Jump to content

Talk:Nazca lines

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRingess (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 27 November 2007 (added banner shell, downgraded rating to start, too many issues with article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shamanic Flight

There is no mention of the possibility of the use of shamanic flight in the creation of the lines; whether it be in the design process, or as part of the motivation to create the lines.

Nazca Lines pictures

I think there should be more pictures of Nazca Lines.

Need Help Made Major Discovery

I think I discovered the meaning of the needle and loom glyph... I need to know who to talk to, this is pretty big. No one has published anything about it, and it's very important. Nousoul 08:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Maria Reiche, and who is Michael Vaillant?

As the article stands now, the work of history's most celebrated and long-standing mainstream Nazca researcher — Maria Reiche — receives barely one sentence of coverage. She is still a huge name in this subject (though apparently mostly wrong in her astronomical alignment theory), and a national hero in Peru for her pioneering work -- and yet her full name doesn't even appear in the article (except as part of the name of a foundation)!

On the other hand, a "recent hypothesis from Michael Vaillant" receives three paragraphs.

Who is Michael Vaillant, and why is his hypothesis worth bringing to the attention of Wikipedia readers? Leaving aside the merits of his idea (very poor, it seems to me), and leaving aside his qualifications (unknown, ) he is evidently a poorly known figure commenting from outside of Nazca archaeology: Google reveals only 62 wiki entries as hits for "Michael Vaillant"+nazca, most of them copied directly from this Wikipedia entry. (By comparison, "Maria Reiche"+nazca scores 34,300 hits, for good reason.)

The primary source for Vaillant's hypothesis, linked to in this Wikipedia article, is itself a wiki: something called U-Sphere, for which the "Contacter l'administrateur du site" listing is in fact Michael Vaillant.

This looks very much like original research, and should probably be cut entirely. (Or, at best, reduced to a single sentence.)

At any rate, the scant coverage of Maria Reiche's decades of on-site work and the heavy coverage of Vaillant's notion is a gross misrepresentation of the state of the field, and should be reversed. For now, I'm going to go ahead and cut the Vaillant material completely.

Loxton (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly POV

This article is littered with unencyclopediatic italisized "why"s and unsourced POV statements that completely ruin the neutrality and tone of the article, and it almost completely lacks footnotes. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]