Talk:Cuicuilco

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215073538/http://www.gobiernodigital.inah.gob.mx/ZonasArqueologicas/todas/htme/za00703.html to http://www.gobiernodigital.inah.gob.mx/ZonasArqueologicas/todas/htme/za00703.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113213505/http://swadesh.unam.mx/actualidades/actualidades/13/texto13/cuicuilco.html to http://swadesh.unam.mx/actualidades/Actualidades/13/texto13/cuicuilco.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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)