by Douglas Preston's compelling New Yorker article, which has been extensively paraphrased and excerpted by User:ThaddeusB) while at the same time diminishing its objective, scientific content. I think this is completely unacceptable, especially considering the direct role that popularization, speculation, and hype has played and continues to play in perpetuating widespread ignorance and the rampant looting of archaeological sites. Hoopes (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations of bad faith are not the least bit helpful. Conveying the excitement is perfectly relevant - in part it shows that the team was not doing science. Listing the university someone works for is of minimal value to begin with and when it takes 100 characters to explain their qualifications when they have a total of one line in the article is a complete distraction for no reason. Saying Joyce is an expert on Honduran archeology provides way more value to her opinion than saying she works at UC Berkley. It is only in your mind that I am trying to disqualify her opinion. In fact it you excessive detail that diminishes her input to the reader. As long as we are talking about unacceptable editing, I find your insistence that you don't need sources to back your opinion because it is right to be quite appalling. For the millionth time, this is an article about a legend and the history of it. It is not an article about Honduran archeology. Inserting random facts (without citing any sources I might add) about Honduran archaeology is a distraction. No one with two ounces of intelligence would read this article and come away thinking "this city was real". But once again, if you have academic sources that talk about the legend, not Honduran archaeology in general with no mention of it, then please do provide them. You don't even have to do the work of inserting the material if that's too much trouble - I'll do it for you if you provide a source, but inserting your opinion and calling it well known fact is not acceptable.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of what this article is "about" is not helpful, either. If it is in fact "an article about a legend and the history of it," then why does it contain so much detailed information about LiDAR? The reality is that there is actually precious little either to or about the legend itself, so this article has actually become one about both the legend and the evaluations of it, whether they are scientific or not. With regard to issues of credentials, identifying the institution with which an "expert on Honduran archaeology" is based is directly relevant. In the history of Ciudad Blanca, there are all kinds of people who have identified themselves as "experts on Honduran archaeology," whether they really are or aren't. Systematically and consistently providing institutional affiliations (for Joyce, Begley, Fisher, etc.) is a way of indicating specific credentials. If the article is going to identify Joyce as an "expert on Honduran archaeology," then why shouldn't it identify Fisher as an "expert on Mexican archaeology" (especially when he is NOT an expert on Honduran archaeology, which is relevant to assessing credentials)? I have not at all claimed that sources are not needed to back facts. In fact, I have provided sources every time they have been requested. However, it's a bit ironic that you seem to feel that Preston's article is authoritative when in fact it does not even come close to the standards of source citation that you are requiring for this article. If you would like to point out where I have inserted opinion and called it well-known fact, I'd be happy to address that. However, you are not even raising these issues on the article's talk page before acting upon them based upon your own opinions and wishful thinking. Hoopes (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've flagged your opinions and explained to you they are opinions dozens of times. If you can't supply a source taht somethign is related to Ciudad Blanca, it isn't related except in your mind, which makes it your opinion. I waited 8 days for you to provide references for the information I deleted before I deleted it. You failed, but if you can provide relevant citations please do so and restore the info. I don't think any single source is authortative, least of all you - which is the only source for teh info you've inserted.You repeatidly making such false accusations saying its my fantasy, etc. does make it true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to a single request for a citation that has not received a response? I'm sorry if you had to wait eight days. I was out-of-town with limited online access. Quality can wait. Your impatience is no excuse for reverting the article to your extensive paraphrase of Preston's article. Your repeated accusations that I am not supplying sources does not make it true. Your problem (and your bias) is that you are relying too heavily upon a single, not especially authoritative source. Hoopes (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source that talks about Lost World literature in relation to Ciudad Blanca. You haven't provided a source for any part of "Although there have been suggestions that la Ciudad Blanca was a Mesoamerican or even Maya settlement, its supposed location is far to the east of the boundaries of Mesoamerica and the known territory of the Maya." and that's just two of many off the top of my head. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And as I've said several times, teh reason there is a good amount of Preston is because I prefer to edit form one source completely, then move on to the next, not because I find it specially authoritative. The article is incomplete - you can complain about it or you can help but adding material that is directly relevant according to sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been adding material that is directly relevant according to sources. I have even been citing those sources. I have also been seeking to actively improve the article by editing and removing portions that are irrelevant and/or represent excessive, biased citation from a single popular, non-scientific magazine article. My complaints are about the bias that has resulted from your own excessive reliance on a single source and about your deletion of material that I think it significant and relevant even when it is sourced. You're absolutely right, this article is incomplete. Your unjustified editing has been an impediment to making it more complete. If there is a statement that needs to be sourced, flag it and say so, don't just delete it because you don't like it. Hoopes (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You have sourced with revelent sources a few things and those things have stayed. I did flag the offending material and you didn't fix it so I deleted it after waiting more than a week. You reverted in back, citation needed tag and all, so I deleted it again. Please readd when you find a relevant source to back your opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fisher

Please provide a citation for Fisher being an "expert" on Mexican archeology. That is a non-neutral assessment fo his ability that needs a source --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for Joyce being an "expert" on Honduran archeology. That is a non-neutral assessment of her ability that needs a source. At least, that would be the requirement according to your standards. Hoopes (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are getting ridiculous now. In my opinion, someone who is a tenured professor with a particular area of specialization should be considered to be an expert in their field. What is your opinion of what constitutes an expert? The fact that someone--regardless of their own qualifications or credentials--has published a magazine article or a popular book in which they express their own opinion saying that they are? Hoopes (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Joyce's expert status is supported by citation. The only thing ridiculous is that you criticize my sources and yet refuse to provide any of your own. Your opinion isn't relevant, as usual. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the citation that supports Joyce's expert status. Do you mean the reference to her own blog post? Hoopes (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is in Preston's article, which was the citation used to support the sentence before you changed it. Of course that isn't a valid source according to you.

Your opinion is becoming less and less relevant every time you repeat the falsehood that I refuse to provide any sources. It simply isn't true. I have provided many sources, whether in direct response to your comments or not. Flag whatever you think needs a source and I'll provide one. However, what you think needs a source and what doesn't has been arbitrary, capricious, and highly subjective. The fact that you repeatedly cite the same source, an unreliable magazine article, doesn't inspire much confidence in your own ability to identify or use appropriate sources. Hoopes (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your attitude throughout this doesn't inspire any confidence in your ability to be the least bit reasonable. You can think ill of me all you like (and clear think I am a moron) but that doesn't make it true. And for you to talk about repeating malicious falsehoods is beyond laughable considering how many times you have repeated the same garbage about me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, I don't think you're a moron (an archaic and insulting concept I don't even use and would advise you to eliminate from your own vocabulary). I do think that you have been stubborn and unreasonable and am somewhat mystified as to why you have made certain changes to the article without explaining why. I will refrain from complaining about your undue influence by Preston if you will refrain from the false claim that I have refused to provide sources, which has been blatantly untrue from the beginning. Hoopes (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think likewise about you (that you've been unreasonable and stubborn), and have been baffled by some of your edits. However, I think we are finally coming to an understanding. You say you are willing to stick to sources that mention the legend going forward, even if you don't agree with that requirement, and I respect that agreement. You say I have over relied on a single source, and I will work to fix that, even though I don't agree. So I think we are definitely on the right track. I won't talk about your (past) behavior anymore. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, your repeated deletion of my edits has had a distinctly chilling effect on my willingness to devote time to improving this article. Before I spend any more of my time doing this, may I have your assurance that you will engage in a discussion on this talk page before proceeding to delete or reverse the edits and additions that I make? Hoopes (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't promise not to delete weasel violations, but otherwise sure I won't delete anything. But please stick to sources about Ciudad Blanca. Things that you think are related, but no one else has drawn the connection do not belong in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You should delete weasel violations. I will stick to published sources that mention Ciudad Blanca. However, I do think that you are being unnecessarily strict, especially given that there is a huge amount of relevant scientific literature that does not mention Ciudad Blanca precisely because it is a legend and not a real place. Note that by your standards, any references to the archaeology of eastern Honduras that refrain from referring to this imaginary place are irrelevant. The only thing that would qualify something to be included is that it mentions this legend. In fact, you are not even permitting links to other Wikipedia articles that would clarify: 1) why Ciudad Blanca may not be an appropriate concept in Honduran archaeology, and 2) the larger context of legend and fantasy within which Ciudad Blanca can be understood. This is one reason why I think it may be advisable to split the article about the legend of Ciudad Blanca from one about archaeological investigations in eastern Honduras (which would include the scientific results of the UTL project). Hoopes (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Archaeological interpretations

Note that I have changed the title of the section "Archaeological theories" to "Archaeological investigations" in order to clarify the actual content (which in fact discusses little in the way of archaeological theory). I have also moved the paragraphs pertaining to Fisher's archaeological research with the UTL project to this section in order to keep information on archaeological investigations by professional archaeologists together in a single section. Hoopes (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No objection to this or any of your other most recent edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. We may be making progress. Hoopes (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

In Spanish, the place is referred to as "la Ciudad Blanca." However, in English the article is not necessary for a foreign toponym, and so it can be referred to as simply "Ciudad Blanca." Note that the correct translation would be "the White City," but untranslated foreign toponyms are commonly used for legendary places and archaeological sites. Hoopes (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, but it often reads better with la IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "reads better" unless you're reading in Spanglish. The Spanish article la is gramatically incorrect in English. Hoopes (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not "incorrect" when you are referring to a proper noun. For example, no one would refer to "Les Misérables" as simply "Misérables" or "the Misérables". Wherever it would be natural for a "the" to appear, it makes perfect sense to use the "la". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Sorry, but Les Misérables is the actual, published title of an established literary work. It's the full proper noun. There is no parallel with the use of la Ciudad Blanca, a Spanish toponym that for some reason remains untranslated into English. Why not just go with the White City? Why is Ciudad Blanca capitalized? Why not just la ciudad blanca? If you're asserting that "La Ciudad Blanca" is the correct proper noun, then why are you not capitalizing the la? Wouldn't the article always be capitalized in La Cucaracha (not la Cucaracha)? As someone who has over thirty years' experience of dealing with Spanish proper nouns in English literature, I can assure you that simply asserting the Spanish article in la Ciudad Blanca into English text is incorrect. Ask a proofreader. Hoopes (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Another useful parallel might be El Dorado, the name of another city of legend. It would be incorrect to write el Dorado. That said, as a professional archaeologist specializing in Central America I've had conversations about Ciudad Blanca in both English and Spanish for decades. In English it's almost always just Ciudad Blanca while in Spanish it's la Ciudad Blanca. Last time I checked, this Wikipedia article was in English. Hoopes (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You disagree, but it is not a question of correctness; it is a question of style. As you note, it is a Spanish phrase and as such different authors treat it differently based on their writing style guidelines. Usage in English varies - most often just "Ciudad Blanca", but also "el Ciudad Blanca", and "El Ciudada Blanca", or even "the Ciudad Blanca" are sometimes used. Only one of these may be correct to you, but different people have different versions of English, follow different writing styles, etc. Wikipedia accepts this and allows more than one "correct" usage. In any case, "la" is used infrequently in this article as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but it is a question of correctness, not style. "Ciudad Blanca" is a Spanish proper noun that does not require the article la when it is written in English. The correct English article is "the" and the correct translation would be "the White City." Anyone literate in Spanish could tell you that "el Ciudad Blanca" is always incorrect (ciudad is a feminine noun and therefore requires agreement in feminine articles such as la and adjectives such as blanca). "El Ciudada Blanca" would be completely incorrect (the word "ciudada" does not exist in Spanish and el would be an incorrect masculine article for a noun for which the associated adjective is feminine). Even if the issue were only one of style, it should be apparent from the standards used by Reuters, the Associated Press, the Huffington Post, and virtually every major English news source that almost none are using "la Ciudad Blanca" but only "Ciudad Blanca." (The one exception seems to be the New Yorker, whose journalistic standards on Preston's article seem to me to be quite low.) Hoopes (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with your attitude. If someone dares disagree with you, even over something as trivial as spelling, it is obviously because they have "low journalistic standards" not because they use a different style guide. Unreal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The above comment does not address the cogent point made by the previous comment. It is not for us to determine what style to be used, or what is or isn't correct. We are to reflect the sources. if the majority of the reputable sources use "La", we use "la', and vice versa. A quick Google search seems to support not using "la". And you would do well to avoid ad hominem attacks. This is not a discussion forum, this is a wiki talk page. Please refrain from commenting on the poster, and stick to commenting about the post. Sneering at his assessment of the NY'er while not materially addressing teh point he/she made is bad form.204.65.34.238 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The same could be said for your comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The term rainforest, which refers to a specific ecological habitat, is preferable to "jungle," which is more common in non-scientific literature. Phrases such as "inhospitable jungle" are deeply ethnocentric and should be avoided. For the indigenous residents of Mosquitia, both ancient and living, the rain forests of eastern Honduras were and are quite obviously hospitable and have been so for many thousands of years. Hoopes (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Page needed" requests

I note that you have added "page needed" requests to several of my citations. I think that this is overly picky, especially in the case of references to R. Tripp Evans' book Romancing the Maya, in which pretty much the entire book is devoted to romantic arguments about "lost cities" and the issue of Manifest Destiny. However, I will see what I can do. Please either apply the same "page needed" standard to your own citations or remove this requirement, which could be interpreted as a strategy for removing information as "unsourced" when in fact it has been adequately sourced. Hoopes (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. That was another editor. Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. (For the record, using page numbers is best practice.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Matters of Style

Is there some reason why "City of the Monkey" god keeps being reverted to boldface? Why does this phrase merit boldface? What's the rationale? It is either the name given by Morde to a legendary place or the title of his book, neither of which requires boldface. Putting this phrase in boldface gives it unnecessary significance. Hoopes (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I see it's because it's an alternative name. Hoopes (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Identification in Toltec and Aztec literature and Conquest period references

The current citation that "la Ciudad Blanca is the birthplace of the Toltec/Aztec deity and culture hero Quetzalcoatl" comes from a Frommer's travel book, which is hardly a reliable source. Can someone provide citations to the specific Toltec and/or Aztec literature in which this assertion appears (or to a scholarly source that confirms that the story actually appears in these sources)? If there is not a better source, this information should be deleted or identified as undocumented hearsay. Although it may help perpetuate the legend, Frommer's is not a reliable source. Hoopes (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)a

It is certainly a valid source that people claim this, which is all the article asserts. Surely, you are not claiming that no one else makes this claim? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is that Frommer's (an unreliable and inappropriate source) claims this, then that context needs to be made clear. I'm not claiming that no one else makes this claim, but you are the one who has demanded sources and those sources must be reliable ones. Surely you're not claiming that unsourced claims are appropriate to include in this article, especially after having insisted that I provide sources for every statement that's made. Frommer's may make claims about Ciudad Blanca, but those cannot be presented as documented facts while citing Frommer's because it is not an authoritative or reliable source on claims about Toltec or Aztec beliefs. Hoopes (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is all about context. In the context of reporting a claim made in (non-scientific) sources, the use of Frommer to demonstrate the claim is made is reliable. I think the context that Frommer's claims this is perfectly clear as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have modified\expanded the material using several sources to clearly indicate that it is (most likely) a late addition to the story. Hopefully, this alleviates concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The same is true for the assertion that, "In 1544, Bishop of Honduras, Cristóbal de Pedraza wrote of spotting a 'white city' in unexplored territory as he traveled up the coast. According to his Indian guides, the people of the city ate on plates of gold." The Frommer's book is not a reliable source and should be replaced or augmented by a correct reference to either the original source or a reliable scholarly source concerning Bishop Pedraza's claim. Hoopes (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Numerous sources contain this claim, including Pedraza's own writing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That may well be true, but numerous sources have not been cited. The only citation for Pedraza in the section on "Spanish conquest" is the non-authoritative Frommer's travel guide. If you're claiming it's "included in Pedraza's own writing," then you should provide a source to Pedraza. Your insistence that sources be provided while being lax about providing them yourself is disingenuous and exasperating. Hoopes (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Another observation about the remark regarding Bishop Pedraza: The claim that the Bishop reported "spotting a 'white city' in unexplored territory as he traveled up the coast" is inconsistent. If he could see it from the coast, it was nowhere near where subsequent claims have placed Ciudad Blanca. Also, if he was traveling and recorded it, this could not have been "unexplored territory" since he was exploring it. These inconsistencies are the reason why a more reliable citation is required. Hoopes (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is my intention to replace it with Pedraza's writings when I get a hold of them, but I can't do everything at once. And traveling up the coast to get to a destination is not the same thing as exploring a forest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is not your intended content but its actual content. You have complained about me being too slow to make changes and you're right, it is not possible to do "everything at once." However, as you yourself have insisted, statements require sources. With regard to your second comment, what does "exploring a forest" have to do with it? A coastline is a territory. Traveling along it and making observations is exploring it. A coast where this has been done is technically not "unexplored territory." Hoopes (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually one can travel in unexplored territory, and he saw the "city" in the distance not where he was. Your instance on playing word games is not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that travel guides are not to be considered reliable sources regarding the Mesoamerican past or contemporary archaeology. The claim is also not particularly notable. The source for Pedraza should be a scholarly secondary source analyzing Pedrazas writing, not the primary source itself. Also: there is no such thing as "Toltec literature".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • There are approximately 0 scholarly sources (maybe 1 or 2 at most) on the legend. The claim, however, is cited by most sources - reliable by wikipedia definitions, but not scholarly - that that discuss the legend. Is your position that an article on the legend should not exist? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason we want scholarly sources is because otherwise wikipedia risks inventing a legend that doesnt in fact exist and which is just being promoted by tourist guides and sensationalist media. So yes, we are not Urbandictionary.com We shouldnt have articles on legends in the making. I have not reviewed all the sources here so I dont know if there is a basis or not, but I do see a lot of reliance on sources that simply do not establish the existence or notability of the legend.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we should use the best sources available. However, I dispute (and consensus based policy agrees) that we can't use mass media news stories. Ideally, each source should be evaluated independently. (Generally speaking, not about anything specific to this article,) not all peer-reviewed journal articles are excellent sources and not all media reports are poor sources. Context matters a great deal as to what is relevant and reliable, what is reliable but not relevant, and what is unreliable.

If you believe the "legend" doesn't really exist, then all I can suggest is nominate it for deletion. Basically all the material is based on the same kind of sources - news media articles and informal postings by academics - so I don't see how selectively deleting some parts will help improve the overall accuracy of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Under the LiDAR (UTL) project

I've been working to tighten up the discussion of this project, which currently dominates this article due to extensive paraphrase of a single source. It would be better to have information from multiple, authoritative sources that focus on the project's evaluation of the legend. Discussion of the specifics of the history of the remote sensing research is less relevant and will presumably become even less so as future on-the-ground exploration is undertaken. Hoopes (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I really wish you had held to our agreement, as I was planning on splitting UTL out and reducing to more relevant details (per your suggestion, I might add)... I restored a few things that I need for the split. If you could have some patience, the section will likely be cut in half or so after the split. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we had an "agreement", though I thought we agreed that the scientific content on the UTL project might merit an independent Wikipedia article. At this point, however, I think such an article would be challenged on the basis of Wikipedia:Notability. There really aren't very many sources on it. Hoopes (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There are 811 news stories (according to Google News) on it in the last month alone. Two are required to establish notability. It was your suggestion to begin with, and I tentatively agreed. To now say we didn't agree looks like trying to be difficult on purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall, though, I found the most recent edits to be mostly productive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. However, while your opinion matters, it shouldn't be the only one. This is not your article. Hoopes (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Amazing, even a statement of agreement is twisted into something negative by you. Add WP:OWN to your false attacks against me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A "false attack" does not exist unless it has been actually made. You are imagining things. Hoopes (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion with User:ThaddeusB

This has been copied to this talk page from the talk page of User:ThaddeusB

La Ciudad Blanca

I'm an archaeologist at the University of Kansas who specializes in cultures of both Mesoamerica and the Isthmo-Colombian Area. I've been following the recent edits to the article on La Ciudad Blanca, many of which have been made by Chris Fisher of Colorado State University, the project archaeologist. I think it's important to retain corrections to facts, including the acknowledgement that the region of eastern Honduras in which the legend of Ciudad Blanca is located, a region corresponding roughly with the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in La Mosquitia is not within Mesoamerica but rather the Isthmo-Colombian Area. I will be reviewing the content of the article for accuracy and would be happy to answer any specific questions that you or other Wikipedia editors may have. I do understand the reasonable cautions, but think it is essential to get basic facts correct with appropriate documentation. Hoopes (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If by "many" edits you mean 2, you are correct. Please note that the actual corrections (which were minor details, not "basic facts") were left in tact. However, his edit also introduced an error (changed a direct quote of Elkins) and general were puffery. I'm sure it was not his intention to introduce such bias, but when you are that close to the subject you can't be objective. This is why we have guidelines on editing when one has a conflict of interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Nice work expanding it with your own edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's essential for the article to sustain a neutral, "just the facts" tone rather than to promote any particular individual's personal thoughts, feelings, excitement, interpretations, etc. just because those have been documented in popular magazine articles or similar sources. Archaeologists who have dealt with this topic have emotions, too. They just don't typically publish those in dissertations and scientific articles. An important function of this article is to make it clear what is known and what is not, especially given a tendency to exaggerate how "unknown" or "mysterious" the region is. The fact is, it is not "unknown" to the people who actually live there, including both indigenous people and settlers from outside. It is also not as "mysterious" to archaeologists as some would assert. Hoopes (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the most essential thing is to stick to what sources say. Verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia. This is key to neutrality. "Correcting" things to fit one's own understanding of the facts is, in actuality, non-neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If there are facts that require additional documentation in source material, flag them and I will provide the citations necessary to document Verifiability. Neutrality is lost when the only sources used represent bias, as is true with the repeated citations of a recent popular article in the New Yorker that presents a specific point of view. Please note that I have changed one of the subheadings of the article from the name of a living individual to the name of a project. Given current commercial interests in the production and promotion of a future documentary film as well as a recent science fiction film (which goes on sale tomorrow in DVD and Blu-Ray formats) and a recent mass-market nonfiction travel-adventure book, I think it is important to be alert to the use of this Wikipedia article for promotional purposes. Hoopes (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering I wrote Elkins material, I can be pretty certain it wasn't added in an attempt to promote anything. :) We can only use the sources that exist; the New Yorker article is excellent - much better than most other sources. Of course if you can find scientific critique of the the Elkins material, that would be great, but I don't believe any exists yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so certain of yourself. Are you aware that Douglas Preston, the author of the New Yorker article, is a bestselling writer who is also seeking to profit from a book about the making of the documentary film? As someone familiar with the scientific literature, I can assure you that the New Yorker article, although an entertaining read, is actually not so "excellent" when it comes to the facts. For a scientific critique of Elkins, I refer you to this blog post from a year ago by UC-Berkeley archaeologist Rosemary Joyce, perhaps the world's most reliable source on the archaeology of Honduras: Good science, big hype, bad archaeology. With all due respect, I think your copious, uncritical, and poorly informed paraphrase of Preston's New Yorker article for large sections of this Wikipedia article does not represent the best Wikipedia practice. Hoopes (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kettle, Black. I would say adding your own opinions to the article, and especially changing sourced lines to say different things while leaving the source in tact, "does not represent the best Wikipedia practice." Joyce's so-called critique of the archeology is actually a rant against the sensationalism of the journalism (and the UTL people for seeking the publicity). She hadn't even seen the images at the time. (It also actually was already in the article before your post here). As to Preston, he write regularly about archaeology and has earned a reputation for reliable scientific reporting. He is a much better source than 95% of the available writings on the subject. He is not "seeking to profit" anymore than any other writer is, so I guess that means every paid journalist is unreliable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, the article is still very much a work in progress. It is my intention to expand on previous tries using a variety of sources over time. It is, however, my style to finish with one source before moving on to the next. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether every paid journalist is unreliable is a debatable point. What counts for "science journalism" these days (The History Channel? The National Geographic Channel? Really?) is often abysmal, even from "reliable" scientific reporters. (Stephanie Pappas, who wrote the story on Ciudad Blanca for LiveScience that was picked up by the Huffington Post, is well-intentioned but has admitted to me that she is simply writing too many things to do more thorough investigative research. She could have contacted me on the story, but neglected to do so before it was submitted. However, as a popular news source she is "reliable" enough for Wikipedia.) You say that Preston "is a much better source than 95% of the available writings on the subject." What would those be? Do you consider Preston to be more reliable than Stewart? Have you consulted Jungleland yet? I will be reading more scientific literature by archaeologists. It will be interesting to see how what they say compares with what appears in "reliable scientific reporting." Hoopes (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what did you identify as "my own opinions" that were added to the article? What are your criteria for distinguishing opinions from facts? How do you determine which facts are relevant and which are not? Isn't your own opinion at work in that? Hoopes (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by some of the "citation needed" requests. If a statement contains hyperlinks to existing Wikipedia articles and those articles contain the necessary citations, is it necessary to also provide the citations in the parent article? Hoopes (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a valid source, so yes citations are needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're saying that the valid sources cited in existing Wikipedia articles that are hyperlinked from an article need to repeated again in the parent article? That makes no sense to me at all. What's the point of hyperlinking articles in Wikipedia if the relevant information in each needs to be repeated? I also don't understand your "not in source" comment about Theodore Morde. If someone is an archaeologist but the reference to that person in a source doesn't explicitly say that they're an archaeologist, then they can't be identified as an archaeologist (or a geographer, filmmaker, cartographer, etc.)? The documentation of Morde as a spy is provided in the article on Theodore Morde. Does that same source also need to be repeated in the La Ciudad Blanca article in order to identify him as such there? Hoopes (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It may not make sense to you, but that is Wikipedia policy. Each article should stand alone. A hyperlink, is to provide further information (or needed background) for interested parties, not citation for a fact. Our reader shouldn't be required to go searching for a citation (and almost certainly won't). Sometimes uncontentious details can be uncited, but yes, claiming someone is spy is definitely something that needs cited. (It is probably also irrelevant, for the record.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that each article should stand alone, but it should not be necessary to document well-known facts with citations. Requesting a citation to document that specific sites are actually in specific countries seems extreme to me, but I provided a citation nonetheless. (I also provided a citation for the OSS/spy reference.) By the way, I disagree with you about the espionage references being irrelevant. There is a long history of Americans using archaeology as a cover for espionage in Mexico and Central America. See this article, for example: Anthropologists as Spies. You'll see that all of the principals in this article (Spinden, Morley, Lothrop, and Mason) were not only contemporaries with Morde but also major contributors to archaeology relevant for the interpretation of the Ciudad Blanca legend. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in the current lingo what they were doing being referred today as false flag research. (See David Price's book Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in the Service of the Militarized State.) There has been a long history of this in Mosquitia, including Sylvanus Morley's coastline surveillance for the Office of Naval Intelligence. If you don't see the connection between LiDAR and espionage/surveillance, then you've just not given much consideration yet to the technology. Mosquitia played a key role during the Nicaraguan Revolution, when the Moskitos provided the Sandinistas with significant logistical support (counter to the infamous contras who were supplied by Oliver North of the Iran-Contra affair). Today, Mosquitia is a hotbed of drug production and trafficking, and LiDAR is another potential tool in the War on Drugs in the region. I don't think that Steve Elkins is working with the CIA or anything like that, but it's likely the agency is keeping track of what's going on with that project. (Of course, we'll have to wait until we have reliable sources before any of that can be mentioned in Wikipedia!) To get back to Morde, I don't think it was by chance that he went down to Honduras in 1940. That was the same year that archaeologist Lothrop was reassigned to Peru to keep track of German U-boat movements and that Mason went to Sitio Conte, Panama (near the Canal Zone) to excavate the gold artifacts that Lothrop was unable to recover. Of course, the events of attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 changed many priorities and the not insignificant U.S. involvement in World War II may have affected--indirectly or not--Morde's ability to return to Honduras to "explore". Note that there is a lot more history here than Douglas Preston has told. I haven't ready Christopher Stewart's Jungleland yet (have you?), so I don't know if he gets into any of that. At any rate, this is a long way of saying that I think Morde's background is actually relevant to the various legends of Ciudad Blanca (whose "mystery" may be more complex than imagined, and not necessarily because of the region's archaeology). I do appreciate that some of this may constitute original research, but there are published and relevant sources that establish relevant facts whose inclusion improves the quality of this article. Hoopes (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously Discovery Channel has destroyed any reputation they may have had in the past, and has long ceased to be a reliable source. I had also already determined that the Live Science article was not a great source. Despite what you may think, I am actually capable of judging the quality of a source. I have not read Jungleland yet, but it is certainly my intention to do so. Of course, it was written "for profit" (more so even than a news article), so by your definition it should be considered an unreliable source. As I alluded to above, I certainly plan to extend the Morde info from additional sources.

There is a difference between ("may have) had ties to OSS" and "was a spy", but its a minor point not worth debating - the important thing was to cite the detail. As to the other s - I only tagged entire PARAGRAPHS that were uncited. It was not intended to say "this last detail needs a cite", but rather "this entire paragraph needs a cite." As to what is an opinion, when you lead a sentence with "it is important to note" (for example), that is a clear indication you are arguing a point, not presenting "just the facts". --13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that you feel free to identify what you think are unreliable sources (the Discovery Channel and LiveScience) but are unwilling to honor other opinions about unreliable sources and authors. This is a blatant insertion of your own bias and POV, which we have agreed is not a good thing. Hoopes (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Among the sources that you have not yet updated are the references to information about Quetzalcoatl and Spanish explorers from the Frommer's travel guide on Honduras. This should not be considered a reliable source when it comes to issues of Pre-Columbian texts or the history of the Spanish Conquest. It's a travel guide, for God's sake. Hoopes (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a blatantly false attack on me and unworthy of a response. As to the use of Frommer's, I have already replied to that above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could discuss the issues about relevance of Lost World fiction on the article's talk page before deleting those references. I think it is directly relevant to the theme of "legendary" cities and the mystique of the intrepid explorer. Without this stuff, the romance of Ciudad Blanca really makes no sense. R. Tripp Evans discusses this issue in Romancing the Maya, which really should be cited in this article. I hope you will restore the section about Morley's surveys of Mosquitia during World War I, since they represent some of the first work by an archaeologist in the region. For what it's worth, Morley's fascination with the Maya can be traced to his boyhood reading of fantasy writer H. Rider Haggard's novel Heart of the World (1895), which is about an explorer discovering a "lost city" in Central America. The romantic seekers of Ciudad Blanca are following in these footsteps. Hoopes (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I reworded it a bit, but I didn't delete the material except for a sentence about WWI placed in the context of 1850. I am skeptical of the relevance of the Lost World material, as it does not relate directly to Ciudada Blanca. Unless reliable sources tie these themes to Ciudada Blanca, it is irresponsible for us to do so. However, the information is definitely interesting. I am happy to give it time to be properly integrated. I will find a place for the WWI bit, per your request, as it does look relevant upon review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The romance of Ciudad Blanca in Honduran cultural would be better explained by developments in Honduras, not by what some Americans were interested in (although America's interest are also relevant since many of the adventurers/archaeologists were Americans that became fascinated by the story.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to include the relevant WWI material about Sylvanus Morley's coastal surveys of Mosquitia, which are definitely relevant. With respect to the Lost World material, I don't understand why it is necessary to have a specific tie to Ciudad Blanca when it is clear that discussions such as those of R. Tripp Evans in Romancing the Maya (2004) and others refer specifically to "lost cities" in Central America--which is precisely what Ciudad Blanca is claimed to be. Hoopes (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Because if no one ties the too together but you, it is obviously original research on your part. Just because it is "true" doesn't make it relevant to this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why you're unwilling to have this discussion on the article's own talk page, which is where it should appropriately appear? In fact, I request that you transclude this entire discussion from your own talk page to the article's talk page, where it can be more easily consulted and referenced by other readers and contributors. Hoopes (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm doing this myself. Hoopes (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unwilling to discuss at talk (when I have extensively)? Get real it was you who posted on my talk and I replied there. Geez --ThaddeusB talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I would like to request the participation of other Wikipedia editors to review the changes that talk is making to continually shift this article to reflect his personal POV. He continues to revert my edits in order to include biased and irrelevant information. Hoopes (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And I would like other editors to inform Hoops that his POV is not "fact" anymore than my supposed POV is. The difference is I've provided sources for my edits and he hasn't for his, despite repeated requests to do so. I would be extremely happy to include his material if he could back it by a source, but apparently he can't because the comparisons he wishes to draw are his own original research. True, perhaps, but not appropriate for Wikipedia unless published by others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with ThaddeusB and I can provide documentation of how I have repeatedly provided sources for my edits and have responded to every request that he has made to do so, only having him return and revert edits to the article to reflect his POV, which is biased in part because--although he provides sources--he continually sources the same popular article and includes a great deal of extraneous information from it. Extensive paraphrasing from a published article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, especially when the citation for that source has been provided. As a simple exercise, simply count all of the references to Douglas Preston's New Yorker article. These will immediately reveal ThaddeusB's extreme bias and flawed methodology. Hoopes (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The entire section currently title "Under the LiDAR (UTL) project" needs to be reviewed and revised to reflect only material that is relevant to this article. At present, it duplicates too much extraneous information from a single source in a style that is inappropriate to Wikipedia and that looks too much like promotion of a commercial venture (a documentary film) rather than evaluation of the legend of Ciudad Blanca. Hoopes (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course you disagree, that is why it is an edit war. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And, according to what you yourself have said, undocumented opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. If it is a matter of opinion, and not documented by reliable sources, then according to you it doesn't belong in the article. Hoopes (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything I have put in the article is back by a citation to a reliable source. Most of what you have put in is not. If you don't like my source, provide a better one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most of it is cited to a source. Meaning one source, which also happens to be an opinionated source. As I've noted, it's a significant problem that you are relying so heavily on a single source. I don't consider the New Yorker magazine article by Douglas Preston to be a reliable source, so while it's true that you are provided repeated citations to this source, those are not citations to a reliable source. They are actually citations to a popular magazine article written by someone who is seeking to drum up popular interest in a book he is writing, who you are helping by providing free publicity on Wikipedia. As I have said, if you can identify what it is that I have added that you think requires a reliable source, I will provide it. As for providing a "better one," how does one find a better unreliable source? (Just kidding.) The problem is that the magazine article that your are citing for "facts" is one that includes things such as direct quotations of dialogue, emotions, opinions, and other kinds of information that are not included in reliable, scientific sources. Do subjective, emotion-laden opinions trump scientific interpretations just because they've been quoted in a popular magazine? Hoopes (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your guess as to the author's motives is not relevant. It meets the definition of a reliabel source, but again if you think he is mistaken on some points please provide an alternate source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the whole of this discussion. I think there are items each of you is probably more or less correct on. However, I think that Hoopes, in general, has pursued this with a greater focus on wiki policy and a lesser reliance on ad hominem attacks. I concur with Hoopes on pretty much every item that has come up here. Thaddeus, please refrain from continued personal attacks. If you cannot engage in the editing process without following wiki policy, perhaps you need to step away for a while and cool down. In addition, reliance on a single source is indefensible.204.65.34.238 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, get real. Hoopes hasn't even attempted to address policy and has engaged in far more personal attacks than me. You obviously did not read very much of the discussion based on your "assessment" of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if you had actually read the whole discussion you would have known Hoopes and I largely worked out our differences and have agreed to move forward with positive editing, making your chiding completely unnecessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Remarks such as "get real," "you obviously did not read...," and "if you had actually read..." are potentially insulting and contribute further to the impression of ad hominem aggression. This article still relies much too heavily upon a single source (Preston's New Yorker article), as is clear from the citations. Although we have agreed to move forward with positive editing, that agreement included a reduction in the reliance on Preston's article. From what I can tell, none of the references to or quotations from that article have been removed. I think the added emphasis on the mythology is helpful, but it should be done without further reliance upon Preston as a source. Hoopes (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right - I should have ignored the highly unproductive comment entirely. As to the rest, I find it extremely ironic that you complains about my supposed impatience when I deleted a few unsourced sentences after more than a week, but when I fail to rewrite the entire article in 2 days you conclude I haven't done anything. Increasing the use of other sources does reduce to reliance on Preston implicitly. And if you hadn't been so impatient the use of Preston would have continued to decrease naturally. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The commenter noted, "I concur with Hoopes on pretty much every item that has come up here" and yet you assert that my comment was "highly unproductive" and therefore could be ignored. Hyperbole and exaggeration is not helpful. Nor is it helpful to attribute to me sentiments that I don't have. I didn't expect you to "rewrite the entire article in 2 days" nor did I assert that you haven't done anything. I really don't know why you think "the use of Preston would have continued to decrease naturally." Changes in Wikipedia articles don't just happen on their own. You need to actively remove excessive citations to Preston's article in order to shift the article away from the biased POV that results from overreliance on this one source. Hoopes (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say your comment was highly unproductive, unless of course the IP was you, which is a possibility I suppose. You did, in fact imply I did nothing to address the problem and by "naturally" I obviously meant as I kept working on the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Preston "El Dorado" article in the New Yorker magazine

As is obvious from the citations, Preston's 2013 article has played a huge role in the current draft of this Wikipedia article. It has also been a major factor in perpetuating the legend of Ciudad Blanca, which is the main subject of this article. For this reason, it is important to specifically identify and acknowledge the Preston article as a contribution to the legend of Ciudad Blanca and not simply to cite it as one of many sources. Preston's article is likely to have had more readers than anything Morde wrote, so Preston joins Morde, Stewart, and others in the history of perpetuating the legend. Please discuss your rationale here before deleting specific mentions of Preston (of which there are currently only two in the article). Hoopes (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That it has "been a major factor in perpetuating the legend" is an assumption on your part. It is not a fact or anythign close to it. The fact is that many RS covered the UTL story before Preston's article was even published, so if something perpetuated the legend it is the UTL press releases. If his coverage is to be mentioned at all, it should be along side the 100 other RS that covered it, not in isolation, and certainly not as an introduction to events that happened a year or more before he wrote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why have you included over forty (now down from 50+) citations to Preston's piece in revising this Wikipedia article? Yes, the press covered Elkins due to press releases by UTL in both 2012 (before Preston's article was published) and in 2013, when additional UTL press releases were issued following the publication of Preston's article. The content of a Wikipedia article should be a result of its WP:N, not based on the frequency of press releases or press coverage of a particular story. Hoopes (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your timeline is mistaken. It was the team presenting their findings at a scientific conference that spawned the second round of press releases. No doubt Preston purposely released his article at the same time, but it was the conference that spawned the coverage. As to why I used Preston for the UTL material it is because he is the best source for this material. His article is more comprehensive and he had direct access to the expedition. Other stories are reliant largely on the PRs; his article is not. Furthermore, in my own research on the subject I have noticed that he in fact has exhibited higher standards than other sources. For example, he correctly states that Morde commit suicide while other RS's perpetrate the myth that he died in a car crash "shortly" after returning from Honduras. Even so, I have steadily replaced his article with more direct sources as I improved the article. or example, he used to be the primary source for the Morde section and is no longer so. That is because the original sources should be considered more reliable for such information (even though I have found no errors in his telling of the Morde story). So you so, I have in fact carefully picked the source. You, however, assert it is wrong and biased and yet repeatedly refuse to point out specific instances of error. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

POV Discussion

It is my opinion that the quality of this article has been seriously compromised with respect to point-of-view (POV) due to overreliance on a single source, Douglas Preston's article "The El Dorado Machine" in the New Yorker magazine, especially by editor User:ThaddeusB. At the time I am writing this, it is cited a total of 56 times, far more often than any other source in the article and, in my opinion, and unacceptably high number of times for a Wikipedia article that should rely upon multiple sources of information in the interest of avoiding bias. In addition, the content of Preston's article has been extensively paraphrased and excerpted, with personal vignettes (many highlighting a specific narrative of "discovery") and multiple direct quotations, many of which are not statements of fact relevant to the content of the article but emotional responses included to provide appealing "color" and "story" to the original article. The overall effect is to give the Wikipedia article a sensationalized quality of popular journalism that I think is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, because of errors and misinterpretations in the article by Preston, these are repeated as "facts" in the Wikipedia article and their veracity is supported by citations back to this problematic and unreliable source. I think that the bias that this introduces reflects a heavy POV on the part of User:ThaddeusB, who has not only been unwilling to reduce content that relies upon this one, biased source by Preston but who has also reverted or deleted content intended to provide more balance. That is, a heavy POV has been pervasive not only in the content but in the repeated editing of the article. When I have complained about this, User:ThaddeusB has claimed that I am attempting to inject my own POV into the article and has deleted my contributions, thereby strengthening his own. I would like for User:ThaddeusB to respond to this and then to have an objective third party render an opinion with suggestions about how the Wikipedia article can be improved to reduce individual POV. Hoopes (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So is this a "no thanks" to my request to start over between us and have a little time to reduce the reliance on Preston? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this was written before I read that. I posted this in response to your suggestion that we have a discussion on the talk page about conflicting charges of POV. Are you going to make me regret having spent time on this, too? Hoopes (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think at this time we are starting to move forward on our own. If you can point out specific "errors and misinterpretations in the article by Preston", such as you did in regards to "rare" permits, that would be very helpful. Certainly I think that would be more beneficial than more arguments over our own POVs. For my part, I will work to reduce reliance on Preston over the weekend with special attention to anything specific you point out. If we got to a sticking point on a specific issue, a third opinion would then be very useful, but I think right now we aren't even exactly sure where we disagree other than the very general "too much Preston" point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few changes and may yet make a few more. Among the issues I've had with your citation of Preston are presenting irrelevant facts and quotations that may have made his New Yorker article appealing but which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. If, as you've insisted, this article is about the legend, then that must be the guide for what to include or not. There are many details about personal experiences, emotions, or interpretations that may make for an interesting story but which are are completely inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. Please don't forget that Preston is a commercial author who specializes in telling sensational stories. Hoopes (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree (expect the "sensational stories" part) and as previously discussed the content will be moved to a place where it is relevant - an article about UTL. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you mean "except" the sensational stories part, you really need to review the publication record of Douglas Preston. I think seventeen popular techno-thriller and horror novels as well as several crime-story nonfiction books count as "sensational stories." A separate article about UTL would be appropriate so long as it does not rely heavily upon either a limited number of sources or sources intended to promote that business. That would be misuse of Wikipedia. Hoopes (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your alteration and insertion of statements that reflect your personal POV is still a problem. For example, you changed one of my changes to read, "Popular accounts of the legend often claim the city contained vast quantities of gold. Versions told by indigenous people of Honduras, however, stress that it is a forbidden city with no mention of supposed wealth." However, you provide no sources for these statements. What represents a "popular account" is a matter of opinion (saying "some accounts" is both correct and neutral). Claims about "versions told by indigenous people" and specifics such as that they "stress that it is a forbidden city" or that there is "no mention of supposed wealth" must be supported by reliable sources or they are inappropriate and should not be included. Hoopes (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Such statement are supported by reliable sources in the body of the article. They do not reflect my POV at all - that is a false assumption on your part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No fair. You are claiming that your statements can be supported by "reliable sources in the body of the article" while insisting that I provide specific sources for other statements that meet the same criteria. Whether they reflect your POV or not is a matter of opinion on which we apparently disagree. You claim sources are reliable when I claim they are not. I have asked other editors to look at this discussion and attempt to mediate our edit war. Since you have disregarded my comments, have not sought my opinion, and continue to revert my edits, it seems that is the only way these issues will be resolved. Hoopes (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

They are sourced in the body though, which is completely different than not being sourced at all. My POV is a matter of fact, not opinion and you are not entitled continually assert what my POV is especially after I have repeatedly told you that you are wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the "Fisher" section above, you wrote, "I won't promise not to delete weasel violations, but otherwise sure I won't delete anything." However, after I had spent a substantial amount of time working on revisions that improved the article, you deleted them. You have asked me to take your statements on good faith but you have not shown good faith yourself. We are at an impasse that requires external mediation. I'm sorry it's come to that, but it has. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and it is not right for you to exercise such a heavy hand in editing, especially with such heavy emphasis on a single source article from a popular magazine. Hoopes (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a false statement. I left the majority of changes untouched and edited a few things. If you thought I meant I would never edit a single sentence you wrote in any way, then you are were under the wrong impression. I meant I wouldn't wholesale delete material, not that I wouldn't change anything. If anyone is trying to emphasize a heavy hand it is you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If I've had a "heavy hand," it's to reduce the effects of your heavy hand. This is getting ridiculous. Have you done anything to request the assistance of other editors on this article? I have. Hoopes (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A changed literally 3 lines of your most recent edits - not even to change the content, just the flow - and left every other word in tact and you still reverted. If 'that isn't heavy handed then I don't know what is. And no, I thought we were going to work things out so I didn't go leaving biased messages saying I needed help against a POV editor everywhere I could think of. I guess it was a mistake on my part to assume good faith when you agreed to work things out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation style

If you don't understand why somethign is cited, don't just change it. Wikipedia consensus is that direct quotes require direct citations (at the end of the sentence), while regular material can use the same cite to support multiple lines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand why something has been changed, don't just revert the change. When all of the material in a paragraph comes from a single source, the citation can come at the end of that paragraph. It does not need to come at the end of each sentence in the paragraph except when there are direct quotations. Hoopes (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you just repeat exactly what I wrote? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you had left sections of the article where all of the material in a paragraph came from the same source and there were citations after each sentence even when there was no direct quotation. Hoopes (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I didn't. There have been far more than 2 people to edit this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then, I repeated it because someone had left extraneous citations and I thought it was you. I also repeated what you had written because I wanted to make sure you knew that it applied to yourself as well as to me (or others). Hoopes (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Points of agreement dispute

To facilitate further discussion, I thought it would be helpful to outline specific points of dispute and agreement --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this. I think that it is helpful and hope it will help us cut our way through a tropical jungle of debate to find the "real" Ciudad Blanca in all of this. Hoopes (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreement

• UTL material was (is?) too extensive. Section has been edited down and a split into a separate article is planned, which should further reduce its scope.

I think it is still too extensive. If the article is about the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca (if there actually is one...) then the actual archaeology of eastern Honduras merits a separate article. I am not certain that the UTL project merits its own article since I think there is a significant issue of Wikipedia:Notability that must be resolved first. There are not many reliable sources on the project, which is still in early stages, so there's a good chance it is not notable. That said, I think there is justification for: 1) creating a new article on the archaeology of La Mosquitia (or adding an archaeology section to that article), or 2) adding an archaeology section to the still very short article on Gracias a Dios Department in Honduras. Hoopes (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There are over 800 news stories on UTL which count as reliable sources in Wikipedia's eyes. Please do write about the archeology on the region in those articles, as I have encouraged you to do previously. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The number of news articles is a result of proactive press activity by UTL. Most are redundant and repeat or even misquote and misrepresent information from press releases and interviews. Many of those articles present information that has been identified as incorrect, such as the claim that UTL project was searching for a "lost city of gold" or any gold whatsoever. Those sources have demonstrated that they are not reliable. In fact, you yourself have said that you think LiveScience is not a reliable source. Hoopes (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoopes' assessment of RS quality is not a notability criteria. I didn't say LiveScience was unreliable, I said it was less reliabel than Preston. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• More sources are needed. This takes time, obviously

Disagreement

Should the UTL section start by saying "For the May 6, 2013 issue, in an article whose title alluded to the search for El Dorado, author Douglas Preston published a popular account in The New Yorker magazine about documentary film maker Steve Elkins' quest for Ciudad Blanca" or should it start with the facts and maybe mention Preston's article along with other media coverage?

• Start with mention: Shows (one of) the sources of the text

I think it should remain because, unlike the many small news articles based on abbreviated press releases, the Preston article stands out as a widely read and therefore significant contribution to the legend. Hoopes (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Who says it is widely read? That is OR. All we know or sure is that I read it, judged it a good source, and used it extensively. I am just one person though (and didn't even learn about the story from it). Maybe few people read it. Below you say he is not a reliable source, yet you want to give him special weight. Doesn't make any sense to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

But you have given "special weight" to Theodore Morde, even though you yourself have agreed he is unreliable. My preference is to mention Preston as contributor to the legend, in which case the issue of his reliability is irrelevant. It's a legend. Hoopes (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources have given special weight to Morde (by discussing him extensively). They have not done so for Preston. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't: Usual disclosure (ref is there for reader to click on). Gives undue emphasis/false impression that one writer's story played a huge role in the development of the myth. Borders on original research by implying this source perpetrated the myth.

Is Preston's article a reliable source?

• Pro: Had direct access to the UTL team. Many known facts check out even where other sources on UTL get in wrong.

On the reliability of The New Yorker: [1]. It short, they employ extensive fact checking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Con: Writes for the popular press. Uses a story-telling style.

Also, Preston is not an archaeologist and has little relevant expertise on LiDAR, eastern Honduras, or the evaluation of the kinds of claims that are common in pseudoarchaeology. I could be mistaken about this, but I think I read that he is writing a longer, commercial book about Ciudad Blanca similar to his other popular "mystery" nonfiction. He has a vested interest in perpetuating the "legend" and romantic perceptions of it, so should not be considered an unbiased source. His claims must be balanced by statements from authoritative, reliable sources. Hoopes (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Preston writes regularly on archeology. If any reporter is capable of being reliable on any topic, it is one who writes regularly on that subject. I have seen no mention of this book except from you. It is your assumption that he has a vested interest, not a fact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Should the focus of the article be the history of the Ciudad Blanca legend or actual archeology done in the region (with no direct ties to the myth)?

• Myth: Reliable sources that mention the term "Ciudad Blanca" generally are about the myth itself with maybe an occasional mention of some archeology.

Please see the section I've added to this talk page about whether a legend of Ciudad Blanca actually exists. What is there to "the myth itself"? Is there a clear narrative? If not, it seems to be a disjoint collection of vague rumors and nothing more. At least, not until it's made more commercial in the 1990s. Hoopes (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Archeology: At least we'd know everything is factual.

Which lead is a better reflection of the body of the article?

• "Some accounts claim that it contained vast quantities of gold. Due to the many variants of the story as well as the lack of correspondence with current knowledge of the region, most professional archaeologists doubt it refers to an actual city of the Pre-Columbian era."

Unless there is clear documentation of what those "some accounts" are, this remains vague and unsubstantiated. Wikipedia articles should not be used to perpetuate rumors, especially ones that can bring harm to archaeological sites and indigenous people. Every effort should be made to avoid the use of Wikipedia to spread unfounded and potentially harmful rumors about the existence of "vast quantities of gold" for the taking that have no basis whatsoever in reality. Hoopes (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body. The various accounts (both native and popular) are mentioned and sourced in the body of the article. The question is not whether the statement is accurate, but whether it reflects the body of the article. If there are disputes about the accuracy of the body of the article, that is a separate question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The various accounts are not mentioned nor adequately sourced in the body of the article, which contributes to a flimsy "house of cards" built on unfounded and poorly sourced assertions. Hoopes (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Popular accounts of the legend often claim the city contained vast quantities of gold. Versions told by indigenous people of Honduras, however, stress that it is a forbidden city with no mention of supposed wealth. Due to the many variants of the story as well as the lack of correspondence with current knowledge of the region, most professional archaeologists doubt it refers to an actual city of the Pre-Columbian era."

What is the clear documentation for these "popular accounts" that goes beyond hints, hearsay, and rumors? Whose "accounts" are they? How is it determined that they are actually "popular"? Hoopes (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What are the sources for the "versions told by indigenous people of Honduras"? Have they actually been told by indigenous people? What are the sources for that? By which indigenous people? Have they actually referred to Ciudad Blanca (as distinct from what Morde called the "City of the Monkey God") a "forbidden city," or is this an invention by romantic, wishful, or potentially exploitative non-indigenous people? Because of the risks of genuine harm that can result from the spreading of unfounded rumors about indigenous people, it is essential that such claims provide a clear context and well-documented, reliable sources. Note that the problem of the conflation of Ciudad Blanca with the City of the Monkey God is a relevant issue. This article as written makes the assumption that they are one and the same, an assumption promoted only recently by authors Stewart and Preston. Hoopes (talk)

The lead is a summary of the body. The various accounts (both native and popular) are mentioned and sourced in the body of the article. The question is not whether the statement is accurate, but whether it reflects the body of the article. If there are disputes about the accuracy of the body of the article, that is a separate question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but if there are problems in the body, there are problems in the lead. There are problems in the body and therefore the lead. Hoopes (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there really a "legend of La Ciudad Blanca"?

So far, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for an actual legend of Ciudad Blanca, defined in that Wikipedia article as "a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude." What has been presented, documented, and inadequately sourced in the article so far are mostly poorly documented comments here and there in the absence of any actual narrative. At least, not until about the 1990s, when narratives are spun by commercial writers and journalists. The association between Ciudad Blanca and Theodore Morde's apparently imaginary "City of the Monkey God" seems to be purely circumstantial until a connection is made between the two by recent authors such as Christopher Stewart and Douglas Preston. Is there any older source that makes that connection? Can a stronger argument be made for the existence of an actual narrative (i.e. an actual legend) about Ciudad Blanca rather than a series of unconnected bits and pieces of unfounded claims and rumors across the historical record? If not, the premise that there is a "legend" before recent books, movies, and planned documentary films seems highly tenuous. IMHO, there are little more than rumors of Ciudad Blanca, not an actual legend. Hoopes (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no article should exist? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't yet come to that conclusion. However, an article based on the false premise that a legend exists when it actually doesn't has some significant problems. If you are asserting that a legend of Ciudad Blanca does exist, then you must meet the burden of proof. How would you propose to do that? Hoopes (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is no legend, there can be no article. However, I find this claim that there is no legend to be bizarre. I agree the story is highly variant\poorly defined (just like El Dorado for example). That is why the article lists the various accounts and tries not to draw the sort of conclusions people sometimes do (for example it says origin is unclear instead of it originated with Cortes), but instead just present the accounts. However, the fact there is not a single coherent story doesn't mean there is no legend. If there is no legend of La Ciudad Blanca, then there is no legend of El Dorado or Atlantis either - all three have many versions, minimal (or no) basis in reality, and unclear histories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "just like El Dorado". If you look at that article or research the legend of El Dorado, you'll find that it is far more substantial than anything attributed to Ciudad Blanca. It is not enough for the article to list the various "accounts" (which, according to the documentation, are extremely brief and telegraphic and do not rise to the level of narrative). Yes, the fact that there is not a single coherent story means there is no legend. There actually is a legend of Atlantis, which is well-documented and sourced in that Wikipedia article. The same goes for El Dorado. I don't think you've yet met anything close to the burden of proof for the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca, which by comparison to those two examples hardly exists at all. Hoopes (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion, you've insisted on the importance of sources and I've emphasized the issue of reliability of sources (for which WP:RS is relevant). What is the legend of Ciudad Blanca and what are the reliable sources for the legend of Ciudad Blanca? That is, other than the recent publications by Stewart and Preston? If there is actually no legend of Ciudad Blanca, then the premise and the header of this article will have to be changed. Hoopes (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As Begley says, there are many versions of the legend. (There are also many versions of Atlantis and El Dorado.) Having multiple versions doesn't mean it doesn't exist (as a legend). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay if there are many versions of the legend, then explain what they are and provide sources. Yes, there are many versions of the legends of Atlantis and El Dorado. I'm skeptical that there is even one version of the legend of Ciudad Blanca. If it exists, summarize it and provide a reliable source. The burden of proof is on you. Hoopes (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take Chris Begley's interpretation over your own: "The pervasive legend of the Ciudad Blanca or White City has captured the public's imagination in Honduras and around the world." "Local Indian groups have different versions of the lost city legend." etc. Like Begley, the vast majority of sources call it a legend. The burden of proof that it isn't a legend is on you, as the sources support the use of the word legend. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, what is Begley's account of the legend? What does he say is the legend itself? Claims that there is a legend are not the same as documentation of the legend itself. What is the legend? The article does not say. I'm not saying that the sources don't claim there is a legend. They clearly do. However, that is different from whether there actually is a legend. What is it? There are legends of a legend, but the legend is a myth. It is an illusion, and this article provides no substantial information to the contrary. The most accurate and correct statement is to note that some sources claim there is a legend and then cite them. That is different from stating that there is actually a legend or providing citations for the legend itself, which has not been done. Hoopes (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that this article was first created in June 2012, after the initial press releases by Elkins' team about the LiDAR results, in which references to Ciudad Blanca were revived (but without any significant elaboration of a "legend"). This was also around the same time as Rosemary Joyce's blog post that Ciudad Blanca was a "myth". I think it's worth considering following Joyce's lead and referring to Ciudad Blanca as a myth rather than a "legend." Just because certain sources refer to a legend doesn't mean that a legend actually exists. I think the legend is a myth. Hoopes (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh legend and myth are synonyms. If you wanted to change word "myth" you should have just said so from the beginning... To which I would respond that reliable sources almost universally use the term "legend" and as you have previously pointed out we should stick to the term sources use most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Legend and myth are synonyms only in some but not all senses of the word "myth". I was not saying the legend was a myth in the sense of a narrative. You misunderstood. Hoopes (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Interpretive Bias

The term "city" is highly problematic with respect to interpretations of archaeological features in eastern Honduras and should not be used except in direct quotations or citations of those. Archaeological definitions of "city" vary, with most archaeologists wary of how this term, like the term "civilization," can have different connotations in general and academic contexts. Most archaeologists accept some modification of the definition provided by V. Gordon Childe in his 1950 article "The Urban Revolution", in which he outlined ten criteria with which to define urbanism. None of these criteria have yet been met by the available data associated with the search for Ciudad Blanca, making it difficult to consider this hypothetical settlement (or any others in eastern Honduras) to be a "city." That said, the term has been erroneously applied to other legendary or poorly documented settlements in the past. An example of this would be Ciudad Perdida (Spanish for "Lost City"), an archaeological site in northern Colombia that few archaeologists would identify as a city. Use of the term "city" to describe poorly documented archaeological settlements in Central America should be avoided. Hoopes (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

At present, the section of this article entitled "Under the LiDAR (UTL) project" gives much more detailed discussion of this particular project than other previous research and exploration in the region, including that described by journalist Christopher Stewart in his recent book Jungleland (2012). This includes paraphrase and direct quotations from a recent article by journalist Douglas Preston in the New Yorker, shifting the emphasis of this article away from an objective documentation into subjective journalism. Given the long history of speculation about Ciudad Blanca, the addition of more information about previous exploration and research associated with the legend would be especially helpful. Hoopes (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is a work in progress, but I have got news for you: Jungleland was written "for profit" by a "sensationalist journalist" as you would say, which means he is "highly biased" and a "poor source" by your standards, so I don't know why you are calling for more Jungleland. Indeed, he goes to great length to improve the credibility of Moore, whom you also hate. At some point you are going to have to come to the realization that this is not an article about archaeology, but rather one about the history "people's fantasies", as you put, about a mythical city. Real, credible archaeologist generally don't engage in such fantasy so this article is not about them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I think it would be appropriate to include more references to Jungleland is to counteract the bias that you have inserted into this article with heavy paraphrasing and quotations from Douglas Preston's article in the New Yorker. That is the nature of the bias that you are inserting! I don't "hate" Morde. I just think he's an unreliable source. If this article is actually about the legend, as you say it is, then additional and less biased information about the legend is what needs to be included. If this article is in fact about people's fantasies, then more of those fantasies (and less about LiDAR) need to be included. If this article is actually about archaeological fantasies, then it should contain MORE references to the Lost World literature and pseudoarchaeology. If this article is not about archaeology, then why does it include so much information about Elkins' project? Shouldn't that be a separate article? It seems to me that you are the one who is being not only biased but inconsistent. If the article is actually about a legend and fantasy, then it should contain even less information about scientific research. If it is about scientific evaluation of the legend, however, then it should contain more and more balanced information about scientific research. Which should it be? Hoopes (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It should say whatever sources say. And in case you noticed, real archaeology has very little to say about it. Once again, please absolutely 100% add any and all information that is about Ciudad Blanca that you can support with a citation to the article. Please do no insert your theories about Lost World literature and such influencing it unless you can find a source to support it. Scientific research, that refers to the legend good. Scientific research about Honduras that doesn't refer to it, not relevant. Material from Jungleland, fine. Unsourced theories about its connection to American writings (when it was probably influenced mostly by Honduran culture not American), bad. Adding weasel phrases like 'many think its pseudo-archaeology' with no source whatsoever, very bad.

You are mistaken. "Real archaeology" has actually had quite a bit to say about it. I'm not clear about what you mean by "its connection to American writings." If you had read R. Tripp Evans' book Romancing the Maya (a source that I have cited), you would know that Honduras was considered to be part of an "American" domain up until the early 20th century. He argues that, until the Mexican Revolution of 1911, most Americans took it for granted that Honduras and its ruins would eventually be part of the United States. In fact, the nation of Honduras did not become an independent republic from Spain until 1838. That's actually why John Lloyd Stephens was sent there on a diplomatic mission. I don't know where you get the idea that "it was probably influenced mostly by Honduran culture." That's clearly an opinion. Do you have a source for it? As for pseudoarchaeology, your strict citation requirements seem to indicate that someone must have used the actual term "pseudoarchaeology" for it to apply. Are those your standards for other words and phrases, too? If so, we can go through them one-by-one. If not, read the definition of that term. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck (although, by your standards, it will need a source before it can actually be called a duck in Wikipedia). I don't think identifying a duck as a duck is "very bad" at all. You are splitting hairs. Hoopes (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If "real archaeology" has lot to say about the legend, then you shouldn't have any problem finding sources. Just because archeology occurred in Honduras doesn't mean it has any connection to the legend unless someone says it does. Whatever Americans might have thought about their "destiny" people actually living in Honduras most certainly did not think of themselevs as Americans nor did they read English language fantasy literature. Yes "it was probably influenced mostly by Honduran culture" is an uncited opinion, that is why it is not in the article. "It was influenced by Lost World literature" is also an uncited opinion which is why it also should not be in the article. And yes writing "many people call Ciudada Blanca pseudo-archaeology" is a classic violation of WP:weasel. If it is true, you shouldn't have any problem finding at least one person who has said this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to split out Elkins, we can definitely consider that. However, the only reason it has more info at current is because other sections are unfinished. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think that the only solution is to create two separate Wikipedia articles, one for Ciudad Blanca the legend and one for "Ciudad Blanca" as a scientific entity under investigation (though it can't be consider an archaeological site or even sites because no one has yet been able to identify it as such). I haven't researched how Wikipedia deals with other similar quandaries. For example, the Mormons have stories about Cumorah, a hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon that some consider to be a product of imagination and others consider to be an actual archaeological locality. At present, that's dealt with in a small sections of the present article, one of which is titled "Cerro El Vigia" (for a specific location in Mexico) and another called "Mainstream LDS archaeological view" that provides some other general information about Mormon interpretations. However, those small sections hardly do justice to the extensive Mormon archaeology that has been dedicated to identifying Cumorah, much less other "legendary" locations mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In theory, the Cumorah and Ciudad Blanca entries that deal with legendary places should be parallel to one another. Are there cases that you know about where there are separate Wikipedia articles for a something mentioned in legend or folklore vs. something identified scientifically? Another possible parallel might be the entries for Troy, Hisarlik, and Troy VII, which deal with both the legendary place described by Homer and the archaeological site of Hisarlik, where, according to the current article on Troy, "Troy VII has been identified with the Hittite Wilusa, the probable origin of the Greek Ἴλιον, and is generally (but not conclusively) identified with Homeric Troy." Of course, nothing even close to that level of identification has yet happened with Ciudad Blanca. My concern is that your own bias, reflecting that of Douglas Preston, implies that Ciudad Blanca is an actual place that can be located archaeologically when in fact no professional archaeologists believe that to be true. I am also concerned that your overemphasis on Preston's article and Elkins' project--which you are attempting to justify by saying that the article is still a work in progress--is actually a thinly veiled promotion of Preston's forthcoming book and Elkins' forthcoming film over the caveats, cautions, skepticism, and informed opinions of well-informed professional archaeologists. Why does their work merit so much emphasis in this article, which according to you is about the legend, not the archaeology of the region on which they've focused. It seems to me that separate articles are warranted, one for the legend of Ciudad Blanca and one for the archaeology of the Gracias a Dios region of eastern Honduras (including the recent remote sensing research). They are and should remain two separate issues. Hoopes (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any splits like you refer to, but it is possible they exist. I'm not sure what the "archeology" article woudl contain though, as there isn't really any archaeology on this except for a few people who made sensational claims tying their sites to it. The first line of the article says "legendary" the second "allegedly" the third is "Due to the vagaries of the story and the lack of correspondence with current knowledge of the region, most professional archaeologists doubt it refers to a real historical city of the Pre-Columbian era." Similar qualifications appear in every section of the article. I have no clue where you get the idea that someone could read this article and think the city is real, but I have a bit more faith in the intelligence of our readers than that. Perhaps you would prefer the article be replaced with the text "La Ciudad Blanca is a legendary city of Honduras. No one with a clue believes it ever existed. For factual information on the region it supposedly resides in see Isthmo-Colombian Area." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe you when you say "the only reason it has more info at current is because other sections are unfinished." I think the main reason it has more info is because you were entranced by the romance of Preston's article so much that you were inspired to paraphrase it in a totally subjective fashion--complete with quotations about stirring emotions that you found relevant--in this Wikipedia article. Hoopes (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this. I am not "entranced by the romance of Preston's article". You are seriously violating assume good faith, a pillar of Wikipedia, by repeating this false accusation over and over again. If you do it again, I will have no choice but to report your inappropriate behavior. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In order to diminish interpretive bias, I think it's important that not only the citations but the content of the article mention the contribution of author Douglas Preston to ongoing discussion of the legend. Note that he has no particular credentials in archaeology or anthropology but rather specializes in adventure and thriller fiction and sensational, crime-oriented nonfiction. His popular article in The New Yorker should be handled as a contribution to the legend, not as an unbiased, "reliable" news source. Just as Steve Elkins is seeking to feature the legend of Ciudad Blanca and its investigation in a film, Preston is also using (and contributing to) the legend in his own work. Since the article is about the legend (and not the archaeology), this should be made clear in a direct, accurate, and unbiased fashion. Hoopes (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Citing the name of the reporter over and over again would make the article unreadable and also be way outside of normal practice. The merer fact that you think he is not a reliable source does not make it true. By your standards, reporters could never be reliable for anything since there expertise is in gathering information and writing, not in the field they report on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no need to cite his name over and over again (despite the fact that you feel compelled to cite his one article over and over and over again), but it is essential to mention him specifically as someone who is perpetuating the legend. It is also important to identify when interpretations and opinions are his own. (A reporter is not an authority.) No, the fact that I don't think he is a reliable source does not make it true, but neither does your opinion that he is a reliable source. You are wrong about my standards. I don't think that reporters can never be reliable for anything, but I do think that popular magazine, newspaper, and wire reports can be unreliable. The remarks, opinions, spin, or bias of reporters and writers without topical expertise should be given precedence over scientific literature by experts in the field. You don't have to rely upon my standards for this. Rely upon those of Wikipedia. Hoopes (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Can be" and "are" are two completely different things. You have been repeatedly challenged to point out specific errors to demonstrate unreliability and have instead kept insisting Preston is unreliable because you say it is. That is not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am the one quoted as saying that at least two of the settlements identified in the UTL data can be thought of as cities in an anthropological sense. I said this to Doug Preston and the rest of the UTL team, this is quoted in the original New Yorker article, and I stand by that statement. Debate about what constitutes a city, urbanism as a process, urban organization, etc. - though fascinating - is probably beyond the scope of a Wikipedia entry. Tariacuri (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)