Talk:Blythe Intaglios

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Svixmere.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Age and Origins
There is no evidence to support the dating of the features specifically to 1000 CE or 450 or 10,000 years ago. This is pure speculation, and as such, it should be omitted.

There is no basis for writing that the features were "most likely created by Mohave and Quechan Indians." At least if the geoglyphs date to earlier than the 1830s, a Mohave or Quechan origin is unlikely. The area's inhabitants during the 18th century were the Halchidhoma, who subsequently moved to the middle Gila River. The area's inhabitants in the early 17th century were the Bahacecha, who subsequently disappear from the historical record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyme4 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhyme4, you deleted a source that dated the glyphs. Why? Although the BLM says they can't be dated, Dorn's work on desert varnish "resulted in plausible dates between 1,060 ± 65 and 1,195 ± 65 years B.P. (Dorn et al.1992).. This source cites that date, and says they were made by Yuman-speaking people. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The previous version of the article didn't include any citation of the work by Dorn et al. I'll add that to the article. As for the claim that the geoglyphs were made by Yuman-speaking people, that's pure speculation (although it's not implausible). Rhyme4 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've used the von Werlhof et al. 1995 citation, since it's more recent and based on radiocarbon dates, rather than Dorn et al., since varnish dating is widely regarded as unreliable. Rhyme4 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that. As for Yuman-speaking, we should simply state that so-and-so suggests that .... Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Omission, copied from article
An IP unable to edit the talk page on their mobile and stating that in their edit summary wrote "Thisarticle does not discuss the separate but nearby intaglios of Kokopilli and Cicimitl, considered to be part of the Blythe Intaglios". Doug Weller talk 17:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Blythe Intaglios. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050519080112/http://www.recreation.gov:80/detail.cfm?ID=2050 to http://www.recreation.gov/detail.cfm?ID=2050
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907020243/http://www.blm.gov/az/cultural/intaglios.htm to http://www.blm.gov/az/cultural/intaglios.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Updating Article for School Assignment
Hello, I'm updating the article for a school assignment. Feel free to make any corrections necessary Svixmere (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Rediscovery Section images
The two Rediscovery images are captioned 1 Oct 2016 and 2 Oct 2016 respectively. What is the point of this scenario? Are the caption dates incorrect? SquashEngineer (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the dates are correct (I took those photos). They just should not have been put in the "Rediscovery" section.  (An earlier edit did this in a attempt to 'spread the images around'.)  I've moved them now, so that they now appear at the end of the lead section. Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)