Talk:Olmec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
|
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:
|
|
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
|
|
 |
Olmec is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Olmec as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Invention of Zero
I don't think the invention of the zero deserves more than a passing mention here. There can be a cross-reference to 0 (number)#History of zero. As far as whether Long Count examples existed outside the Maya homeland, we need a cite to back up whichever version of the story is presented. Cbdorsett 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that no more than a passing mention is needed -- I'm presently working to keep/make this a survey article and there's a lot more material (e.g. on agriculture & diet, history of studies) that is needed. I added the cross-reference as suggested and tried to make the sentences more Olmec-specific. Do the present two sentences qualify as a "passing mention"?
- Also, I don't see the apparent contradiction. Could someone be more specific? Thanks, Madman 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- It already got deleted. But we need a cite still - are examples of long count to be found outside the Maya area or not?
-
- We need one sentence talking about the Long Count calendar, with a citation, and a second sentence mentioning the hypothesis that the Olmecs may have invented it, with its own citation. If there is no such citation, then the sentence should be omitted completely. If the Olmec had nothing to do with the Long Count calendar, then I don't see any reason to include mention of it in this article at all. Cbdorsett 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I tried again to clean up the paragraphs, and merged the calendar & zero sections for better flow. Regarding citations, there already is a citation on the "artifacts with the 8 earliest Long Count dates were found outside the Maya homeland", and the image shows the second earliest Long Count date, which was found on an artifact at Tres Zapotes, an Olmec site. Let me see if I can improve the citations. For example, I've often considered writing an article specifically detailing the location of these eight artifacts, with map if possible - would that help? And speaking of help, thanks for your help, Madman 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- One possibility would be to create an article like List of Long Count monument dates or List of Mesoamerican stelae by Long Count date, and start accumulating data in a tabular format (which could be arranged either in pure chronological order, or region/culture then chronological, or both). Maybe also a List of Mesoamerican sites with Long Count inscriptions alphasorted could be useful too.--cjllw | TALK 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Olmec black history
Should be mentioned. Even though many whites oppose this idea, it is worth maerit and has some evidence which should be permited in the article as at the very least as an alternate theory. I'm going to add a bit about it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qtang (talk • contribs) 13 March 2007.
- Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the Alternative origin speculations section in this article and in a separate article entitled Olmec alternative origin speculations. You are welcome to add referenced information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, Madman 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Even though many whites oppose this idea..." What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --Jquarry 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Minor Grammar Mistakes
Under "History of scholarly research on the Olmec":
"However early Mesoamericanists at first assumed the Olmec were likely no earlier than the Classic era."
This should probably be edited to:
"At first, early Mesoamericanists assumed that the Olmec existed no earlier than the Classic era."
Also, is "Mesoamericanists" even a word? Would "historians" be better? I have no time to check. Please institute this change, since the page is locked for editing.
24.218.175.211 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Nintendud
[edit] Protection
Is there any good reason to leave s-protect going? I know this page gets whacked by alternative theories but we shouldn't be leaving protection on for months at a time. Marskell 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much the alternative theorists but the schoolboys. For whatever reason, this article seems to be a special target for the typical juvenile graffiti. Madman 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
