Jump to content

Talk:Chaco Culture National Historical Park/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Original draft

Anasazi, North America: A canteen (pot) excavated from the ruins in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.


Original draft was almost completely taken from the US Government Web site linked to the page. Additional information added. Your edits and comments welcome. WBardwin 06:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've done a great job expanding the article. I would also like to see the article expand upon the 10 major sites and a discussion of the current park. There's a lot to add here. --Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chaco Canyon sites dates

In the section Chaco Canyon sites there are a couple of references to the 1100's. From reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), I believe this should be either 1100s (which is the decade 1100-1109, note: no apostrophy) or 12th century. I'm guessing the author intended 12th century, but could someone who knows the dates better please fix this? --66.216.68.28 21:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Sun Dagger

Why is there no mention of the Sun Dagger here -- or indeed, in Wikipedia at all? It's the most famous feature of Chaco Canyon, thanks largely to the movie of the same name. ShawnVW 04:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Fajada Butte; a link of which appears in the third paragraph of the lead in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

rebuilt?

are the structures depcted on this page rebuilt? i don't think they could have withstood a thousand years of weather

Justforasecond 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they are nearly entirely original. The National Park Service sometimes coats them with a protective material, I believe, but the structures themselves are original. They are very impressive and were probably built better than most buildings today. If you are in New Mexico, it is worth a visit. Nationalparks 16:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And even so, the Park Service has only had control for less than 100 years, so they withstood time until then entirely on their own. Nationalparks 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
They were largely buried, which no doubt helped preserve their architectural features. In addition to the Park Service adding protective material, they have had to completely restore some walls that have collapsed since their excavation. Most of the structures depicted on this page have not been rebuilt, though. Benhocking 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
In order to maintain and protect existing structures, some stone has been layered on top of some of the walls. If you look up close, you can see the new layer because it is lighter in color. But it hardly noticeable otherwise, as the new material seems to be just a few inches on the top of an existing wall that could be two or three stories high. For example, it can be seen from the Lindbergh aerial photographs that Pueblo Bonito remains seemingly unchanged in the past 90 years, aside from the damage caused in 1941 when an already detached part of the canyon wall above the structure collapsed.
The protective layer were first added using cement mortar, but according to NPS a mud-based mortar with a water-resistant additive is now used. The mud mortar is said to better match the original material, and in particular avoids problems resultant from the differing freeze-thaw behaviors of cement versus the original mortar. Tomyhoi (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alignment

Why is there not any mention of the way that the cities , their walls, and the roads freqently line up exactly with the paths of the sun and moon? Or that a large portion of the "rooms" are sealed off and would have originally been inacessible? Or that there are very few large trash mounds, which would have been necessary if as large a population as is frequently claimed actually did live there? All of this pointing to a more religious purpose for the site? I belive NOVA did a show on all of this... 71.196.218.82

I saw these discussed in a documentary "The Mystery of Chaco Canyon" [1] 2000, narrated by Robert Redford. They did mention that underlying rooms seemed to be sealed off or inaccessible, suggesting they were built primarily to raise higher rooms up. I didn't gather that they were 100% sure that the rooms were sealed off and unused, but that the soil in the rooms lacked organic signatures (ash, debris, etc.) consistent with human usage, and had no ventilation and thus it's impossible to have a fire in them. Beyond this, the structures appeared to be designed in a way that maximized their external visual impact, rather than their usability. For example, walls with no obvious use were positioned in front of cliffs in a way that makes the structure look much grander. This suggests that perhaps the empty lower rooms simply served as support structures to enable the buildings to reach 4-5 stories in height, in order to achieve an aesthetic impact or to emphasize the astrological alignments of the building (or both).
The documentary said that they found large man-made mounds near Chaco, but their composition was not what was expected. There was hardly any organic matter found, which rules them out as trash mounds. Instead, the mounds appeared to have been built from a huge number of intentionally shattered pottery. The culture held that by shattering pottery, it was an offering to the otherworld. Thus it would seem that pilgrims came to Chaco with offerings of pottery, which they broke and left in the mounds.
They also showed evidence that a number of outlying buildings - some great distances apart - were aligned with Chaco along astronomical lines. For example, the main great walls of Chaco align perfectly with walls, centerlines, etc. on buildings across the valley. These alignments correspond to the paths of the moon and sun at various astronomically significant points, such as the lunar maximum and minimum rise and set, and the solar equinox. The mapping of the lunar cycle is unique among ancient cultures; it takes many generations to track, and serves no functional purpose like tracking of the sun would, but could have been a very important part of Chacoan religion. Bryce 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
5 years later, same documentary. I don't understand the tentative tone with regards to astronomical alignment; the documentary implied that the sun spiral marked the annual progress of the moon from maximal to minimal over a 18 year cycle, and a large scale alignment of both solar and lunar paths. But the article here only says "evidence has been proposed" and "may have been aligned." I appreciate the academic discipline, but if there is truly a perfectly bisected north-south east-west set of 4 buildings, and other buildings from 15 miles away that bisect that with the lunar equivalents, that seems to have crossed the threshold to actual knowledge. Is there some "Verifiable" rule that is being followed very closely here? Drc500free (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Gigapixel photo of Pueblo Bonito

I would like to add http://www.xrez.com/gallery/chaco/xRez_chaco.html to the links. It contains the most detailed photo of Pueblo Bonito ever taken, it is 4 gigapixels and web-viewable. You can see every individual stone in the structure. I did not add it myself because there was a note in the links section to bring this up in "discussion" before adding links.

I agree with its addition. If others disagree, they can also comment. Thanks. Saravask 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox: World Heritage Site

Mediation participants: Joey80 and Saravask Mediator: Alan.ca

The infobox is meant to emphasize that the Chaco Culture has been recognized as a World Heritage Site. It includes the criteria which became the bases for its inclusion on the List, as well as the year when it was recognized as such. Other information such as identification numbers and geographic locations are also provided. Overall, the infobox is meant to throw light and give focus on the World Heritage program (and mind you, the 99% of readers who don't care, as user Saravask claims is an unsourced statement). In any case, the goal of the infobox is to introduce this to this "99%" (including the editor who claimed it). An ordinary reader may not be familiar with it, but it doesn't automatically mean that it is unimportant or rubbish--that's why there are links within the infobox directing to pages that explain the concepts. Also, if, as Saravask continues to assert the claim that it is "infocruft", then I might as well propose that we remove the IUCN infobox. I myself don't understand that and don't really care about it, much like how some readers might feel for the World Heritage infobox. Besides, as has been widely agreed upon in the international level of protection and conservation, the World Heritage Site commands the highest priority and level of importance. So in this case, the priority in the World Heritage infobox over the IUCN infobox. Joey80 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mediator questions for Joey80:
  1. Please source: "the World Heritage Site commands the highest priority and level of importance"
  2. Why is it not sufficient to write a paragraph on the world heritage site status?
  3. Please stay focussed on the points that support your argument and less on Saravask!
  4. Can you cite any FA status articles on Wikipedia that have this infobox included?
  5. Is there a WikiProject or other interested group that might be able to provide a wider prospective on this matter?

Alan.ca 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My answers:
  1. Refer to page 15 of this publication/page 17 of the pdf file: http://whc.unesco.org/cairns/iucn-priorities.pdf The schematic included shows the status of World Heritage Site at the top of the pyramid. The IUCN categories (National Parks, Natural Parks, etc.), meanwhile, are found in the second tier from the bottom.
  2. If you include this as a paragraph in an article, it will go like this: "In <year>, <name of place> was recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site because..." Actually, it is seldom that mentions of such a status even reach the "because..." part. Most of the time, it makes mere mention of it (just like in this case). Comparing this to an infobox, where the year, name, criteria (why it was recognized), type, current state (i.e. if it is in danger or not, in case of Chaco, it is not), and links are provided, then the infobox provides a more complete summary of its World Heritage status. Referring to Canadian World Heritage Sites, there is a paragraph citation, as well as the infobox. So in response to your question, why is it not sufficient to place an infobox concerning its world heritage site status?
  3. Yes, I recognized that, my apology. However, Saravask has yet to respond to this case. But perusing at the history of revisions and looking at the comments made by the editor, please note the reasons provided.
  4. Some featured articles with this infobox: Palace of Westminster, and other American World heritage sites like Redwood National and State Parks, Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park. Mind you, there are featured articles not having this box. But this is due to the fact that the article just pertains to a part of a designated World Heritage Site, not the entire place. Examples: Sanssouci (see Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin), Banff National Park (see Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks). In the case of Chaco Culture National Historical Park, since this is a stand-alone World Heritage Site, then the infobox should be appropriately placed in this article.
  5. According to the World Heritage Site article, it is placed under the group Architecture. However, taking note that some sites are not really manmade and even manmade sites may not refer to buildings but landscapes and other forms, that group does not wholly encompass the World Heritage Site concept.

Joey80 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice:

  1. Joey80 created, then spammed {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} across dozens of articles within the past few weeks. Not enough time has elapsed to determine whether the community has deemed Joey80's new creature useful.
  2. Comment by Nemonoman at Talk:Taj_Mahal#Unesco_infobox—just one example (on my watchlist) of another article's principal author questioning Joey80's box. (this uninformative infobox does not deserve such a prominent position. ID=252? That deserves top billing? Please discuss your reasons on the talk page.)
  3. {{Infobox Protected area}} presents such fundamental data as area, visitation, and location. I have no clue why Joey80 is calling it the "IUCN infobox". Meanwhile, his box has things like "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session". As Nemonoman states, Enough.
  4. If Joey80 still wants such things as "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session" present in an article's infobox, then why not just merge them all into the {{Infobox Protected area}} infobox, since a World Heritage Site is just another type of protected area? Saravask 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Joey80, how do you feel about Savarask's compromise to add "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session" to the {{Infobox Protected area}} infobox? Alan.ca 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • To quote, "Not enough time has elapsed to determine whether the community has deemed Joey80's new creature useful." Hence, if that's the case, why did Saravask already prejudged the template to be of no use and removed it? Like you said in the quote, you have to let the community decide. Even in the case of Nemonoman which you cited, the infobox was not removed, but was just moved. Joey80 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Joey80, how do you feel about Savarask's compromise to add "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session" to the {{Infobox Protected area}} infobox? Alan.ca 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that will be a good compromise. Come to think of it, the infobox may tend to be repetitive especially when put together in the same article as a protected areas infobox. In any case, I forwarded a request already to Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas to revise the template and either incorporate it into the current format of infobox being used, or make change it so as to be similar in format with the protected areas infobox. Joey80 04:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Warfare, violence and cannibalism

Recently read LeBlanc's "Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest" and compared with material from my "student days". While the topics are still very controversial, a section on archaeological findings relating to warfare and violence in and around the Chaco system might be appropriate here. Opinions? WBardwin 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this sounds like a good idea. I haven't read that particular book. I'm bogged down w/ exams, so I cannot help. But when I was doing background reading for this article, I came across mentions of warfare as possible contributors to the Chacoan decline. It was not explained well in the books I looked at. I guess in this article this is not explored as much as the drought/climate angle is. It's good to see this explored more fully in another source. Maybe others can omment. Cheers. Saravask 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
LeBlanc (archaeologist, Director of Collections at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University) has written several books on warfare among Native American societies. This one, 320 pp., very well cited, asserts his interpretation well, but gives good coverage to the older "peaceful" viewpoint and several more modern contrasting opinions. I'm trying to summarize something on the topic for the Anasazi page, but he has lots of information on Chaco. Hope that others respond. WBardwin 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

chao canyon

the first one's who build a multi story building of adobe and cut stones with connecting passage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.144.155.149 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Wirt H. Wills

It may just be me but the section of Dr. Wirt H. Willis seems to have little to do with this article. I can't cite the exact policy, but it seems like self promotion. What do others think? I won't delete or suggest that it be deleted until I get some feed back.Jfknrh (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would concur -- although I doubt it's self promotion, it certainly reads like a copy violation. Contributed on 5 May 2008 by User:Miwok7 who perhaps someone was considering beginning an article on Wills and placed that material in this article. I've moved the section from the article to this section for discussion, but I would not want to see more than an appropriate reference to Wills work it in this article at all. WBardwin (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to just move it off here, and put in on Wirt H. Wills (unless there is an objection that is)? I'd be more than happy to copy edit it over there. Biographical information has no place being in articles not about the person itself, its severely off topic. I'm assuming it was added here to avoid deletion of the material (possibly). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Will's written work on Chaco would certainly belong in references, and I would immagine he has a quotable opinion applicable to something in this article. However, Ancient Pueblo People might benefit from some of his material as well. WBardwin (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't even read most of what was on this article, but I started a conversation about it when I saved his bio from deletion. I don't have any of his books or articles, so I can't edit with respect to using him as a reference. It shouldn't be here though, I just forgot to remove it myself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It definitely would be more appropriate on Wirt H. Wills, but I'd suggest referring back here as well.Jfknrh (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked with Dr. Wills and he didn't do this. Instead, a professor at the U. of Tenn. has his students do biographies of archaeologists as class projects, and they get extra credit for putting their work on Wikipedia. One of the students added the Wills information to this page. Dr. Wills admitted that he's never used Wikipedia himself. Under the circumstances, I can't see how anyone would object to the information being moved over to Wirt H. Wills. (Dogofthedesert (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Dr. Wirt H. Wills is one of the leading southwestern archaeologists in the United States. Dr. Wills is currently a professor at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Wills primarily concentrates his expertise in the southwestern region of the United States, more specifically in New Mexico. His most recent southwest work includes the dig at Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. Dr. Wills defines his goals in his Curriculum Vitae: Field Research has been fundamental to my work in my four problem areas; 1) the origins of agriculture during the Late Archaic period (ca 4000 to 3000 B.C.), 2) the emergence of village communities during the early Ceramic Period (ca 200 to A.D. 500), 3) the development of hierarchically complex corporate groups after A.D. 1000 in the Colorado Plateau, and 4) the formation of Hispanic Irrigation communities during the 18th century in the Rio Grande Valley.

Dr. Wills research has been supported by such outstanding organizations as the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution, and the American Philosophical Society. This ample funding has allowed him to investigate different areas of southwestern archaeology that interests him.

Career: Education 'Dr. Wills received his education at the University of New Mexico where he graduated Cum Laude in 1977. Prior to that Dr. Wills attended the Virginia Polytechnic and State University from 1973 to 1975. Dr. Wills then received his Master’s degree in Anthropology at the University of Michigan in 1980, followed by his Ph.D. in anthropology in 1985. Dr. Will dissertation was written on the Early Agriculture of Mogollon Highlands of New Mexico. His early research was done in the transition from food production to foraging. More recently, Dr. Wills has extended his research to include complicated social formations. (WillsCurriculum)

Professional Positions:

Dr. Wills has held a variety of Temporary Professional Positions in very prestigious locations. In 1982, Dr. Wills was a staff archaeologist at the Center for Archaeological Investigations, at Southern Illinois University. In March of 1989, Dr. Wills served a three month term as the Visiting Scholar in the Archaeology Department at Cambridge University. Dr. Wills also served as Visiting Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Virginia from 2000 to 2001. Most recently, Dr. Wills served at the Smithsonian Institution as a Research Associate from 2002 to 2007. Dr. Wills has a permanent gallery at the Maxwell Museum of Anthropologyentitled Peoples of the Southwest, where he served as guest curator at the Maxwell Museum from 1988 to 1993. (WillsCurriculum)

Awards and Honors:

The awards and honors that Dr. Wills has received have been numerous as well. In 1988 Dr. Wills received the Presidential Recognition award at the University of New Mexico. In 2000, he received the Smithsonian Institution Short Term research award for the work that he did there. The Smithsonian Institute also honored Dr. Wills with the Smithsonian Institution post-doctoral fellowship award from 1985 through 1986. The United States Department of Interior Excellence also gave him a Service Award in March of 2001. He also received the Snead Wertheim Lectureship at the University of New Mexico in 2002 and 2003. Dr. Wills is also a member of the Society for American Archaeology, the American Anthropological Association. Dr. Wills belongs to the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, for his work in the American Southwest. Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, and Pi Alpha Theta are also several of the Greek organizations that Dr. Wills is currently a member of. (WillsCurriculum)

Published Works:

An extensive variety of papers, books and articles have also been written on the subject of Southwestern Archaeology. In 1994, Dr. Wills co-wrote the book entitled The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. Another book was co-written by Dr. Wills in 1980, this book was entitled The Archaeological Correlates of Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Studies From the Ethnographic Record. Referenced journals have also provided Dr. Wills an excellent way in which to better report on his studies to an appreciative audience. The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming was written in 2006, this article describes the evolution from foraging for food to the development of agriculture in the Late Archaic period. In 1996, Dr. Wills went back to his dissertation and wrote an article entitled The Preceramic to Ceramic Traditions in the Mongollon Highlands of Western New Mexico, which was published in the Journal of Field Archaeology. The Journal of Anthropological Research also published his article entitled Patterns of Prehistoric Agricultural Development in Western New Mexico, in 1989. This article again touched on his research of the prehistoric southwestern people and how their agricultural and farming techniques developed over an extended period of time. (WillsCurriculum)


Chaco Canyon:


More recently, his work has been centered on the Chaco Canyon region of New Mexico. In 2000, Dr. Wills published the article entitled 'Alternative Leadership Strategies in the American Southwest.' This article discussed Dr. Wills’ theories on the political leadership of the 'Chaco canyon peoples during the years of A.D. 1020 to 1140. In 1997 Dr. Wills wrote 'Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, Analysis of Articles From the Chaco Project,' 1971 to 1978, this article was a preliminary analysis of the hammer-stones found in the Chaco canyon region. His studies there have provided him with an excellent wealth of knowledge in which to educate the world on the Southwest American agricultural and technological advances in regards to the prehistoric people that called the Chaco Canyon region home. As of the early nineties, the bulk of Dr. Wills’ work has been centered on the Chaco canyon region of New Mexico. Chaco canyon is known to have been the epicenter for cultural development of the southwest between the years of 800 and 1200 A.D. This period of time was unprecedented for the people of the region because they experienced an economic boom caused by increased farming techniques, in combination with massive trade systems and an increasingly complex ritual behavior which led to the construction of huge masonry buildings called “great houses.” Dr. Wills is currently working with the Chaco Stratigraphy Project; its purpose being to contribute to a greater understanding of the Chaco canyon region. Dr. Wills’ primary focus with the Chaco Stratigraphy Project has been to study in detail the technology and the agricultural change that resulted in the economic and social boom particularly during the years of A.D. 850 to 1140, otherwise called the Bonito Phase. Dr. Wills also has a particular attachment to this project because he was the one that wrote the funding proposal for the project. The document entitled, 'Chaco Canyon Project Description' was submitted to the National Science Foundation in 2003 by Dr. Wills. The purpose of this paper was to obtain funding from the National Science Foundation in order that the work at the Chaco Canyon site could continue. (WillsCurriculum)


University of New Mexico:

When he is not out in the field, Dr. Wills is also a professor of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico. Since the fall of 1986, Dr. Wills has taught a variety of courses including Pyramids and Paradoxes, Southwest Archaeology, Preceramic Southwest Archaeology, and Ritual in Prehistory. He also teaches a class with an Archaeological Field school. (UNM)

Image placement

I've reverted the recent attempt to place all images on the right-side per MOS:IMAGES: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". There's a good reason for this and the layout works much better. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Saravask (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you think there are too many images, I would support some of their removal to subpages or to commons. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology

The article seems rather sparse in the extensive archaeological scholarship regarding the Chaco phenomenon from AD 900 to 1150, when the major construction of the great houses was taking place. There are many papers dealing with why this occured, why it stopped, and what sort of organization (social, economic, etc.) was in place. Although mentioned in the article, it is a major topic within Southwest archaeology. Is this dealt with in a different article, or should another article be developed (it seems somewhat out of place here). Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Climate

Statement: The Chaco Canyon area is also characterized by remarkable climatic extremes: recorded temperatures range between −38 °F (−39 °C) to 102 °F (39 °C),[15] and temperature swings of up to 60 °F (16 °C) in a single day are not unknown.[7]

Issue: temperature swings of up to 60 °F (16 °C)

Discussion: This is incorrect. While it is true that 60 °F is approximately 16 °C (more precisely 15.6), that is not what is being discussed. This is talking about a change of 60 °F - NOT an actual temperature of 60 °F. A degree Celsius is 1.8 times larger than a degree Fahrenheit. Thus one only needs divide 60 by 1.8 to get the correct temperature swing in Celsius. This would be 33.3 °C. --DMG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.59 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you may be misreading the statement, and an implied comma before "and temperature swing of up to" may help. One would need to consult the original source to see if the temperature swings of 60 degrees are mentioned, rather than doing the math on a possibly unrelated phrase in the sentence, which is original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The source given supports the statement: "At 6200 feet elevation Chaco's weather can be extreme; sometimes varying 60 degrees in the same day!" (That the source is incorrectly linked is a separate issue, trying to sort that now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not only the extreme differences are remarkably. The average differences form day to night (a little more than 30 F, from local climate data) are probably easier to compare for the average reader.--91.3.103.95 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic insertions

I'm reverting the two paragraphs inserted by Bheldthor (talk · contribs) because, in addition to lacking citations of reliable sources, they seem to have little relevance to the specific sections to which they were added and they contained wording matching that appearing at http://www.solsticeproject.org/aboutsolstice.html and http://www.solsticeproject.org/AALiDARarticle.pdf, thus consituting, at least in part, copyright violations. Deor (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Why {{Smallcaps}}? This is just ugly, unnecessary and not a normal practice.

Links from Citations to References now broken:

  • Sofaer 1999— two authors in cite
  • Hopkins 2002— date in cite does not match
  • Noble 1991— date in cite does not match

Please don't use list definition markup (semicolon ;) to make a bold line.

{{Refbegin|1}} is the default and {{refend}} does not have any parameters.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't see what the big deal is here. I saw them on some other pages and I liked them: they help readers disentangle reference text. Same way people italicise book titles or put quotes around repeated words. Again not a big deal considering the main focus here is to stick up readable sourced balanced prose.
Thanks for pointing out the ref break. Saravask 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)r
You are changing a citation style without discussion; see WP:CITEVAR. See also WP:ALLCAPS and All caps#Readability. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


I don't understand how the references are listed. Why are Sources separate from References? Why is the Reference section split? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of quotation templates

Please don't use the Cquote template unless the quotation has been "pulled" from the article. I like the look of Cquote, too, however misuse of that template just adds to the nonstandard look of Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried the {{Quotation}} template and didn't like it, so I changed to the {{Epigraph}} template. Another editor liked the Quotation template better and reverted. That's okay, but it should probably be discussed here on the talk page before any more reversions are made. I chose the Epigraph template because it retains the larger attribution font (larger than the {{Quote}} template) without the gaudy looking borders and different bg color of the Quotation template. Hopefully, other editors will chime in with their opinions. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Archaic – Early Basketmakers

I just realized that there were notes in this article about whether to include spaces or not in "Archaic – Early Basketmakers" - after I made all the changes to the articles that link to the A-EB article. From what I saw in the comments, there was no need for a space, just needing to use the right kind of dash - so it sounded like it could go either way. Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry—didn't notice your post here. Please see the subsequent one for details. Saravask 06:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Archaic–Early Basketmaker Era" vs "Archaic – Early Basketmaker Era": WP:NDASH

Deor (or Dior: sorry, couldn't resist):

  • Please see example 9 at User:Tony1/How to use hyphens and dashes. This case is analogous: the "Archaic" and the "Early Basketmakers" are distinct entities that together modify something else. Here it is "Era"; there it is "Free Trade Agreement". Neither are particles. The latter has an internal space—hence the dash is spaced on either side to prevent confusion or false associations. The term "Archaic–Early Basketmakers" carries the sense that "Archaic–Early" modifies "Basketmakers", which is not true. There was no such single entity that existed; thus it cannot modify "Era" alone and the unspaced version is semantically wrong. Again, two distinct entities in conjunction modify it. Please explain why the foregoing is wrong. Saravask 06:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
After a great amount of discussion earlier this year, the MOS guidelines regarding dashes were revised somewhat. See item 2 of MOS:ENDASH—in particular, the final sentence: "The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced." Note also the examples that include "distinct entities in conjunction" one or both of which are open compounds, such as 'a New York–Los Angeles flight". Tony1's page is no longer in accord with the MOS on this point. Deor (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it makes a difference or not, the title is generally shown as "Archaic/Early Basketmaker" and "Archaic–Early Basketmaker" (examples on 1st and 2nd pages).
Based upon Deor's comments, do you both agree, then, that the title should be: "Archaic–Early Basketmaker Era?"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've already moved the page back to "Archaic–Early Basketmaker Era". Apologies for the inconvenience. Deor, do you have a link to the WT:MOS discussion you referred to? I couldn't find it in their register. Saravask 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I saw that - I was in the middle of editing (for the second time) during the move. ;) Does anyone mind giving me a hand this time with the changes to links in other articles (from the "What links here" function)? It would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks for resolving this - the final title looks good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I made all the link changes. There weren't as many as I remembered.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
@Saravask: The MOS changes were arrived at after an incredibly extensive period of edit warring and discussion—even including an ArbCom case, as I recall. Some of the end-game discussion and polling can be seen on the subpages Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion, but producing a comprehensive set of links to all the relevant bickering is beyond my ability. Deor (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Image formatting per MOS

I've reset sizes of many photo thumbs per MOS -- someone had set many of the "landscape"-format photos to "upright" syntax, which shrinks the thumbs. See Wikipedia:Image markup for guidelines. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014. Chaco Culture National Historical Park

. In the second paragraph it says "Chacoans quarried sandstone blocks and hauled timber from great distances, assembling fifteen major complexes that remained the largest buildings in North America until the 19th century." It would be more accurate to say the largest masonry structures instead of buildings. Timber framed structures have not survived.

How large were the long houses in the northwest? What were the structures like at the cahokia mounds. If a pyramid with no rooms inside counts as a building, do earth mounds in the same shape count as a building?

205.178.46.166 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Do you have any sources that say that timber framed structures were built that were larger or taller? What defines "largest"; The square footage inside? The cubic footage inside (surely churches with 50 foot high vault cathedral ceilings are larger than a building that is only 20 feet high even with 1/2 the square footage)? This is as unclear as your request here. As far as pyramids go, I am unaware of any in North America and as far as I know, they all do actually have "chambers" or rooms and passageways. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fourteen Great Houses

I have marked as OR the uncited assertion in Chaco_Culture_National_Historical_Park#Sites that "There are fourteen recognized Great Houses." I think this was an improper editorial summation not supported by references. It was first added by long-gone editor WBardwin in this edit after he had listed fourteen Great Houses without giving a total number for them. This was in 2007 when our requirements of inline citations were not so strict as today and there were only three general references listed at the bottom of the article. (I rather suspect that he may have taken those fourteen from the fact that Frazier in People of Chaco lists those in the key or caption to his maps.) Limiting it to a hard statement such as "there are fourteen recognized" is, even if sourceable, pretty clearly wrong and misleading since, for example, even Frazier recognizes at page 220 that there's another Chaco great house at the East Community (which is, admittedly, outside the park boundaries, but this article is not just about the park, notwithstanding the title, but about the Chaco site and culture as a whole) and since the list includes Casa Rinconada which cannot be properly classified as a great house since it was an isolated kiva without dwelling or other structures. The designation of fourteen is now, moreover, confusing because there are more than fourteen sites mentioned in the "Sites" section, now converted from Bardwin's list to paragraph form, and it is unclear, without delving back into the page history, just which fourteen this is intended to include. Unless I draw an objection to the tagging, I'm going to rewrite this sentence to read, "The great houses mentioned below are grouped according to geographic positioning with respect to the canyon." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Directional problem?

The first sentence of the second paragraph under "Geography" reads "The alluvial canyon floor slopes downward to the northeast ..." Shouldn't that be "to the northwest"? The previous paragraph says that the canyon "is aligned along a roughly northwest-to-southeast axis", and maps indicate that the Chaco Wash flows down to the Escavada Wash / Chaco River in the northwest. I'm posting here rather than changing it myself in case I'm misreading something. Deor (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Since it's been five days and no one has responded, I've gone ahead and made the change. Deor (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Article issues?

I see some information uncited. Is citation required for (less than) challenging info? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

George Ho, Great point / question. I am guessing that much of this content was added after the article was made FA. I went ahead and added cn tags for the uncited content - some of which might be original research and some are assertions that should be cited. Either way, it's my take that it's better to try and find sources for uncited content. I'll work on this a bit over the next couple of days or more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI, in working on Talk:Chaco Culture National Historical Park/Archive 1#Fourteen Great Houses a month or so ago I looked deep into the history of this page. It was mostly written before we required inline citations and regarded general references at the bottom of the page to be sufficient. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful! That would mean that the "Sources" listed at the bottom of the page would likely be a good place to look for citations. I think that there was also uncited content added after the last FA date - I think in 2009.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Article issues still exist?

I brought this up a month ago about lack of citations and possible original research. I was thinking FA review, but I would rather bring this up again in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Densest and Most Exceptional?

The opening sentence describes Chaco as the densest and most exceptional concentration of pueblos in the American Southwest. An IP editor proposes to qualify this by restricting it to "pre-Columbian" pueblos, pointing out that there are a lot of pueblos in the Southwest. Is the qualification needed?

We have two claims. "Most exceptional," I think is safe: there was nothing quite like Chaco in the Southwest, then or later. Of course, it's also a qualitative judgment and there were and are other exceptional sites.

"Densest" is tricky because it could mean "population density", for which we have no definitive evidence, or "architectural density", or "site density", or something else. Unquestionably there was a lot of Chaco at Chaco in a very small space.

But is the superlative justified? I think it might well be. Worse, "Pre-Columbian" doesn’t help us much, because several possible competitors were also Pre-Columbian. Among dense collections of sites that we’d call "pueblos", among those that spring to mind are pre-Columbian Zuni-Acoma, the Hopi mesas and environs, and perhaps Mesa Verde/Aztec/Escalante/Lowry if McElmo is really distinct from Chaco. But all these are much larger spans of land, and most of the best candidates are also pre-Columbian. If we’re simply talking population per meter, you aren't likely to beat Pecos alone or Paquime alone at their height. The historic Rio Grande Pueblos were surely more populous than Chaco ever was, but of course it's far more vast.


In fact, the weakest claim here might be that the Chaco great houses were pueblos -- that is, that they were something like historic Taos, Pecos, or Orabi, residences occupied by hundreds or thousands of people. But the sites look like pueblos and are discussed as pueblos, and it's too much weight for the lede to problematize this so early. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I support Mark's reasoning here but I have some uncertainty about the verifiability of that description as a whole. Examining the results of these two Google Books searches — search 1, focusing on density and search 2, focusing on exceptionality — will show several sources which come very close to, but I would argue fall just short of, supporting the density and exceptionality claims. Since this claim is in the lede, it wouldn't necessarily need a citation if it were supported in the body of the article, but I find no such support. Moreover, the assertion was added in this 2005 edit by WBardwin (who has not edited here since 2010) and was part of a multi-day editing sequence (March 23 - April 9, 2005) by him to convert the article from, basically, a stub to a fully-fledged article. At the beginning of that sequence the article was wholly uncited and unreferenced; at the end there were no inline citations (they weren't required back then) but WBardwin had added three sources in a reference section at the bottom of the page:
  • Frazier, Kendrick. People of Chaco: A Canyon and Its Culture. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30496-5.
  • Noble, David Grant, editor. New Light on Chaco Canyon. School of American Research, Sante Fe, New Mexico, 1985.
  • Plog, Stephen. Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. Thames and London, LTD, London, England, 1997. ISBN 0-500-27939-X.
All three of those can be searched via Google Books (the last two, unfortunately, only in "snippet view") and I cannot find anything in them which would support the description without a dose of original research. What I do find — and I hesitate to mention this for two reasons, first, the editing standards in 2005 were somewhat laxer than they are now and, second, we judge edits, not editors, but as circumstantial evidence of whether or not this description was properly sourced, not as a value judgment about the editor — the very first, bold-typefaced assertion on WBardwin's user page is, "Almost every good faith edit is valuable. Research, verify, rewrite --------------- but don't delete!". Frankly, I think that the description is unverifiable and I'm going to {{cn}} tag it. If someone doesn't come up with a citation we're going to have to reconsider it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Lekson's Chaco Meridian makes both claims explicitly, at least in the new second edition. In any case, both claims can (as I show above) be separately traced through the literature. See, for example, Linda Cordell’s Prehistory of the Southwest or, better for this case, Lekson’s A History of The Ancient Southwest. The exceptionality claim is easily sourced, and as I said, the density claim is only tricky because "density" might mean several things. What we mean here, pretty much, is "number of big buildings per acre," and Chaco clearly stands out. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you inline-cite them, then, and remove the cn tag? (I don't mean that as a challenge, but merely as a request.) As a featured article this claim really needs to be fully cited. While I have several Chaco books in my library I don't think I have any of those three. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally support Deor's removal of the gallery, but I want to say that my objection partly rests upon the fact that many of the images in the gallery were too indefinite to support that part of the Image Use Policy which reads "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery..." (emphasis added). Many of the images in the removed gallery were captioned with things like (and several images would have the same caption):

  • Chaco ruins
  • Chaco ruins detail
  • Chaco kiva detail
  • Chaco wall
  • Chaco
  • Chaco pictograph

Those are not illustrative of "aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images," nor are they "suitably captioned to explain their relevance." I'm not anti-gallery like some people (I don't mean that to point at Deor, by the way, I have no idea whether he's anti-gallery or not and he certainly had good reason to object to this one), but a gallery has to be something more than just a set of general illustrations about the subject and needs to be relatively small. If this had, for example, been a set of images of some of the main great houses in the canyon mentioned in the article text, each captioned with the name of the house, I might have been less supportive of its removal. Similarly, if it had been or included a collection of some images showing architectural or cultural features unique to Chaco which were mentioned in the text, ditto. But as it was, it really wasn't proper (and was too big and growing). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing. Though I don't want to make too big a deal out of this point, but the fact that all the photos which were in the gallery were all shot and uploaded by the editor who was putting them in the gallery feels — especially with the captioning shortcomings noted above — a lot like someone just putting their vacation pictures into Wikipedia, a feeling that is not diminished by the fact that there were many excellent photos of Chaco already available through Commons before these were uploaded and none of those were included in the gallery. None of that, in itself, is a sin, but it does reflect on the issue of whether or not the gallery was being added in order to fulfill the proper purposes of a gallery as established in policy. I truly don't mean to imply bad motive on the part of that editor and I'm sure he was doing what he was doing in good faith and the photos were quite nice, but I think that he wasn't familiar enough with policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to read my exchange with the editor who added the gallery, it's currently at the bottom of my talk page. My main objection was that the gallery was too large—with some of the images being redundant, either to each other or to images present elsewhere in the article—and that it was added to a featured article without discussion. If the consensus here is that a (stripped-down) gallery would improve the article, I would certainly have no objection. Or perhaps a few of the images could be worked in to the body of the article? Deor (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I wish I had seen that before I posted. He was so nice and understanding that it makes me look, well ... dickish. Though I didn't intend to come across that way, I apologize to Steven C. Price, nontheless. Sheepishly and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks to the two editors above. I am familiar with this new editor as he added an excellent set of photos to an article that I work on. I was impressed with the professional look to his/her photos and felt lucky to have the new photos for "my" article. I want to be sure that we treat this new editor with open arms since s/he seems a good editor for WP to encourage. I always like galleries and I think a small gallery would improve this article.
Steve, experienced editors know that galleries can be problematic because they start to distract from an article as more and more editors want their photos included and it becomes hard to draw the line. It takes an article watcher who is willing to tell well-meaning editors that no, they can't add their wonderful photo (because I said so). I know this because I watch over the Rainbow article and it's really tough to be such a meanie. But I can't see that as a problem here...I hope...
Steve's photos are so good that I felt that surely it would be easy enough to replace some of the article's photos. But looking at the article's photos I found that not to be the case at all. I don't know whose FA this is, but they sure did what must have been a difficult job of furnishing such a wide range of informative photos - including the first one that at first glace may not seem so good, but when I considered it I like the way that it sets the "mood" for what is to follow. Steve and a couple of editors posted on my talk page. I'll ask them to check in here. Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer (talk), TransporterMan (TALK), Deor (talk), Montanabw, Viriditas In light of the above conversation, I have, with some trepedation (!) added five images to a Gallery, each illustrating features not apparent from the main page. I included a closer view of the stairway, as it is not apparent from the photo in the text unless you magnify the image; a close-up of a kiva, as all other photos are from "far away"; an image of early graffiti, not mentioned in the text; and a pictograph, of which some were mentioned in the text but this is another example; and finally an up close view of wall construction of wood and stone. Please let me know of what you think of the appropriateness of these additions. Steven C. Price 18:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Steven C. Price I think that the gallery is an excellent addition. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"The scale of the complex, upon completion, rivaled that of the Colosseum"?

The reference to this fact do not mention the Colosseum and according the article on the Colosseum it was 3 times as large as Pueblo Bonito. אביהו (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Largest buildings in North America

The current article is a little confusing to me as to the actual nature of these buildings. The introduction states: "Chacoans quarried sandstone blocks and hauled timber from great distances, assembling fifteen major complexes that remained the largest buildings in North America until the 19th century.[2][4]"

The rest of the text, and the accompanying photos, don't match this description well. In particular, I don't even see any "buildings" at all in the photos, only ruined walls, and none of them are made of timber. Did the buildings collapse in the 19th century just as larger buildings were built elsewhere, and just before anyone could photograph them? Or did they collapse much earlier, in which case they did not "remain" the largest buildings until the 19th century? And what do these collapsed wooden buildings have to do with the stone ruins in the photos? Ornilnas (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaco Canyon buildings collapsed hundreds of years ago. But they were the largest buildings ever built until the 19th century, which is probably how that section should be rephrased.
Chacoan buildings were of stone and timber construction - stone walls with timber floors and roofs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, now it makes more sense! If anyone knows approximately when they collapsed, it would be useful to explicitly include that somewhere as well. Ornilnas (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This is a 2007 Featured article that has not been maintained to FA standards:

  • There is uncited text with citation needed tags as old as November 2014.
  • There are HarvRef errors.
  • There is MOS:SANDWICHing and poor image layout.
  • See also should be evaluated with the need for each link explained or by working the links in to the article (FAs are expected to be comprehensive).
  • Citations do not have a consistent date format.
  • Why is there a References section, and a Sources section (which appear to be the same thing)?
  • Why are Further reading entries not used as sources ?
  • There is outdated text and MOS:CURRENT issues, samples: In the 2002–03 fiscal year, the park's total annual operating budget was $1.434 million; Current park policy mandates partial restoration of excavated sites.

Unless these issues can be corrected with a substantial update and rewrite, the article should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I can answer one of those questions: This article predates the use of inline citations in Wikipedia. Prior to that time, individual parts of articles were not specifically cited. There were, instead, just an unlinked list of sources at the bottom of the article. Some of the cn-marked material may be sourced with those sources (or may not be), but before the material is removed because it is not linked to a source, those sources need to be checked. On the matter at hand, however, I express no opinion about whether or not the article should retain FA status. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dendrochronology and "relics undisturbed"

Regarding "Remote sensing, anthropological study of Indian oral traditions, and dendrochronology—which left Chacoan relics undisturbed—were pursued." Dendrochronology involves taking core samples from artifacts (wood beams). The disturbance may be small, but "undisturbed" seems untrue. Also, I was unable to verify, because the citation is to a high level of NPS website; site web search for "dendrochronology" and "undisturbed" did not find me anything. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion about the one-sentence "In Popular Culture" (note the capitalization) section that was recently added to this article? Although I don't have access to the work included as a reference, the addition seems to me to violate the spirit, at least, of MOS:POPCULT (particularly the "bone broth" paragraph); but I'm unwilling to start an edit war over the matter. Deor (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I see the issue was resolved by reverting the addition, but
Obviously, fictional Chaco Chicken, in Arkansas, was named after fictional plant owner Walter Chaco. The first name, Walter, may make one suspect a connection to Walter White (Breaking Bad), and everyone knows Los_Pollos_Hermanos in Albuquerque is the most famous fictional chicken chain near Chaco canyon. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chaco_Culture_National_Historical_Park/Archive_1&oldid=1227922861"