Talk:La Ciudad Blanca/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misleading or inaccurate statements in Preston's article "The El Dorado Machine" (May 2013)

Revision of this Wikipedia article in May and June 2013 has relied heavily upon an article by Douglas Preston that appeared in the May 6, 2013 issue of The New Yorker. As has been mentioned earlier on the talk page, Preston's article--currently the most frequently cited source for this Wikipedia article--contains a number of misleading or inaccurateof an statements. This section is for pointing out and discussing them as they may affect the content of the Wikipedia article. Note that the heavy reliance upon this one source creates a situation in which this Wikipedia article runs the risk of perpetuating rather than simply documenting the asserted "legend." Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• The title of Preston's article, with its clear reference to El Dorado, conflates Ciudad Blanca with this other place. The title's reference to a "machine" seems to allude to the use of LiDAR to find ancient gold, something never mentioned in the article itself. Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This objection is nonsense. He in no way makes any claim of finding gold anywhere in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. You're right, he doesn't. However, the title of his article refers to El Dorado (which is traditionally interpreted as "the golden one" or even "the golden city.") Do you really not know what El Dorado implies? Dorado means "golden" and the implication of an "El Dorado machine" is that it is for finding gold! Hoopes (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, writers rarely chose the title of their articles. That is usually done by the editor. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Who chose the title is irrelevant. The fact is that the title of Preston's article implies the use of LiDAR to find gold. Hoopes (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In your mind only. The article article never once makes any such claim. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the clear implication of the title. To what do you think "The El Dorado Machine" refers? What else could it possibly mean? Why is there any mention of El Dorado at all? Hoopes (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Most likely it is referring to you know the famous "lost city" aspect considering that is what the article is about. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the famous "lost city of gold". The fact that so many mass media reports mention gold is a fairly good indication that this has been a common interpretation. Hoopes (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Preston writes, "Nevertheless, for nearly a century, archeologists and adventurers have plunged into the region, in search of the ruins of an ancient city, built of white stone, called la Ciudad Blanca, the White City." This statement is inaccurate for a couple of reasons. For one, an expedition to search for a "city" was not undertaken by Morde until 1940, so it has not been "for nearly a century" but only for about 73 years. For another, the assertion that there was a search for a city "built of white stone." The assumption that it was built of white stone is just one of several possible interpretations. Did this interpretation come from Lindbergh's remarks in 1927? (I have been able to find no earlier references.) As Gordon Willey pointed out, one possible explanation is that what was reported (by Lindbergh?) was actually a mistaken interpretation of limestone cliffs. Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

People went searching for it before Morde. He was simply the first American to claim to find it. Archeologists mentioned it was a "reputed ruin" in the 1920s that people had been searching for. ~90 years is indeed "nearly a century". --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Who went searching for it before Morde? If that's true, then you must provide reliable sources. Which archaeologists mentioned it was a "reputed ruin" prior to Lindbergh's 1927 claim? If so, what are the sources? The data I've seen suggests that it was Lindbergh who started a wild-goose chase, one that actually does not appear to have had the participation of professional archaeologists until recently. If you are making claims, you must back them up with reliable sources. Hoopes (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your original research (re: Lindberg starting it) does not belong in the article any more than mine does. I no longer have the source in front of me, but someone definitely wrote about it in 1925.

It is not my original research. I have cited a source for it. If you have a source indicating that "someone definitely wrote about it in 1925" then provide it. Without a reliable and credible source, you should not make that statement. Hoopes (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is your original research to assert he started it. In fact, you provided a source to say he DIDN'T make any such claim. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The exact wording in the source that I cited is, "So far as I know, Lindbergh’s 1927 claim is where many believe the name Ciudad Blanca comes from, but even this isn’t certain since this legend saw print only in the 1950s, some three decades after the fact." I will add that to the article. Hoopes (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Citing Cortés' letter to Charles V, Preston writes, "Rumors of the site's existence date back at least to 1526..." In fact, Cortés' letter made vague reference to "a province" and not a specific site (much less Ciudad Blanca). His geographic description of the "province" was also vague. Cortés never mentioned a ciudad blanca, or even a city, but referred only to "towns and villages." Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost every source, including Begley, includes this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So what? Incorrect information often becomes "accepted" simply through repetition. Cortés did not make reference to a specific site, much less a "city," but to "towns and villages" in a large and unspecified "province" that is identified only as being an approximate distance (with the direction not indicated) from Trujillo. Look at the source and you'll see. The point is that Preston got it wrong. Hoopes (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether you believe it is correct or not is not relevant. That fact is many people believe it to be the same thing. (I think it is clear from the actually language that the connection is very doubtful, but my interpretation does not belong in the article, nor does yours.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If, in fact, those "many people" who "believe it to be the same thing" are credible and reliable sources, then you must cite them. Hoopes (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

They have been, multiple times. You have chosen to ignore them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Preston asserts, "Researchers have since determined that, beginning around 250 B.C., much of Mesoamerica south of Mexico had been dominated by the Maya civilization, which held sway until its mysterious collapse, in the tenth century." I think most professional Mesoamericanists and Maya specialists would have problems with this sentence. The selection of a "beginning around 250 B.C." seems totally arbitrary given that Maya culture in the region goes back much farther than that (to about 1500 B.C. at least). "Mesoamerica south of Mexico" really doesn't make much sense when referring to the Mayas, since Maya culture was also prevalent in Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo, all of which are part of Mexico. The "mysterious collapse" is no longer so mysterious and saying that the Mayas "held sway" until the tenth century also makes no sense, since Maya domination continued until the arrival of the Spanish and afterwards. Statements such as this don't inspire much confidence in Preston's understanding of what researchers have actually determined. Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Preston writes, "The regions east and south of Copán were inhabited by peoples whom early scholars considered more 'primitive' and less interesting, and the jungles were so dense, and the conditions so dangerous, that little exploration was done." It's impossible to know which "early scholars" he has in mind, but the claim that they considered those people "more 'primitive'" doesn't resonate with the terminology of Mesoamerican scholarship. It's also hard to known to when he's referring about when it was that "little exploration was done." In fact, the regions east and south of Copán, such as the Gulf of Honduras, the Bay Islands, the northeastern coast of Honduras, the Sula/Ulua Valley, Lake Yojoa, and the Comayagua Valley as well as both western and eastern El Salvador were actually all explored in the early 20th century (and many of these areas long before that). Copán is in far western Honduras. Preston's statement implies that central, southern, and eastern Honduras all remained tierra incognita, which is quite far from the truth. If one wants to go even farther "east and south of Copán" into Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama, there was quite a bit of exploration in those areas, too. Mesoamerica is not all that was known (or considered something other than "primitive.") Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to assume 2013 political correctness was practiced by 1850s scholars, so your objection is pure speculation on your part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Neither Preston nor you provide sources to indicate who the "early scholars" were, when they wrote, or who they considered to be "more 'primitive' and less interesting." It's not an issue of "political correctness" but of facts. Sources are required and it is Preston's unsupported statements that remain pure speculation (and probably even outright error). Hoopes (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. By Wikipedia policy, we can take reliable sources at their word. The fact that you want more information does not make the information provided unreliable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of evidence that the source is not reliable. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy to rely upon an unreliable source. Hoopes (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The only thing you have provided plenty of evidence for is that you think your own opinion is fact. You start this section as "evidence" as inaccuracies, said it seems "unlikely" to you, decided it was therefore false, and therefore proved the article is unreliable and we can't trust it. Nice circular argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Preston asserts that, "By the twentieth century, these legends had been fused into a single site, la Ciudad Blanca, sometimes referred to as the Lost City of the Monkey God." The implication of "by the twentieth century" is "by 1900," which is incorrect. In fact, the evidence that "these legends" existed prior to 1930s is minimal and the earliest reference to a "white city" seems to be 1927. In this statement, Preston also conflates Ciudad Blanca with the City of the Monkey God when the association between the two actually appears to be very recent (with the revival of interest in Morde's work by Wendy Griffin in the late 1990s). Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of English is incorrect. The phrase in question does not mean by 1900. You are also incorrect about the earliest reference comment. It was mentioned in a 1925 archeological survey (complete with a story about it a supposed discovery) at the very least.--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. My understanding of English is fine. It is you who are incorrect. The phrase "by the twentieth century" means "by 1900" just as "by the twenty-first century" means "by 2000." "By the twentieth century" actually means "by the time the twentieth century had begun", i.e. by 1900. Hoopes (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It means by sometime in the 20th century by common usage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are wrong. It does not mean "sometime in the 20th century" by "common usage." Do you have a source for that? Just believing it doesn't make it so. You are mistaken and I challenge you to provide evidence that you are not. Hoopes (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that the statement is wrong, which is what you are trying to do. I've told you the sentence does not mean what you think it does to me, which is sufficient evidence that it does not mean what you think it does to everyone and therefore your understand of the phrase may not be what Preston had in mind. --22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean when I assert that you are inserting your own subjective reality into this article. I have not said that it means the same thing to everyone. My point is about its correct usage, not your own incorrect usage. Hoopes (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You say it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, but also only your usage is correct. I think you've proven my point about your substituting your opinion for fact for me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue of being correct is important, but in this case it is also important to seek clarity rather than obfuscation. Your phraseology is ambivalent and confusing. If you don't intend to mean "by 1900," but rather "sometime in the 20th century," you should choose the clearest language possible. You have not done that. Hoopes (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Preston refers to Theodore Morde but fails to place his claims in context. It should be clear from Morde's own writing that it was filled with fantastic tales and wild speculation. Preston makes no mention Morde's lurid descriptions, his insulting descriptions of indigenous people, his assertions of connections between Honduras and India, or the fact that Morde was publishing this not in the New York Times but in The American Weekly, a tabloid Sunday supplement. Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The non-senstational claims (the ones Preston mentions) also appeared in reliable sources such the NY Times. Perhaps he didn't mention the sensational claims specifically because he discounted them. Just ebcause he doesn't mention sometime you would have in no way undermines his credibility. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The claims about Morde published by the New York Times actually were sensational. He claimed to have found something spectacular for which he never provided any credible evidence. That's the definition of a sensational claim. It is actually his utter lack of evidence as well as his absurd story in a Sunday magazine tabloid that undermines Morde's credibility Hoopes (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If the claims are obviously sensational (as you state), then not explicitly saying they are sensational in no way undermines ones credibility. You can't have it both ways. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. If the claims are obviously sensational (and highly questionable) and a source treats them as fact, that undermines the credibility of the source, whether it is the NYT or Preston. Hoopes (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You asserting as such doesn't make it true. If the claims are obviously sensational, then they are obviously sensational. Not using the word "sensational" doesn't mean the person treated the claim as fact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lest readers be confused, Preston's quote of George Hasemann's speculation that Mosquitia might have been "dominated by a huge primate center that hasn't been found yet" (emphasis added) is not a reference to the "City of the Monkey God." The term "primate center" in archaeology has nothing to do with monkeys! Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure Preston is well aware of the meaning of primate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How are you sure? That is pure speculation on your part. If Preston was well aware of it, then he was irresponsible in not explaining a non-standard, technical use of the term to his readership, who were likely to be confused about references to a monkey god and a primate center. Hoopes (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote isn't from Preston's article, so the whole discussion is pointless. He certainly had no responsibility to explaina quote he didn't use! --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. The full quote from Preston's article (at the bottom of the left column on page 35 of The New Yorker, May 6, 2013) reads: "In a 1994 interview, he speculated that the sites he had seen in Mosquitia might have been part of a single political system 'dominated by a huge primate center that hasn't been found yet,' which could be the White City." Note that it is Preston's speculation, not Hasemann's, that it "could be the White City." Hoopes (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK my mistake, but again not explaining something you would have in no way proves he made an error. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

One error would be Preston's assertion that what Hasemann was suggesting "could be the White City" give that "the White City" remains undefined and unlikely to exist. However, my main use of this example was to suggest that Preston was misleading. Having discussed the "City of the Monkey God," he should have clarified for his readers regarding Hasemann's non-standard use of the phrase "huge primate center." Many people may have made either conscious or unconscious associations with King Kong who, for the record, was no monkey. Hoopes (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I will add more comments to this section as I find the time. Hoopes (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013(UTC)

This is something I'm kicking myself for not mentioning earlier. I was really amazed to see how many references there were to this one article - it gives the impression that we think it's the cat's pajamas. I like Preston's books - I've read or listened to almost all of them and just download the latest short story yesterday. But as a source for this article? Why are we using him? Because he wrote Cities of Gold, a book we don't use in related articles - maybe because it seems to lack enough or any references? He's not an expert on the subject or its context, he makes vague claims that are hard to check, and John's detailed a lot of the problems above. My plan was to remove him entirely but I decided that given the discussions and disagreements about the article that would have been too bold. I still think it's a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is Preston being cited? Because one editor of this article apparently liked Preston's so much that he undertook an extensive paraphrase, including a great deal of content from that one source. I don't think that was good Wikipedia practice and have said so repeatedly in my comments on the talk pages of this article and that editor. Hoopes (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I have explained my reasons MULTIPLE times - it is the best and most comprehensive source on the UTL project, which is what it was used for. I am really sick of you making up bullshit and about how I fell in love with the article. Bullshit that I have explicitly denied numerous times. I would have added numerous other sources had I not grown tired of the constant edit wars and given up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If you in fact have numerous other good sources then adding them might have prevented the edit warring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring was over trivial word differences, so I fail to see how unrelated expansion of the article would have solved anything. --19:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In any case withholding numerous sources could not be in the interest of the quality of the article, if thy exist they should of course be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The main issue with this article concerns the use of reliable sources. User:ThaddeusB has relied far too heavily on one moderately unreliable source (the article by Douglas Preston in The New Yorker, which was originally cited more than 50 times not only in one section but throughout the article), as well as completely unreliable sources such as a Frommer's travel guide. The reason why there are not more and better sources is that most of the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca is quite recent (late 1990s) and has been promoted by filmmakers and authors seeking to profit from hype and sensation. Wikipedia should not be contributing to rumors or hype. Hoopes (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, attacking my credibility instead of sticking to discussing the article. Sad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring was 'not over "trivial word differences" but matters of fact and substance. If anyone doubts that, they can read the archives of this talk page as well as the relevant discussion on talk. That editor's behavior with respect to this article has been totally inappropriate. Hoopes (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see how trivial the difference were, the situation is hopeless. You will continue to edit war ad nauseum over nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your dismissal of my legitimate concerns, now backed by at least three other editors, has been invalidated. Your ad hominem attacks (dismissing my perspective as "hopeless" is insulting and unhelpful). Hoopes (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your wording that about how the qualifications of Fisher should be described most certainly has not been back by at least three editors. And that is what we edit warred over. If you truly think there is a huge difference bewteen the two version, the situation is indeed hopeless. (And for the record, the other editors most certainly did not agree with you on all - or even very many - of your points. Most weren't even commented on, and at least two were explicity disagreed with, so how you inferred agreement from 3 editors on every point is beyond me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

An extensive paraphrase would probably be a violation of our copyvio policy. Using him 42 times seems very dubious. We can use him for actual quotations such as Rosemary Joyce perhaps, but 42 citations? If there are no alternative sources, perhaps that means the material being cited to Preston shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I assure you it is not a close paraphrase despite Hoopes' unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. Also, don't jump to conclusions based on the # of cites - it is a poor measure of how much material is actually supported. A single citation can support a whole paragraph or a few words from a sentence with multiple citation. In the case of Preston, the later is quite common. Finally, the reason for the use of Preston have been explained in great detail on this page multiple times. In short, he had direct access to the UTL project, wrote the most detailed description of it, and made demonstrably far fewer errors than alternate sources on the subject (i.e. news reports). The amount of material outside the UTL section that relies exclusively on his article is very low. In total it probably supports 15% of the article, most of which is the UTL section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My own reading of the original article by Preston indicates that it actually is a close paraphrase. So close, in fact, that I think the original version may well have violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. I feel confident that Preston or The New Yorker would have been uncomfortable with how much of the article's content (still hidden to non-subscribers behind a paywall) was made available on Wikipedia shortly after its publication. (I would be happy to query the editorial staff of The New Yorker about this on behalf of Wikipedia.) As I have tried to make clear in the discussions here, Preston--best known for his "techno-thriller" and horror fiction--is hardly the reliable source that User:ThaddeusB claims him to be. The fact that he made "far fewer errors than alternate sources" hardly inspires confidence given the remarks about a "lost city of gold" and other howlers in mass media. Making fewer errors than, for example, The History Channel does not imply that the information is reliable. Wikipedia editors should not be contributing to profitable hype and speculation that is not based on sound, objective, scientific, and scholarly sources. The amount of attention given in this article to a lurid tabloid piece by Morde and a sensational piece by Preston has been inappropriate. This has been reduced through editing, but it is progress that has been extraordinarily difficult to achieve due to the intractability of one editor. Hoopes (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, if you have better sources (about UTL), please provide them. What you think is undue weight on Morde and UTL is actually very appropriate. Why? Because that is what third party sources have concentrated on. As much as you may not like it, we do not determine what is appropriate to cover - our sources do. Our mission is report what reliable sources say in proportion to the # that talk about X. Our mission is not to promote anything, but it is also not to fight against the promotion of anything. Taking a position of any kind (e.g. "this is all hype") is not appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

of course "the sources" do when there is undue emphasis on content from a single source. Remove the content taken from Preston's article and a significant amount of the content of this article would not exist. Hoopes (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to provide any better/alternate sources. Also your assertion that my analysis is based on a single source is false as I have told you over a dozen times. Please stop this nonsense accusation of bad faith and/or ignorance. Your obsession with me (as opposed to the article content) is unhealthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of citations of Preston's article is evidence of excessive reliance upon that single source. Anyone can see that. At least one other editor has even said so in this discussion. Hoopes (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And again, please stop attacking me. Your insistence on attacking me (and my retorts) is what has made this whole process "extraordinarily difficult" not my stubbornness. (And if you want to go there, you have been far more "intractable" than me - for example, writing page after page about a dispute over 1 sentence until you got your way because no one cared enough to continue the dispute.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What has made this whole process extraordinarily difficult is your insistence upon heavy reliance on a limited number of questionable sources. Hoopes (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to provide any better/alternate sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a dearth of "better" sources because the "legend" is a recent invention that has rarely been taken seriously by anyone other than unreliable sources! That is one of my principal complaints about this article. It is actively promoting a topic for which serious and reliable and well-informed discussion barely exists. In so doing, it is contributing to the "legend," not documenting it. Hoopes (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally, you admit there aren't better sources. So what do you suggest we do? Complaining about the sources is not helpful and original research is out of the question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to delete the entire article. That would prevent it from contributing to the legend, something it is no doubt doing as a detailed (albeit problematic), ubiquitously available, free resource that is available worldwide. However, that would be extreme. Another is to diminish the significance of mythmaking sources that represent hyping of the "legend" rather than critical analysis of it. If anything, greater weight should be given to the opinions of professional archaeologists than to adventurers, explorers, authors, and filmmakers who are seeking to profit from popular interest in an inflated "legend" based on vague rumors about an imaginary place. I recommend modeling this article on others about imaginary phenomena. The article on orbs, for example, has evolved from one that included a large amount of baseless speculation about recent, popular conceptions asserting the existence of paranormal phenomena to one that stays close to established facts. Another good example would be the article on the 2012 phenomenon, another example of something that stirred up public speculation with little basis in established facts. It is worth documenting as an erroneous belief, as is the likely case with Ciudad Blanca. Hoopes (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a more realistic approach would be to move the article to some other title where it will be easier to make an article that conforms to policy. The problem is that it is not clear what the article is about, currently it seems to be about a city that probably only exists as a fantasy in the minds of a few explorers and a journalist. Perhaps there are enough sources about Preston's article that it would make sense to move it to The El Dorado Machine, or to Jungleland. Or we could merge it into Douglas Preston as a section that is what we often do with fringe theories like these. In any case the article as it is now, is simply making a mountain out of a probably imaginary molehill.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. It is not clear what the article is about, in part (I think) because the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca is virtually nonexistent until the 1990s, with the possible exception of Morde's silly "King Kong" fantasy (which was apparently quickly forgotten until someone dug it up from digital records some fifty years later). It remains vacuous and vague even today. The article is a mess and I have had a difficult time trying to make it into something that is actually useful and relatively unproblematic. The section on Morde's ridiculous article in a forgettable Sunday newspaper supplement is just ridiculous and I'm not yet persuaded that the UTL project is significant enough to merit its own article. Perhaps after more research (or a successful documentary film) is released it will be. I do think it's an important issue to address somehow, especially if additional media hype persuades the general public that "Ciudad Blanca" is something about which they should know. Hoopes (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(re to both) I am struggling to see a concrete suggestion for a way forward here... There are, as far as I know, no sources that discuss Preston's article. Jungleland is an unrelated book written by another author before Preston's article came out. It can have an article, sure, but that solves nothing as it relates to this article. Preston most certainly didn't invent the idea of Ciudad Blanca or even popularize it - there is zero evidence (other than my use of it as a source) that it influenced anybody. (You can say UTL popularized the legend in the US to some degree and you'd be correct, but Preston is not UTL, and the legend was well known in Honduras before UTL happened.) Let's say for argument sake the legend didn't exist until 1990 as Hoopes asserts (for the record, there is concrete proof it existed earlier) - that is still 23 years before Preston's article. La Ciudad Blanca isn't a fringe theory anymore than Paul Bunyon is fringe theory. It isn't a theory at all - it is a fictional story - but one tied to real places in the imaginations of some people. I see no reason we can't cover the real world associations with the fiction made by reliable (but not scholarly) sources.

However, if either of you want to make a short draft article (i.e. from scratch) of what you think would be appropriate, then please do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that there's actually any significant "story," whether fictional or not, about Ciudad Blanca beyond the most recent sources (such as the fictional movie El Xendra), so the assertion that "it's a fictional story" is weak. Shouldn't there be more discussion of the details of the plot of El Xendra (which Preston doesn't mention at all), or is it just not notable enough? What would be your source for the "fictional story" to which you refer? What does the narrative of that story claim? You say that "Preston is not UTL." However, he explains in the New Yorker how he accompanied a UTL-sponsored trip to Honduras, so he actually did have some involvement with that project. The theory that there is actually a "legend" of Ciudad Blanca may well be a fringe theory, as may be that legend itself if the argument can be made that it actually exists. There really hasn't been much objective discussion (or documentation) of who has proposed that theory or why it should be considered notable. I really don't see why stating objective facts about Preston's article is a problem. Why would an additional published source be required in order to do that? Hoopes (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I am not sure what you want to happen. It is one thing to complain about the sources, say you are unconvinced the story exists, etc. It is quite another to offer a way to improve. You say you want it to be like the 2012 phenomenon article. OK, where are the sources to support such a rewrite? (For the record, I would argue Atlantis is a much better comparison article.) It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that what you want simply isn't possible. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As to Preston's article, if you want to discuss the article as an article you need reliable sources that talk about it. Otherwise, there is no evidence that it is important in and of itself. Maybe it would be good to have a UTL stand alone article (or maybe not since you've objected), but it makes no sense to discuss it at Preston's page. It is just a reporter who had access to the project. He didn't start it or popularize it, or anything like that.

No, it is not "just a reporter," it is Douglas Preston, author of sensational adventure and horror books, both fiction and nonfiction. While he does nonfiction journalism on archaeology, his article was for the purpose of spinning a compelling story, one that you paraphrased and repeated here. Hoopes (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about El Xendra, but if reliable sources discuss it in relationship to the Ciudad Blanca myth then I have no problem with there being info about it in this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about El Xendra (2012), then you are missing a significant recent source concerning the Ciudad Blanca "legend". (Which, in this case, is actually part of a recent sci-fi movie plot.) It was released in the U.S. in February 2013, with Blu-Ray and DVD sales beginning on May 24, 2013 just after 300+ news stories appeared about "Ciudad Blanca". I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I suspect that was more than just coincidence. Do you think any Honduran officials had investments in the film? Hoopes (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I already said, I have no problem with the movie having a section in this article. If you think the legend doesn't really exist all I can suggest is to nominate the article for deletion. I don't see what else can be done to satisfy your POV, If you have a different concrete suggestion, I'm all ears. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Original research

There is far too much material in this article that does not use sources discussing La Ciudad Blanca. I don't have time to clean it up, but it needs to be trimmed of everything that uses sources not discussing Ciudad Blanca. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No original research

Please take note of the Wikipedia policies concerning inclusion of original research (OR) in articles under WP:NOR that state: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Ideally, these published sources should represent scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and books, even though the issue of Ciudad Blanca has been the topic of extended speculation in newspapers, magazines, blogs, and other sources of questionable authority. The cited material should refer specifically to Ciudad Blanca, not to secondary material being assembled in order to provide a context or framework for the presentation of unpublished original research. If you have questions about what content is or is not appropriate, please use this Talk page to discuss it prior to adding it to the article. Otherwise, you may be disappointed to find it removed. Hoopes (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In particular (from the section of the article on WP:NOR concerning synthesis of published material): "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says 'A' in one context, and 'B' in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of 'therefore C', then 'therefore C' cannot be used in any article." The Wikipedia article is not an appropriate place to promote original, synthetic interpretations that have not appeared in reliable publications. Hoopes (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl, Toltecs, and other central Mexican contacts with Ciudad Blanca

The article has been extensively edited to insert references to the mythology of Quetzalcoatl, Toltecs, Nahua peoples, and other hypothetical contacts between people of central Mexico and Ciudad Blanca. Material has also been added that represents circumstantial evidence in support of specific hypotheses and interpretations. In most cases, this has been done citing sources that do not directly mention Ciudad Blanca and represents original research, violating WP:NOR policies. This material is subject to removal if it cannot be documented with appropriate references to reliable published material. Since these specific references to hypothetical central Mexican ties with eastern Honduras represent a particular set of interpretations, it would be best to create a new section of the article for them. Hoopes (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Two New Sections

I have created two new sections for the article, "Ciudad Blanca and Indigenous Mythology" and "Ciudad Blanca and Mesoamerica," and have moved relevant in-depth content to each of these. However, this needs to be carefully and extensively edited for style and content issues, including WP:NOR issues and appropriate citations. Hoopes (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

These sections have been removed because they represent "original research". Hoopes (talk)

Has a "Lost City" or a "Vanished Civilization" Been Found?

While I understand that the guys in question are reluctant to say that they definitely found The White City, the facts are clear that there's a lost city precisely where the legend states where it is. While its not the biggest thing since the discovery of Ubar (that 12 thousand year old temple in Turkey is), it's damn close.Ericl (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not at all. Both archaeologists and the general public have a particular understanding of what is meant by the word city. No research has been published to demonstrate that what has been reported in eastern Honduras merits this identification. Furthermore, the archaeological remains have never been "lost" since indigenous people have been living continuously in the region since the time of the site's occupation. Hoopes (talk)

Sources

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/lost-city-honduras-ciudad-blanca_n_6797194.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/honduras-lost-city-national-geographic-criticism_n_6852928.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And a critical source

See [1] eg Honduran archaeologist Eva Martinez ""The Honduran Mosquitia has been studied by archaeologists for decades. The place that the National Geographic mentions could be one of the sites already recorded in the National Institute of Anthropology and History (IHAH)." The faculty member in the Anthropology major of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras says that the international publication lacks credibility. "Any archaeological site in the Mosquitia could be given that name. Ciudad Blanca is a myth, a legend. The publication is not an academic investigation and it gives us a mistaken idea of the work of archaeology" Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-write Needed?

After trying to read this article, there seem to be numerous issues with the writing style. The issues I have noticed so far include:

• spacing issues with punctuation.
• a leading section that seems to be much longer than it should per Wikipedia guidelines.
• run on sentences.
• grammar mistakes.

Can this article be flagged to be rewritten? I don't have time to undertake it myself, but a rewrite would help the article be easier to read through. ElMidgetGrande (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been attempting to fix various errors as time permits. Problems have been introduced by the article's editors as a result of varying familiarity with Wikipedia conventions. Hoopes (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Critical Historical Perspectives

A 2016 article by Christopher Begley titled "The Lost White City of the Honduras: Discovered Again (and Again)" provides an extensive, detailed analysis of the history of speculation about and expeditions in search of the White City. The article has not yet been revised to incorporate additional information from this publication.

A forthcoming book by Douglas Preston, to be published on January 3, 2017, is available in various online excerpts through Amazon.com. Editors of this article should be especially mindful both of copyright and of the particular perspective of the author, whose narrative is often at variance with those of professional archaeologists.

Hoopes (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References