Talk:Alternatives to the Clovis First theory

Created spin-off article. Much clean-up work is required. Please help.

Text and/or other creative content from Clovis culture was copied or moved into Alternatives to the Clovis First theory. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I created this as a spin-off article from the article Clovis culture. The source article was getting too big, and the content was becoming incoherent. Much of the work done in this article was therefore done by editors at that article. Much clean-up work is required. Please help. Wdford (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was reading the article and noticed that, at the "other sites" section of the article, there are two specific cases where the wording heavily suggests that the author's point of view of the subject matter leaks into the credibility of the aforementioned theories.

This happens on bothe the Lagoa Santa site and Cueva del Milódon site. On both cases, it suggests that the aforementioned sites, which are both in the article map and in the "other sites" section, should not be considered Pre-Clovis sites. These statements also lack citations. As per:

"Clovis sites mostly date between 11,500 and 11,000 radiocarbon years which means 13,000 years before present at a minimum. "Luzia" is at least 1,000 years younger than Clovis and Lapa Vermelha IV should not be considered a Pre-Clovis site." (On regards to Lagoa Santa).

"This is a site found particularly early in the New World hunt for Early Man, circa 1896, and needs additional basic research, but 10,500 B.P. would be 1,500 years younger than Clovis, or if the dating is 10,500 RCYBP [radiocarbon years before present], it would still be roughly 500–700 years younger than Clovis. In either case this should not be considered a Pre-Clovis site." (On regards to Cueva del Milódon).

Wouldn't it be better to remove these observations alltogether and add a "controversies" section at the end of the article, citing whichever sources are available to elucidate on the subject as to why these controversies exist and provide examples? ProfStefanoNeto (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons Island

Should we add a mention of Parsons Island in Maryland?

Sources:

98.123.38.211 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work needs to be done.

Why is Buttermilk in the lead? On the list of strongly supported sites, why is Monte Verde not included? How about Bluefish? What about the New Mexico footprints (https://www.livescience.com/earliest-conclusive-evidence-found-of-humans-in-the-new-world and follow-ups)? The controversial Chiquihuite Cave is completely missing.Kdammers (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]