Talk:Cuicuilco

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mesoamerica (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles

Untitled

What this article ignores is the controversy over the age of the 8500 year old pyramid. George E Hyde estimated that the lava and sediments covering the pyramid are 8500 years old see the link below. Impossible say mainstream archaeologists, men could not build pyramids 8500 years ago and they are trying to argue the age down by using questionable radiocarbon dating methods. However lava and sediment is a lot more telling than as piece of char who God knows when it formed and where it came from. This is typical of wikipedia to side with the speculations of mainstream archaeologists instead of the actual evidence. https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/mystery-of-cuicuilco/ (online 4/5/16) 65.255.192.26 (talk) RAS

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cuicuilco. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current Situation section

This section reads a little awkwardly to me, and the heading seems a bit vague. Perhaps "Archeological challenges" would be better suited, or even merging the information in the section with another/the lead. Should the wiki specifically mention which buildings are on top of the site? Even my revised version seems to be a repetition of what's in the Archeological Site section. In my view, the two main sections should be a discussion of the pre-modern history of the site (under History), followed by modern investigations and complications (under Archeological Site). Should the bifurcation of the site be mentioned in the last section? There are also no citations in the Current Situation section.
If the consensus is to keep it, I suggest the following stylistic revision: (I didn't push the revisions because I'm still a little nervous about editing mainspace)
″Cuicuilco's location in a dense urban environment and the 9 to 10-meter thick lava rock layer have presented challenges for archeologists and conservationists, as well as complicated debates over legislation of the archeological heritage. Because of this, the site has been studied less than other comparable archeological sites, such as Teotihuacan and Tula.″
Lots of "should this be different" questions -- hopefully I'll get better at answering them on my own soon! Doopwii123 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]