Talk:Pedra Furada

Archaeology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil: Geography Mid‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

disputed neutrality

The part of the article on authenticity does not seem entirely neutral and comes across as "weasely". This part of the article appears to criticise (North) Americans who doubt the authenticity without giving an explanation for why. Essentially this section's tone seems to be "the US is wrong because its jealous".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.135.230 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I agree about the neutrality issues, but I get a different read of the section. It seems like it is covering a specific argument that carried out in academic and general newspapers, and not covering a consensus view of the science. It should probably be renamed to something like "Authenticity discourse in public media" or "History of the site's challenges of authenticity". --— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 13:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of view of Mrs. Guidon, cited textually. She doesn't use weasel words, but attribute explicitly to jealousy and hurt pride the fact that only European scholars accept the evidence, repeatedly tested. My reading of the criticisms, all of them provided by North American scholars, is the same as the one of 217.137.135.230: American archaeologists seem to be unable to cope with other discoveries that discredit the many articles written about "Clovis first", which has been the point of view of the American archaeological community for many decades. They reject the discovery without providing hard evidence, as Mrs. Guidon words explain clearly to anyone that wants to hear her. Frankly, it is a shame the lack of interest in earlier South American sites, which have sprung lately, from old sites in Chile to the older city in the world in Peru, older than Middle East cities. I guess it only shows that the research funds are not directed toward South America, nor there are any intentions to do so. As a minimum you would expect people trying to disprove evidence that has been accepted and, thus, refereed in Nature magazine for 30 years now with some hard evidence. The lack of mention of this site even in the article about the migration of the Americas shows to me, very clearly, the lack of interest in this kind of research.--Ciroa (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're entirely missing the point. Who is right is rather meaningless, the section of the article is devoted to understanding the debate between the two sides, and the contention is that the current material is not presented neutrally. Now I would say that at a minimum, the paragraph is a run-on grammatical nightmare and warrants a clean up right there, but as well the quotes ramble and reek of anecdotal evidence. Even if the Americans are being as petty as you clearly think they are, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to document the specific intellectual failures of the scientists involved in a subject, it is to document the controversy. Quoting a french scientist putting down the Americans, no matter how contextual it may be, is probably not the most rigorous way to present evidence for the debate existing. At the least, simply saying that the debate has taken the form of these exchanges between the scientists would be much more in line with how a news article or other wikipedia article would treat such an issue. Your choice of words betrays you, objective information doesn't have a lot of room for the heavily subjective word "shame". I'll grant that perhaps one or two quotes maximum would give context and authenticity to the section, the section is basically built entirely from quotations as it stands right now, which regardless of neutrality is just bad writing.24.184.98.254 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-section "Authenticity" adds nothing to the section "Controversy" that it is meant to add to. The entire section could safely be deleted. If no one objects in the next few months (takes a while for me to bounce back to the talk page here!), I'll delete it. --— robbie ^{page talk} 15:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence seems to be mounting in favor of the pre-Clovis theory. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html If I were a proficient editor I would add material to the article, especially when the book discussed in the attached article is published. Perhaps a more proficient editor who tracks this page will undertake to do so. Jibbytot (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object, partially. The sub-section contains important and cited, verifiable information. All supposed POV bits are explicitly quotations attributable to specific individuals, so I see no problems with it. Perhaps what could be done is to add "replies" or cited info for the opposite point of view. Besides, I think this subsection should be incorporated into the larger "Controversy" section, since as you say it is not really something different from it. In fact I'll go ahead and do just that.KelilanK (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. The best quote you can list disputing the finding is "then by golly, why don't we have them in North America too?". Because all Americans are cowboys right? Look I could care less where the oldest site is found as long as its found and verified through consensus peer review which this site has not been yet. There is a valid controversy here but only showing one side of the argument is very disingenuous. Flag waving is for morons not scientists. Too bad another petty sorry wikipedia editor is showing the flaws of crowd sourcing anything. Dumas777 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction

On a side note, not involved with the point raised by 217.137.135.230, I find intriguing the possibility of failed migrations, noting, on a very particular and personal point of view that lacks any material proof, that the antiquity of the site plus its situation, upriver from the Atlantic coast of Brazil, close to the point where the Southern Atlantic ocean is narrower and where the Atlantic currents touch the Brazilian extreme eastern cape, points to a migration from Africa. By the way, this was the route followed by Christopher Columbus and all the European colonizers during the sail era, the only one practicable for primitive ships, from the Canary Islands towards the Americas. If I were an archaeologist, which I'm not, I would be digging around the western coast of Brazil. This African hypotheses is, of course, only mine, and right now, pure science fiction. I guess time will tell. --Ciroa (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not deletion

I do not agree with the planned full deletion of the "Authenticity" paragraph. A couple of relevant arguments seem to be given there, 1st. about the possible origin of the carbon vestigies found, and 2nd. about the possibility that tools were mimicked by natural processes. However it would be desirable to explicit first which specific criticisms have been opposed to Guidon's claimed evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.247.141.106 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pedra Furada. 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) 02:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disputed claims

I see that the citation was deleted by someone (from US): Guidon has said that "The carbon is not from a natural fire. It is only found inside the sites. You don't get natural fires inside the shelters" and adding that "The problem is that the Americans criticize without knowing. The problem is not mine. The problem is theirs. Americans should excavate more and write less".[21] French palaeolithic archaeologist Jacques Pelegrin, believes there is a possibility for natural processes creating flaked stones that could mimic the Pedra Furada specimens because of their simplicity, but he finds this very unlikely in this case because of continuous human presence in the site.[22]

This was deleted by someone (apparently an american) that took this as 'personal attack that doesn't belong to an encyclopedia'. This is a very silly argument as there is still the critic that american archeologysts did to the Pedra Furada ancient dating. So this is absolutely partial and POV, as brasilian scientis explained why she think about the non acceptance of the old site dating. This is her quote not from Jimbo Whales or any 'wikipedians' and you cannot forbide the report of such answers and counter-critics, it's like to delete any critic to anyone, Hitler included, just think about what Whilem II (the Kaiser) wrote about him (Hitler). And still this is accepted in an 'encyclopedia'.

So i restore the quote from Guidon, it's her responsability, we can report what she said and this is fine and alwasy will be. If some american is feeling hurt, then really mrs Guidon was right. Someone (US) can speak against someone else and made critics while others cannot even answer and explain why they are criticized, and it's not wikipedia fault if some discussion (even if academic) are so personal. Sorry wikipedians, there is not a 'wikilove' spread all around the world (outside wikipedia), so we must take account of this issues too without censor some not wiki-love statements.

PS the simian hypotesis is really absurd if you ask to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seems incoherent

"Michael R. Waters, a geoarchaeologist at Texas A&M University noted the absence of genetic evidence in modern populations to support Guidon's claim.[27] The Buttermilk Creek Complex in Texas was discovered in 2006 and dated at about 15,500 BP. [28]" -- What does the second sentence have to do with the first?Kdammers (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]