Talk:La Ciudad Blanca/Archive 2

History of exploration
In 2001 there was an expedition to Mosquitia led by Ray Mears, renowned expert in expeditions, bushcraft and aboriginal survival skills, along with actor Ewan McGregor. This video is on Youtube. They found traces of this civilization: roads paved with slabs of stone, stone containers, tables, carved stones... This is the link to the video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1W7XwYGKk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.4.123 (talk • contribs) 11:05, November 28, 2012‎
 * Mentioned @ 17:50-- Auric 14:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added references to "Jungle" Jim Ewing and Ted Maschal (a.k.a. Ted Danger), explorers and aspiring filmmakers who popularized the search for Ciudad Blanca in the early 1990s. Additional citations to newspaper and magazine articles about their work can be provided if necessary. Hoopes (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jungleland
The sections on Christopher Stewart's expedition and popular book should be expanded with more specific references to his methodology, where he traveled, what he found, and what (if anything) his work contributed to the legend. Hoopes (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see more content in this article from Stewart's recent book, which seems likely to play a significant role in contributing to the legend of Ciudad Blanca. I have not yet had access to this source, so contributions from an editor who does would be welcome and would help add a variety of perspectives on this topic. Hoopes (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation Requirements
I'm unclear on what is being requested in the way of a citation for the following:

"There are several pre-Hispanic sites with significant architectural structures in this area, among them Guayabo de Turrialba and Las Mercedes in Costa Rica and Ciudad Perdida and Pueblito (in Tayrona National Natural Park) in Colombia.[citation needed]"

The existing, hyperlinked Wikipedia articles in this passage and the citations provided within them make it clear that these sites have significant architectural structures and are located in the cultural-geographic unit known as Isthmo-Colombian Area, which includes both Costa Rica and Colombia as well as eastern Honduras (for which sources are cited in that article). What additional citation is needed?

Another question: Many of the citations in this article reference a recent, popular article in the New Yorker magazine by Douglas Preston rather than the original source material to which Preston himself refers (such as the New York Times article about Morde). Wouldn't it be preferable to cite the original sources of this information, especially when using direct quotations?


 * Wikipedia is never a valid source, so a hyperlink is not a substitution for a source... Of course, it would be preferable to cite the NYT directly. However, it's not a big deal unless you think Preston is making stuff up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Preston is making stuff up, but I do think he is being selective about how he presents the (uncited) source material. He is a popular writer, not a scientist, and his article in the New Yorker provides no citations of primary material, including sources on Morde. I realize that a hyperlink is not a substitution for a source, but you seem to be saying that a source in a hyperlinked Wikipedia article must be repeated in the article that contains the hyperlink in order for the point in the hyperlinked article to be make again. Is that correct? I still don't understand what citation(s) would be needed to assert that well-known sites in Costa Rica and Colombia are actually located in those countries and that those countries are actually part of an established cultural-geographic unit. Are you seeking references to additional sources for every fact in the article? Hoopes (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they need repeated. I tagged uncited paragraphs.  Every fact should be supported. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you may disagree, but I think it's fairly obvious that Theodore Morde is an extremely unreliable source. From what I can tell, he was an explorer and spy with no archaeological credentials whatsoever who was funded by George Heye to bring huge collections of undocumented artifacts back from Honduras. His story of a "City of the Monkey God" seems likely to be a complete fabrication designed to titillate investors, generate news stories, sell his book, and generate buzz at upscale cocktail parties. (There are no references that I know to any "Monkey God" in either Mesoamerica or Central America, although Hanuman is a popular Hindu monkey deity.) The quality of Morde's scientific contributions seems to be nil, so we are probably fortunate that he never returned to Honduras to damage any archaeological sites. If a moderately reliable source (Douglas Preston) cites a mostly unreliable source (Theodore Morde), does that somehow make it reliable? Shouldn't preference be given to the most reliable sources, namely doctoral dissertations from accredited universities, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and books published by reputable university presses? Hoopes (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, the only thing Morde is cited for is Morde's story. There is no illusion that it is true. You can not deny that his story, whether completely made up or only exaggerated, is an important part of the legend's history.  This is not an article about meso-American archaeology (there are several on Wikipedia though) but rather the history of a cultural phenomenon (legend) that relates to archaeology.  And, I don't think you will find too many academic sources talking about the legend.  (Although I have tracked down one written by Begley and published in some obscure journal, which I have requested on inter-library loan.)  Plenty talking about real archaeology in the region, sure, but again that is not the subject of these article.
 * Also, it seems he did not become a spy until after his Honduran visit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I count no less than 4 qualifying phrases ("reported", "claimed", "according to legend", "supposed"), or five if you count "adventurer", in the two paragraphs about Morde. I don't think it could be more clear that what is written about is a story he told, not anything resembling archaeology. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but discussions of the thousands of artifacts that Morde supposedly brought back from Honduras for the Heye Foundation should not be considered proof that he found any "lost city." It seems likely that the objects he exported were not the result of excavations (much less scientific excavations), but perhaps purchases of objects with unknown provenience. Hoopes (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are getting at, as the article certainly does not speak of "proof" of anything. However, it obviously relevant that he brought back artifacts.  There is a big difference between a story only and a story + artifacts.  As to the source of the artifacts, that is pure speculation on your part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you've restored the assertion, "archaeologists have come to realize that the pre-Columbian peoples of Mosquitia were a lot more sophisticated than previously thought," you need to provide a source for that. A lot more sophisticated that who previously thought? When? ("Previously" can mean centuries, decades, years, days, or minutes ago.) Some clarification of what you mean by "sophisticated" would be helpful, as well as some parameters of time. More sophisticated at the supposed time of occupation of Ciudad Blanca? (And when would that have been?) More sophisticated in Paleoindian times? Note that I removed this sentence because it is relatively meaningless as it stands. You must justify its inclusion or remove it as something that reflects your own opinion and POV. Hoopes (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not my POV. I know the concept is difficult for you to understand, but I am just reporting what the sources say - not my opinion on anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another ad hominem. Will they never cease? Please stop the personal attacks. Read what I wrote: "You must justify its inclusion or remove it" is the part that matters most. If you can't, it's POV. Hoopes (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Says the master of ad hominem attacks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Say you in yet another ad hominem attack. Please stop. Hoopes (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The irony here is amazing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by Hoopes
As long as a third party is coming here, someone needs to tell Hoopes in no uncertain terms that it is not acceptable to repeatedly assume by bad faith about another editor. Even if I am wrong about every point in dispute (and I don't even know what those are at this point), it is not acceptable to continually assert that I am editing to push a POV and refusing to believe anything I say about myself. I have denied these false claims more than a dozen times and yet they keep being repeated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you are pushing a POV is one of the issues that needs to be determined by a third party. It is one thing to assume by bad faith and another to have the impression of bad faith confirmed over and over by what appear to be statements and changes made in bad faith. At that point, it is not something assumed but rather taken for granted. If User:ThaddeusB is actually not acting in bad faith, then he should make a concerted effort to participate in and honor discussions on the article's talk page before reverting changes that have been made in good faith by other editors. Hoopes (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the perfect example of what I am talking about. User:Hoopes thinks I am acting in bad faitgh, so it is not a personal attack (according to him) to say it over and over and over and over and over again.  What a joke.  And for the record, I have participated in every single discussion on this page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no. What I wrote was, "If User:ThaddeusB is actually not acting in bad faith, then he should make a concerted effort to participate in and honor discussions on the article's talk page before reverting changes that have been made in good faith by other editors." While you have participated in the discussions, you have also reverted changes without discussing them. I think what's required is a moratorium on either you or I editing this article until we have some third party responses either from administrators or others. Until then, the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss differences of interpretation or opinion. If you are not acting in bad faith, then you will honor this request until third party mediation occurs. If you don't, then I will presume bad faith. By the way, comments such as "What a joke" are not appreciated and contribute to what I interpret as a pattern of hostility. Hoopes (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting "if" in front of an attack, is a word trick. It does not negate the attack in actuality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no. It's not a "word trick" at all. It's what the words actually mean. Saying "if you are wrong" is not the same as saying "you are wrong." Hoopes (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Archaeologists and their areas of specialization
Saying one person specializes in the archaeology of Honduras (and even eastern Honduras) while another specializes in the archaeology of Mexico (and even Michoacán, Mexico) is a significant distinction. While the analogy is imperfect, saying someone is a specialist in Mesoamerica is like saying they are a specialist in Europe. The differences between specialists in the UK and Romania are significant. Furthermore, note that the part of Honduras in which Ciudad Blanca is rumored to exist is not a part of Mesoamerica, although it may have been influenced by distant Mesoamerican cultures. Hoopes (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Part of the reason the distinction matters is because the archaeological features and architectural styles of Mexico, and especially Michoacán, are radically different from those of the Isthmo-Colombian area. Someone who is familiar with one may mistakenly identify the features found in another. The same is true for settlement patterns and the recognition of "cities". These are issues that matter. Hoopes (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) The statements about Joyce and Fisher that you changed were not inaccurate. They were absolutely correct. You are making arbitrary decisions based on your own ignorance and are reducing, not increasing, the quality of this article. Hoopes (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The descriptions are inaccurate. Neither describes themselves the way you do.  Both have done research related to multiple countries. Their areas come from your original research about their qualifications, not reality.  It is a great example of your POV pushing that Fisher is unqualified and Joyce is high qualified. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not my POV that Fisher is unqualified and Joyce is highly qualified and you are being disingenuous to claim that. Fisher is highly qualified with respect to the use of LiDAR to identify archaeological features under heavy vegetation and Joyce is highly qualified in issues pertaining to the archaeology of Honduras. However, Fisher has never done fieldwork in eastern Honduras--an area whose archaeology is quite different from that of his main area of emphasis in Mexico--and Joyce (a more senior researcher) also has experience with interpreting LiDAR imagery. You are inserting your own POV in attempting to portray them as individuals with no differences or distinctions in their qualifications, information that would run counter to the narrative that it seems you are attempting to support--that the UTL team has actually found a "lost city" that might be the one mentioned in a "legend of Ciudad Blanca." Hoopes (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As usual your assumption about my motives is false. The description of Fisher's expertise comes from you and no one else. When I asked for a source, you claimed it was ridiculous to ask for one.  The description of his expertise is even disputed by the man himself.  Yet you insist you are right. If that isn't inserting your POV, I don't know what is.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are saying (including your snide "as usual" comment) is hostile and incorrect. When you asked for a source, I did not claim it was ridiculous to ask for one. (Read the first comments in the talk page section on "Fisher.") In fact, I provided one (to his own website). What I said was ridiculous was your unwillingness to identify as an expert someone who was a tenured professor with a particular area of specialization. (Also known as expertise.) You say the description of his expertise is disputed by the man himself. Do you have a source for that? Hoopes (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I have not made an assumption about your motives. What I said was that "it seems you are attempting to support" a particular narrative. To me it actually seems that way, but that I am not assuming that is true. If it is false, then please make that clear. I have doubts and would like to be persuaded that what seems is not actually what is. (It is the latter that would be an assumption.) This is at the heart of why I think you are pushing a POV. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. To be as clear as possible, please assure me that you are NOT attempting to support a narrative that the UTL team has actually found a "lost city" that might be the one mentioned in a "legend of Ciudad Blanca." I would be much more comfortable with your edits if I could believe that. Hoopes (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (As I said previously more than once), I 100% absolutely am not trying to push a narrative that the UTL team found la Ciudad Blanca. My actual interest was (pretty much gone now) to get to the bottom of where the legend came from (as much as possible) and to correct the many inaccuracies surrounding it found in careless sources.  I was made aware of it because of the UTL news coverage (not Preston's article) sure, but no I don't think "the White City" is what UTL found.  My aim on all my edits on all articles I edit is to accurately reflect what sources say, not push my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources used to support the sentence are Preston's article (which I know does not say anything about Fisher being a Mexican specialist) and a LA Times article which describes Fisher merely as an archeologist with no specialization listed. The article is about a Mexican site, but it is you who makes the jump from "studied this Mexican site" to "specializes in Mexico". --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Preston may not mention Fisher's specialization, but I provided a citation to Fisher's own website. You are making meaningless semantic distinctions. Maybe you have a basis for complaint in saying that reading Fisher's website to find out what he specializes in is an example of original research using primary sources, but that seems really trivial. Hoopes (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And "Fisher's own website" Clearly says Mesoamerican, not Mexican. --ThaddeusB (talk)!
 * Fine. If you want to go with "Mesoamerican" instead of "Mexican" for Fisher, go ahead. The reason I used "Mexican" was to create a parallel construction with "Honduran" for Joyce. All of Michoacán is in Mexico and most of Mexico (including Michoacán) is in Mesoamerica. All of Honduras is not in Mesoamerica. Hoopes (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to edit the article again until the arguments die down. However, if you now realize you misremembered your source (LA Times, not Fisher's personal website) and agree that categorizing him as a Mexican specialist unfairly diminishes his authority, then please make the edit yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that categorizing Fisher as a Mexican specialist unfairly diminishes his authority, but I have made an edit myself citing a reliable source on his geographic area of specialization. I hope that will be satisfactory. Hoopes (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No further diminishing his area of study by using a popular science website while ignoring his own website does not in any way address my concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is an excellent example of why it is important to use sources about Ciudad Blanca specifically whenever possible. As used in the original article, the descriptor is a compliment on Fisher's ability to assess the Mexican archaeology in question.  As used here, it subtly undermines his ability to assess Honduran archaeology.  In other words, it is an unfair synthesis on your part.  (And the characterization clearly does diminish his authority or you wouldn't have described the edit by saying "The distinction is significant.") --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wonder whether I have any knowledge of these things, you can check my own background and areas of specialization. Hoopes (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware that you feel your personal background gives your opinions special authority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like User:Example is a giant douchebag who wants to destroy Wikipedia! (Don't worry, there is no personal attack here I only said it seems like his is a douchebag, not that he is one.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in here - I would indeed prefer not to be labeled as a 'Mexican' specialist. I find it to be inaccurate and limiting. Mexico and Mesoamerica do not reference the same geographic region. Mesoamerica includes parts of Mexico, but also of course many other Latin American countries including Honduras. Sometimes the phrase 'Mexican specialist' is used to refer to a scholar that studies colonial or post-colonial Mexico - 100% not my area of expertise. Also, though I have worked and published on prehistoric societies at the northern Mesoamerican frontier (Zacatecas) my knowledge stops there and does not include the vast regions of Mexico to the north. A more apt description might be a Highland Mesoamerican scholar though I do have experience in the Lowlands. And of course as a Mesoamerican scholar that is dedicated to a comparative approach I try and keep abreast (as best as one can) of the academic literature from throughout the region - not just Michoacán for example - including the northern and southern frontiers. I also reserve the right to research the archaeological record globally to better understand anthropological questions that may interest me. As such I have also worked in and published on the European and North American archaeological record. Therefore, if I must be labeled, it should be as a Mesoamerican specialist.

In terms of Rosemary Joyce, though I am uncomfortable speaking for her, I would assume that same would apply. It seems to me that labeling her as a 'Honduran' rather then 'Mesoamerican' specialist has the effect of diminishing her extensive contribution. Tariacuri (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications. According to ThaddeusB, we must use what is reported in secondary sources and provide citations for those. Hoopes (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB has also made it quite clear that it is important to use relevant sources. What you have done is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH.  By taking a comment in a news article about Mexico intended to be a compliment (i.e. that Fisher is qualified to talk about the archaeology in the article) and applying in to an unrelated context (Honduran archaeology) who have created a situation where the implication (he is less qualified to talk about the archaeology in question) that is not supported by any source.  That is the definition of original research by synthesis. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I think you are mistaken. I fail to see how I have created a situation where there is any implication that he is less qualified to talk about the archaeology in question, an interpretation that reflects your personal prejudices and POV rather than anything in the content of the article. You are reading conclusions into my citation that are not there. There is no WP:SYNTH content, so you are mistaken. Making edits on the basis of your personal interpretations of "implications" rather than the actual content of the article and what's actually said in the article is what I'm referring to as heavy-handed application of your own POV. That is inappropriate. Hoopes (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source used is about an unrelated project. The description used there doesn't automatically apply everywhere and to force it to is synthesis. The fact that you insist this information is important pretty clearly indicates that it does lead to an unfair conclusion just like "Tariacuri" (aka Chris Fisher) says. 140.254.45.34 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not an unrelated project. In fact, it is the project that established Fisher's authority on interpretations of LiDAR imagery for identifying architectural features under dense vegetation. There is no implication of an unfair conclusion. A specialist in Mesoamerica can be identified as a specialist in the ancient Maya without diminishing their general area of expertise. Similarly, a specialist in Mesoamerica can be identified as a specialist in West Mexico without diminishing their general area of expertise. Identifying someone as a specialist in Honduras does not imply that they do not have expertise in Mesoamerica any more than saying that someone who is a specialist in Mars does not have expertise in planets. Hoopes (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't matter, why do you insist on pushing it. Fisher's own website and his words above dispute your POV.  The source you used is verifiable false - Fisher does not specialize in Mexico.  Why do you insist on including this falsehood if it is not to diminish Fisher's ability? 140.254.45.34 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So which is it Hoopes? First you say "The distinction is significant" between being a specialist in Mexico and Mesoamerica. Now you say it does not imply anything. The information you wish to include is synthesis, despite your insistence it is not, but more importantly it simply is incorrect. Fisher is a much better source for Fisher's area of specialization than some random news article. Furthermore, the relevant information is included in the very next sentence. The two sentence combination
 * "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."

is both more direct (less redundant) and more accurate than the two sentence combination you are pushing
 * "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a specialist in Western Mexico and LiDAR applications, joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."

Again Fisher is not a specialist is Western Mexico; nor he is a specialist in LiDAR. His own website makes no such claims; his own words above directly contradict this assertion. And if you still don't believe it, check his published work - it most certainly is not exclusively or primarily about Mexico. Yes a reliable source said he was a specialist in Western Mexico. However, better sources say otherwise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC) OK guys. I want to help here but I don't feel like wading through 10,000 words of invective. The issue here is sources. What sources are you using? Can you quote them? If you're not using sources, then I don't want to know.  Serendi pod ous  17:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, Fisher is both a specialist in Western Mexico and a specialist in LiDAR. In fact, it was because he is a specialist in LiDAR that he became a member of the UTL team. I really don't know how you're interpreting the phrase "a specialist in," since a person can have many areas of expertise. What Fisher said in his comments is that he doesn't want to be identified as "a specialist in Mexican archaeology." That completely makes since, because Mexican archaeology is a huge field. It's such a general identification as to be virtually meaningless when it's said that someone "specializes" in it, in part because territories of cultures such as the ancient Maya go well beyond Mexico into Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. However, saying someone is a specialist in Western Mexico (or even a specialist in Tarascan culture) is more useful because it is more focused. Regardless, any identification must be supported by a source. If there were a source that said Fisher specialized in Tarascan culture (a.k.a. Purépecha people), I would use that. However, the full quote from the source that I have provided says, "An archaeologist specializing in Western Mexico, Fisher studies the way environments affect and change cultures. LiDAR has helped him repaint the picture of ancient Mexico, bringing the little-known Purepecha empire a lot more historical prominence." If you have a different source that provides alternative facts, please cite it. I don't think it's fair to remove information because it doesn't represent your personal POV. As User:Serendipodous points out, the issue here is sources. If User:ThaddeusB is making his own interpretation based on his own reading of Fisher's list of publications and comments that Fisher has posted in the talk section of this article, that is WP:OR and does not belong. Hoopes (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hoopes wishes to have this wording:
 * "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a specialist in Western Mexico and LiDAR applications, joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."
 * based on this source about a Mexican project of Fisher's ("An archaeologist specializing in Western Mexico, Fisher studies the way environments affect and change cultures."). My position is that the context of that article makes the statement a compliment, but when it is applied to a different context, the statement gives the wrong impression. Chris Fisher himself has said above that this is an inaccurate description of his work. ("I would indeed prefer not to be labeled as a 'Mexican' specialist.  I find it to be inaccurate and limiting.")  I propose the following simplification which does not take a position on his area of study:
 * "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data."
 * In addition to Fisher's own words, his website says he studies Mesoamerica in general, not specifically Mexico. ("Dr. Fisher has active research projects in two areas of Mesoamerica"). A listing of his published work shows that most items are not specific to Mexico (a GScholar search shows likewise).  Additionally, the relevant part of the material (that Fisher has used LiDAR before and where) is already conveyed in the second sentence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are now engaging in original research rather than citing a published source. If you have a reliable published source identifying Fisher in the general way that you think he should be identified, then please cite it, which is what you requested that I do (and what I did in response to your request). By interpreting primary material, you are engaging in WP:OR. Furthermore, removing a reference to his focus on West Mexico (the Purépecha) diminishes, not increases, the information quality of this article. There is no reason he cannot be identified as someone who studies "Mesoamerica in general" as well as being someone who is "a specialist in Western Mexico" (as was stated in the source that I cited). Both are factually correct and represent WP:NPOV rather than your personal interpretation. However, as you have repeatedly insisted, assertions must be backed up by reference to specific sources. Hoopes (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, why is this an issue? Does it really matter? You both agree that this person is a Mesoamerican scholar; is there some specific reason to mention his specialisation? Other than that, I mostly agree with Hoopes. ThaddeusB's sourcing borders on synthesis and original research, so if it must be included, I'd prefer a direct source like Hoopes's.  Serendi pod ous  19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reread, I am advocating to not take a position on his specialization (which is what you seem to be saying, yet you "agree" with Hoopes). The above info was cited to prove Hoopes' source is wrong, not to be included in the article.  My position is to stick with what dircetly relevant sources say about his specialization - which is nothing.  As to why it is important, Hoopes' edit summary to (re)-add the specialization says there is a big difference between Mexico and Mesoamerica.  Chris Fisher himself agrees and says the description provided by Hoopes is wrong.  Should we take an out of context description by a reporter as authoritative while ignoring Fisher's own comment? Or should we stick to what sources about La Ciudad Blanca have to say on the matter which is simply that he is an archeologist with experience using LiDAR? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, The reliable source I used to support my edit describes Fisher precisely as I do - simply as "an archeologist" with no further qualification. The same is true about every other news article about Ciudad Blanca - not a single one describes Fisher as a Mexican specialist, but instead call him "an archeologist". The only source for this supposed Mexican specialization is an older article on a Mexican project. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear; I would prefer a wording that left out the man's specialisation entirely (even simply calling him an "archaeologist" would be good enough). But if the subject must be broached at all, then I would prefer a direct source, like the one Hoopes provided.  Serendi pod ous  20:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am 100% in agreement that the specialization bit should be left off and removed it per your suggestion. Unfortunately, Hoopes has restored it and tweaked it to read "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico". This does not fix my concerns (and is less consistent with the source).  I you could please (re-)remove the material yourself, I would appreciate it as I do not wish to revert any further. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that an appropriate decision about how best to handle this--with or without any edit--should be made by a party other than ThaddeusB or myself. I will not revert any changes that are made by an identifiable third party who understands the issues and is able to honor WP:NPOV and WP:OR. This would recognize that only paying attention to the concerns of ThaddeusB is not neutral. (It's my own feeling that the "Mesoamerican specialist" identification requires a source, as has been provided for reference to the direct quote, "An archaeologist specializing in Western Mexico," but I'm willing to compromise by not insisting on that.) Our agreeing to this would represent a true consensus. Hoopes (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you have just said anyone who disagrees with you (supports my conclusion) either doesn't understand the issue or is non-neutral, right? I'm sorry but that is not how things work.  You don't get to decide someone is non-neutral\doesn't understand the issues because you don't like their conclusion.
 * And you have again misrepresented by position. I do not wish to say Fisher is a "Mesoamerican specialist"  - I wish to say nothing at all.  The dispute is between "archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a specialist in Western Mexico. joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico..." and "archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico..."  The only difference is you want (some version of) the bold part and I do not.  Adding more words is not a compromise; it is just a different version of the same thing.  Serendipodous if you still prefer the version w/o the added words, can you make the edit?  If I make the edit, Hoopes will revert it and claim I misunderstood your words.  The relevant section is here. (Note the current wording is "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico") --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * Well, no. The dispute is whether or not to change the current wording (including the citation): "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico, joined the UTL project." You say you "wish to say nothing at all" based on your own WP:OR and I wish to include wording and information (including the citation to Fisher's previous research in Western Mexico) from a cited source that strengthens the quality of the article. Since we are each claiming that the other's position violates WP:NPOV, the issue should be settled by an experienced and objective Wikipedia administrator. Hoopes (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources about Ciudad Blanca say nothign about Fisher's qualifications. We should do likewise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite my request that the issue be settled by an experienced and objective Wikipedia administrator, User:ThaddeusB has just gone ahead and made the reversion anyway. As I've pointed out, this change is being made on the basis of his violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. This is, for me, evidence of WP:ABF on his part, which is unacceptable. Hoopes (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This statement is false. Hoopes most recent wording is still in the article.  False accusations of wrong doing are unacceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is correct. What I assumed was incorrect. I saw the reversion on the history page and assumed it was the one we'd been discussing. I apologize for the mistake. I was wrong and that was a violation of WP:GF on my part. However, it was yet another reversion of my edits. Hoopes (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to mediate
Both you guys need to calm the frigging heck down. I've glanced at the last few edits, and as far as I can tell this dispute revolves around two points: 1. Whether information from an article in the New Yorker written by Preston should be mentioned in the text. 2. Whether Fisher and Joyce should be credited simply as Mesoamerican scholars or specifically as scholars of their respective specialisations.

Let me be clear here: this is an exceptionally minor content dispute. The kind of ink both of you have been wasting is what we normally see wasted on religious or nationalist issues. None of the edits that I have seen (granted, I've only glanced at the list) has adversely affected the article to any vast degree. That said, here is my opinion: 1. The New Yorker is a valid source; however, much of the details regarding the finer points of the expedition are irrelevant and better left to a biographical article on Elkins. 2. Fisher and Joyce should be credited as far as the sources allow. If valid sources say that they specialise in specific areas, then they should be credited in those areas. If they don't say that, then they shouldn't be.

I'm sure there are other issues at stake here, but from what I've seen, that's where I stand. Now I think both of you need to take a breather before coming back to this.  Serendi pod ous  06:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The list of disputed points are a few sections above ("Points of agreement dispute"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re:should the article focus on myth or archaeology? The answer is neither. It should give coverage to both, as both are notable. Wikipedia is not an academic journal; it is intended for the generalist lay reader and so should be as broad in coverage as possible. That said, there should be a solid foundation of academic material on which to layer a more populist glaze, as it were.  Serendi pod ous  06:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate your attention and your input and agree with all you've said. It's nice to have another experienced editor involved. Any recommendations you have on how best to handle the issues of "legend" or "myth" or "rumor" or whatever this is with WP:NPOV would be especially helpful. Hoopes (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The availabel sources overwhelmingly (almost exclusively) use "legend". NPOV usually means sticking to what the sources say.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who took Classical Greek and Anglo-Saxon/Old Norse in college, this, as far as I can tell, is a legend, because it is tied to a specific place and time. A myth, strictly speaking, is an account of how the present world came to be (not necessarily a creation myth; UFO conspiracy theories fit the description as well). A "rumour" implies that there is some plausibility to its existence.  Serendi pod  ous  14:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not consistent with the (non-authoritative) definition of legend in Wikipedia itself, which specifies that a legend is based on a narrative. Can a narrative consist of only vague mentions in the form of a sentence or two here and there, or mustn't there be an actual story that constitutes the legend? My concern is that this Wikipedia article, created in June 2012 after sensational press, is actually contributing to an elaborate house of cards that has no firm foundation. That is, although there are allusions to a "legend," there is actually no legend. There is no specific place (other than general references to rainforest areas of eastern Honduras) or any specific time other than the general pre-Hispanic period. At least, not until the 1990s. If the "legend" is that recent--and if it is one that has actually been fabricated in the media--does it actually qualify as a legend? Also, if it is a recent fabrication, is it notable? (As you'll see, this had some similarities to the 2012 phenomenon, in which Maya "prophecies" claimed to be ancient were not actual ancient Maya prophecies but fabrications appearing in recent popular literature or based on recent statements.) Hoopes (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Mosquitia region of Honduras is a fairly specific location - more specific than anything said about El Dorado, for example - and it was established as the place of Ciudad Blanca by 1925 at the latest.  As you have yourself said, there are multiple definitions of legend.  Just because it may (or may not) fail to fit one definition exactly doesn't mean it fails every definition of legend.  (And I am willing to take the testimony of people who work in the region that there are specific narratives told by Honduran people/children, even if those authorities have not published an example of the story word for word. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Legends grow fast. They always have. Antiquity has little to do with whether or not something is a legend. Plenty of modern legends, such conspiracies re: 9/11 or the World Trade Center bombing, started almost immediately. Many legends, such as the legend of Paul Bunyan, are far younger than you might think. As far as narrative goes, well there are plenty of narratives mentioned in the article. Think about King Arthur. He's a legendary figure, but there are very few stories attached to him from the start; most of the stories we associate with him were invented or elaborated by later writers.  Serendi pod ous  18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My question is not whether Ciudad Blanca has become a legend, but whether it existed as a narrative (not just a mention) before the 1990s. It strikes me that a possible parallel to Ciudad Blanca is discussion over the reality and location of Smallville. In today's news, a story titled Location of Superman’s hometown sparks geographic divide highlights some of that controversy. As with Smallville, Ciudad Blanca is an imaginary place whose reality and location seems likely to always be a matter of interpretation. However, there is far more detailed narrative associated with Smallville than there ever has been for Ciudad Blanca. Hoopes (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that La Ciudad Blanca is totally fictional? Or are you interpreting rumours and tall tales as deliberate fiction?  Serendi pod ous  17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think fiction is the right term for it, since Ciudad Blanca has only recently been featured in works of fiction (such as the 2012 film El Xendra). The term folklore is probably better. I do think that rumors have contributed to the growth of folklore, but note that "lore" is more diffuse than "tales." A tall tale is a story, but there is not really a story about Ciudad Blanca, only vague references to a place that is rumored to exist. I think the term "tall tales" implies that there are actual tales (i.e. narratives) that in this case don't actually exist any more than legends do. For example, we can identify clear narratives with respect to the cases of Paul Bunyan and Smallville, but that's not possible with Ciudad Blanca until the 1990s. Morde's narrative about the "City of the Monkey God" would be an example of a tall tale, but it's only later authors who suggest that what he was describing was tied to rumors of Ciudad Blanca. My principal concern is that the Wikipedia article is itself contributing to the active construction of a recent narrative. That said, I do think Ciudad Blanca is largely imaginary. You note, "As far as narrative goes, well there are plenty of narratives mentioned in the article." Yes, they are mentioned, but I would submit that these are actually unsubstantiated rumors of narratives that contribute to the house of cards argument that there is a legend. More documentation is required before the assertion that there was a legend prior to the 1990s is credible. Hoopes (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jesús Aguilar Paz wrote a 10 page article on the history of the legend in 1970, but I suppose the head of the Honduran Historical and Geological Society also doesn't know what he is talking about and it's really just a "myth" (as if there is even a material difference between "myth" and "legend"). And even if the legend originated after 1990, that would not make it any less notable, so I fail to see why we are even having this discussion.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If Jesús Aguilar Paz wrote a 10-page article on the history of the legend in 1970, then why haven't you included a summary of just it is he says that legend is? My question, "What is the legend?" hasn't yet been answered. I think explaining the legend is an essential part of this article, without which its underlying premise--that there actually is a legend--becomes questionable. I think that if the legend originated after 1990, that actually would make it less notable. Does every recent urban legend that generates widespread media coverage deserve its own article in Wikipedia? I tend to think not. Hoopes (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability in the Wikipedia sense is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not by how recent something is. I am not interested in discussing other definitions of notability.  I do not specifically recall if Paz gives an account of the legend or not, but I am more than willing to take his word that there is one.  I am also more than willing to take Begley's testimony that he has heard multiple versions of the legend...  The (popular) legend as I understand it is basically "A long time ago, before the Spanish came, there was a great city on the Honduran forest.  The city was the center of a great civilization and\or had great wealth.  The city was abandoned in a time of trouble. Remains persist to the present day, but no one has found them."  For the indigenous version replace "great city" with "important spiritual site", remove reference to wealth, and add "entry into the city is forbidden/no longer possible".  Different tellings throw in a few more details.  All of this, more or less, is what the article already says.  The only difference is that it also ties in Cortes' tale, which has been done by numerous people.  A legend doesn't need to be massive to be "legitimate".  Indeed, most legends are very brief. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that this is how you understand it, but what would the sources be for: 1) its being a "great city," 2) its being "the center of a great civilization," 3) its having "great wealth," 4) its being "abandoned in a time of trouble"? From what I can tell, none of these elements have been documented as having existed together in an identifiable narrative until the 1990s and afterwards with the work of Ted Maschal (a.k.a. Ted Danger), Christopher Stewart, Steve Elkins, and Douglas Preston and accompanying press releases and popular articles. As I've mentioned, I'm concerned that this Wikipedia article is lending support to the idea that a coherent narrative existed of a "legendary city" prior to its recent invention. I'm not saying that such a narrative (or multiple narratives) didn't exist, only that so far the sources that have been provided for the existence of a narrative (or narratives) have been inadequate and explanations of the legend(s) incomplete and unsatisfactory. Hoopes (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

References to Smallville really just confuse the issue. Smallville is a fictional town, not a legendary one. But what about legendary creatures, such as basilisks, dragons or griffons? Must a legendary creature have a narrative attached to it to be legendary? Regardless, La Ciudad Blanca is not a myth, at least not in the proper sense.  Serendi pod ous  17:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From the article on myth in the Simple English Wikipedia: "A myth is a story that may or may not be true. Myths are generally very old. This means there are no records or other proof that they happened. We know about them from older people telling them to younger people. Some myths may have started as 'true' stories but as people told and re-told them, they may have changed some parts, so they are less 'true'. They may have changed them by mistake, or to make them more interesting. All cultures have myths." If Ciudad Blanca is not a myth, it's because there is no "story" However, if even a simple allusion counts, it is a myth. Hoopes (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the issue of Smallville is pertinent. Yes, it began as a fictional town in Superman comic books, but the point of the recent article I cited is that people in Kansas, Iowa, and elsewhere are now arguing over the actual location of this fictional town, which I think makes it into a legendary one that is connected with a specific place (or places) and time. As for legendary creatures, my answer is yes, a legendary creature must have a narrative attached to it. There are narratives attached to all of your examples as well as to examples such as bigfoot. My point is not that there are no narratives attached to Ciudad Blanca, but that the narratives that have been identified in this article all date to the 1990s and later even though the article implies that there are earlier ones. Hoopes (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some legendary creatures, such as Pegasus or Chimera, have narratives attached to them; others, like the basilisk, do not, and simply exist in bestiaries. Regardless, there has to be SOME kind of narrative attached to this place, otherwise it would be just a name.  Serendi pod ous  19:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the narratives pertaining to legendary creatures such as the basilisk are very brief, there are at least useful descriptions of them that permit them to be identified. There is no description of "Ciudad Blanca" other than that it is a "city" that has been described as somehow being "white," qualities that exist solely in its name. I'm not sure that minimal allusion qualifies it as a "legendary place" in the category of Camelot or Shangri-La (derived from the mythical kingdom of Shambhala), all of which have clear narratives attached to them. Hoopes (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I want to know is whether a sentence or two constitutes a narrative. For example, I'm skeptical that the following constitutes a legend: "Once upon a time, before the Spanish came, there a 'white city' somewhere in the forests of eastern Honduras. People have looked for its ruins, but no one has ever found them." However, that seems to be the substance of the Ciudad Blanca narrative. Hoopes (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's also the rumor that, as with El Dorado, it has some gold. I think that's pretty much the whole of it. Hoopes (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more than a lot of legends. Until the fiction writers got ahold of him, the sum total of the Arthurian legend for most people was, "There was this guy, his name was Arthur. He died, but he and his men are asleep. When we REALLY need him again, he'll come back."  Serendi pod ous  07:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"City of the Monkey God" vs. "Ciudad Blanca"
User:ThaddeusB has reverted one of my edits on the basis of his interpretation that Theodore Morde equated what he called the "City of the Monkey God" with Ciudad Blanca. Unless an equivalence of the two can be demonstrated with a citation to a reliable source, interpreting what Morde referred to as the "City of the Monkey God" with Ciudad Blanca represents original research (WP:OR). A better approach would be to indicate the correct historical context for this association, assigning it to an appropriate source (such as the book by Stewart or the article by Preston). Hoopes (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not an accurate description of the edit. Hoopes added a parenthetical aside saying Morde didn't call it "Ciudad Blanca". This is of course true, but is also quite obvious from the fact he called it "City of the Monkey God" (which is stated multiple times in the short section).  We don't need a parenthetical to state the obvious - our readers are not that dumb - so I deleted it. If we want to talk about OR, technically it is OR to write "he didn't call it Ciudad Blanca" when that is not stated by a source in the article.  But again, it is completely obvious - there is simply no need to state it with or without a source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think it is "completely obvious" that Morde did not call it Ciudad Blanca. In fact, this is implied by identification of Morde's term as an alternative name for Ciudad Blanca in the lead. That's why I felt the clarification was necessary. Hoopes (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * i tweaked the wording: According to the letter Morde sent home, the "City of the Monkey God" was found in "an almost inaccessible area between the Paulaya and Plátano Rivers.  If that wording doesn't make it obvious what he called the "city", then I don't know what wording will. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tweaking the wording. I think that was a good solution and I think that was a good edit. Hoopes (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is obvious at all what he called the "city," especially since he never provided adequate documentation. Since we don't know where Ciudad Blanca is located, or whether it even exists, I think it is premature and an example of WP:OR to tie Morde's "city" with Ciudad Blanca except insofar as that has been done by recent authors such as Stewart and Preston. Given the available information, I don't think a connection is ever going to be "obvious." I think the best you could do is to provide a reliable source that asserts the location of Ciudad Blanca is also located "between the Paulaya and Plátano Rivers" and leave it at that. As other sources indicate, there are actually many archaeological sources in that large region. It is a leap of interpretation to equate Morde's "city" with one of those sites, especially when none of those sites (including ones identified with LiDAR) has been shown to have the features described by Morde. If tying Morde's "city" to Ciudad Blanca is something that other authors have done, then that is what must be stated and documented with sources. In order to remain neutral, the Wikipedia article should not present speculation as if it were fact. Hoopes (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain where specifically I have "inserted my personal POV" into the article. You like to make that accusation, but you never back it up with anything specific.  The article does not say it is "obviously the same city" - it says nothing about whether the sites are really the same or not.  RS do not say the two are different things, they choose to tie them together.  The fact that "later sources" tie the two together means that (guess what) RS tie the two together.  That is why it is included in this article.  You can argue it is the POV "of recent sources" all you want, but that is precisely what (neutral) Wikipedia articles are - the collective POV of all sources available. If most sources say X, we say X.  You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between my reporting of what RS say and what my POV is, so I will again say my (alleged) POV is not relevant, so please stop making assumptions about what it is.  Here, the sources tie the two together so we do too. It matter zero whether I (or you) think they should be tied together; the fact is that they are tied together. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Copied from the discussion on my talk page: There are a number of sources cited in the article that say that Ciudad Blanca doesn't exist and that reports of it probably don't refer to a single site. This is far from "the sources" implying the two are the same thing. Some quotations already in the article: 1) "Rosemary Joyce, a Mesoamerican specialist and expert on Honduran archaeology from UC Berkeley, called it 'big hype' and 'bad archaeology'. She added, 'there is no White City. The White City is a myth'; 2) "Hasemann believed that rather than a single Ciudad Blanca there might be multiple Ciudades Blancas in la Mosquitia"; 3) "Most professional archaeologists remain skeptical that the various legends surrounding Ciudad Blanca refer to a specific site"; 4) "When asked if Ciudad Blanca had been found, Fisher laughed and said 'I don't think there is a single Ciudad Blanca. I think there are many.' The legend may hold cultural meaning, he said, but for archeologists it is mostly a distraction." Note that none of these refer to Morde. You are relying upon select sources to support your own POV, which is asserting it as fact that Morde's "city" and Ciudad Blanca "are the same thing" when that is not a fact but an opinion expressed by cherry-picked sources. You are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. Hoopes (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article already makes it quite clear that most archeologists do not believe there ever was a place named Ciudad Blanca. I'm not sure what more you want.  Please stop making claims about my POV.  That is not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I refer to as your personal POV is your repeated editing of the article to reflect a POV in which it is implied, among other things, that: 1) there is actually a legend of Ciudad Blanca, 2) there is actually a "lost city" in eastern Honduras that has been called both "City of the Monkey God" and "Ciudad Blanca," 3) that the publication of speculation by popular authors establishes it as fact, not speculation, 4) that UTL LiDAR research has revealed the existence of a city, 5) that LiDAR investigators have found pyramids, 6) that the legend of Ciudad Blanca refers to an actual place that will be revealed by future investigations, 7) that you are editing this article to reflect a neutral point of view when in fact that is not the the case. Note that this is just a partial list. Hoopes (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of my POV is not helpful (and wrong). Please desist.  Address the content by pointing out specific things you want changed, not the editor (my alleged POV). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to desist. I would like to focus on the actual content of edits, not the individuals who are making them. As you have noted, that is the only way we will move forward. Hoopes (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why it matters
User:Serendipodous has asked the valid and significant question of why these edits and the content of this article matters. For what it's worth, today is the one-year anniversary of the first edit to this article, which was originally created on 8 June 2012. As the article itself indicates, there was increased interest in the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca following May 2012 press releases about LiDAR research. A second round of edits, initiated by User:ThaddeusB, was undertaken following another round of media coverage following additional May 2013 press releases and Douglas Preston's New Yorker article. This Wikipedia article is not only a result of active publicity about the "legend," but also runs the risk of actively contributing to it. It is inappropriate for pro-legend advocates to co-opt Wikipedia as a tool for promoting a specific POV, in particular one that creates a legend by connecting elements that had not previously been connected. It is also inappropriate for skeptics of legend-related claims to use Wikipedia to co-opt it for presenting a biased POV, one that represents a rejection of claims that are not based on established facts. What matters most is maintaining WP:NPOV in clarifying the facts so that Wikipedia readers can benefit from an informative, neutral discussion. The reality is that this article is the first item to appear at the top of Google searches on "Ciudad Blanca." It is therefore likely to shape future news reporting as well as scientific discourse. It must sustain neutrality while striving to be correct and informative. Hoopes (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Content from special series on Ciudad Blanca in El Heraldo
This article would benefit from content published in a special series on Ciudad Blanca published in the mainstream newspaper El Heraldo in Honduras last year. Although this source is in Spanish, it includes interviews with Gloria Lara Pinto, Chris Begley, myself, and a number of other individuals with expertise in the region. It is based in part on a special expedition undertaken by a team from El Heraldo to visit and document the region. Before I devote time to extracting and adding useful information from this source, are there any specific concerns? I really would like to avoid spending time adding content only to have it deleted or my edits reverted. Hoopes (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you give a brief outline of what would be added? Hard to know if anything would be objectionable without knowing what you plan to write. (No rush on an outline of course.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet had time to do this. I will provide a brief summary before adding to the article. Hoopes (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Begley's questions
Why was there no discussion on the talk page before deleting the following?

Begley has posed several questions that he thinks need to be asked of anyone claiming to have found Ciudad Blanca:
 * "First, which version of the legend are you using as a guide? The indigenous legends are very different from the popular versions you hear today."
 * "Second, what features of your discovery make you think it is THE lost city? None of the legends have any characteristics, traits, or identifying attributes of the Ciudad Blanca. How, then, can you claim to have found it? Just because it is a large site?"
 * "Third, are you sure your 'discovery' is not already well known to locals, and possibly even archaeologists? Do you have access to a list of all documented archaeological sites in the region and are sure this is not one of those?"

User:ThaddeusB has said that Begley's opinion should be stated. It is Begley's opinion that these questions need to be asked of anyone claiming to have found Ciudad Blanca. Therefore, this content should be permitted. Hoopes (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You boldly added them, I reverted, now we discuss. That is the normal cycle...  The article already states that popular and indigenous version vary (point 1). The article already states that there are no defining attributes to the city and so it can't be found in any meaningful sense (point 2).   The article already talk about the numerous archeological sites claimed to be the legendary city, that it is falsely "found" every 10 years, etc. (point 3)  What value does quoting the three questions add? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The principal value of these questions is that they demonstrate why archaeologists are skeptical about claims for the "discovery" of Ciudad Blanca, adding balance to an article that is heavily slanted with content from popular sources. The fact that these questions have been posed by Begley--the leading archaeological authority on the region--is significant. Hoopes (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The gist of the comments is relevant (and is included in the article). The precise wording of them is not important, so there is no need to quote them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Theodore Morde and the "City of the Monkey God"
The significance of Morde's expedition remains to be demonstrated. Many of the references in this section come from an obscure and sensational 1940 article in the tabloid The American Weekly, not from scientific literature. This would be similar to featuring content from the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. It is not a reliable source, as should be evident from the illustration, context, sensational tone, and content of the article. The lack of references to Morde in subsequent academic literature suggests his work was insignificant, even though interest in it has been revived by authors such as Stewart and Preston. This material referring to Morde's "City of the Monkey God" should be handled as one would handle sensational reports of UFO or bigfoot sightings. Hoopes (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The significance of Morde's writing is that later sources have tied it to the legend, which has clearly been demonstrated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but some context for Morde's original statements is appropriate. As we've noted, his was not a scientific expedition nor were his accounts of it contributions to science. He was engaging in pseudoarchaeology and later sources that build upon that, if they present his work as if it were archaeology, are also pseudoarchaeological. The original context contributes to clarifying that. Hoopes (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Morde's lurid description of the gruesome Dance of the Dead Monkeys, in which he explains how captured monkeys were impaled live on poles, roasted, and eaten (in which "the medicine man thrusts the hollow bamboo through the eye of the monkey into the brain and sucks up the brain fluids), makes the sensational nature of his writing quite clear. It is also deeply offensive with respect to his descriptions of indigenous culture. Hoopes (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't in this article, so it is unnecessary to state your opinion of it. Furthermore, being offensive is not a valid criteria for exclusion.--ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Morde's 1940 allusion to how the Honduran "Monkey God" sounded similar to Hanuman, who he likens to Paul Bunyan in that he assumed "gigantic size" and "strode from mountain top to mountain top," seems calculated to titillate audiences familiar with the 1933 movie King Kong, in which an explorer fights his way through the jungle to discover a giant ape to whom sacrifices are made by the local savages. In fact, it seems likely his "City of the Monkey God" story may have been inspired directly by King Kong. I realize that this is WP:OR, but the connection with the legend of King Kong seems to me to be as significant as the connection with the legend of Ciudad Blanca. This would be another way that the Ciudad Blanca story derives from Lost World references. Hoopes (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your OR might be interesting, but of course has no place in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to stick more closely to what the sources actually say, with direct quotations rather than paraphrase whose connotations depart from WP:NPOV. It is clear that later authors add their own spin to the already heavily spun tales published by Morde. Accurate, neutral language should be preferred unless adequate context for alternative interpretations and embellishments is provided. Otherwise, colorful hype, tall tales, exaggeration, and speculation appear as if they were facts. This should be avoided. Hoopes (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Direct quote of original sources have been used where appropriate. Paraphrase is also appropriate (and necessary for copyright reasons) at times.  Later interpretations of primary sources is also important to include at times.  I you have comments on specific parts of the article, please do share, but a general comment like this doesn't really convey what you want changed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope that my general comments provide a context for the specific edits that I've made. I agree that later interpretations must be included. As I've stated, however, I think the most important issue it to avoid making it appear as if speculative interpretations represent accepted facts when the only sources on those facts are unreliable or highly questionable. I think the best approach in those situations is to either clearly identify the source in the body of the article or to avoid including that content until the facts have been more firmly established. Citing obscure speculation can give it undeserved attention, thereby contributing to an emerging mythology rather than documenting existing legends in the fashion that an encyclopedia should. Hoopes (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

House of cards speculation
The questionable reliability of Morde's account means that speculations of others that build upon it are even more flimsy. I have deleted the reference tying Morde's story to ones collected by Taggart in the northern Sierra de Puebla and the Huastec region of Veracruz, Mexico as an example of speculation presented as fact. If this can be rephrased it to make it clear that this is journalist Wendy Griffin's speculation, that might make it acceptable. Otherwise, tabloid speculation is being built upon tabloid speculation to create a house of cards. It would be more solid if it could be demonstrated that Taggart, an anthropologist, recognized similarities between the stories he collected and those of Morde. Griffin also speculates about associations with Nahuehue that are not supported by other sources. It may well be Griffin's speculation in this 1998 article that results in many elements of the Ciudad Blanca "legend" as it emerged in the late 1990s and afterwards. Griffin's assertions should be identified in the article as her own interpretations, not as established facts. Note that Griffin was part of the SEPH organization assembled by Ted Maschal (a.k.a. Ted Danger) in the 1990s to search for Ciudad Blanca. If there are better references to scholarly work by Griffin on Ciudad Blanca, those could also be added with an improved discussion in the section on late 20th century exploration and speculation. Hoopes (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added attribution to Griffin as you suggested. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that's a helpful edit and a reasonable compromise given Griffin's apparent role in the unfolding "legend." Hoopes (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nineteenth century speculation
There seems to be a disagreement concerning whether sources must explicitly mention "Ciudad Blanca" or not to be included. Sources and links that refer to the general exploration and interpretation of ancient ruins in Central America, and especially Honduras, are directly relevant. This includes references to 19th century literature such as R. Tripp Evans' book Romancing the Maya, which provides a historical context for speculation about sites in Honduras, including reference to the expeditions of Stephens and Catherwood. Hoopes (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe there is any reliable source connection between, for example, Lost World literature and Ciudad Blanca. IMO, using sources that are loosely related (at best) to the region to draw the connection is a form of original research. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "loosely related (at best) to the region." Evans' book refers specifically the exploration for ancient ruins in Mexico and Central America. Are you saying it would have to refer even more specifically to eastern Honduras in order for there to be connection? Or that it would have to specifically mention the words "Ciudad Blanca" (or even "City of the Monkey God")? The current Wikipedia entry on Lost World literature specifically notes, "The genre has similar themes to 'mythical kingdoms', such as El Dorado." Ciudad Blanca certainly qualifies. Hoopes (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have a policy dilemma here. It seems obvious to me that Ciudad Blanca speculations have both been based in and kept alive by the genre of lost world literature and its romanticizing way of approaching Mesoamerican history and archeology. However, if Tripp Evans' book doesn't mention Ciudad Blanca then that does suggest that including it is SYNTH. However, in another way the fact that it doesn't mention it is at least circumstantial evidence to suggest that the "legend" is very new and not based in a deeper tradition. Which in turn supports the concern that we should be extremely careful not to reify the idea that there is a ciudad blanca legend.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit on something important here. That is, the Ciudad Blanca "legend" is one that is so recent as to not have been a topic of discussion in authoritative sources concerning fantasies and romanticizations about Pre-Columbian cultures even though many such analyses exist, among them Robert Wauchope's classic Lost Tribea and Sunken Continents: Myth and Method in the Study of American Indians (1962) and R. Tripp Evans' more recent book. Despite what has been claimed, it is not at all clear that the early comments by Cortes refer to Ciudad Blanca. (His geographic statements refer to a broad section of central Honduras, not specifically the area where Ciudad Blanca has been claimed to exist.) The reference provided here (Frommer's) for comments about a "white city" by Cristóbal de Pedraza in 1544 is utterly inadequate and frankly not credible. Mention of a "White City" may be traced to comments by Lindbergh in 1927, but that's not clear, either. It seems entirely possible that the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca dates mostly to wishful thinking and heavy promotion (some of it focused on documentary filmmaking) in the 1990s, followed by very recent (early 2000s) revived interest in the unreliable and highly sensational stories by Theodore Morde--ones for which there is no evidence that they were taken seriously even in the 1940s. I think you're right. We should be extremely careful and circumspect about the role Wikipedia can play in reifying assertions that there is a "legend" of Ciudad Blanca that is not a recent invention. Hoopes (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I keep meaning to comment and get distracted (partially by another older legend with some similar problems). We need to be careful about relating sources to the subject of the article. Normally sources should discuss the actual subject, but in some cases it's hard to discuss the subject without background - or perhaps I should say context. Context is almost always important, and there is a context here which needs to be in the article. We also, as I hope we all agree, need to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't aid in creating an 'old' legend. This means in turn that we have to be very careful about our sources (I'm against using travel books as sources for history, by the way). I've got something to say about that below. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug here. Travel literature and "Explorer Foundations" are specifically in the business of creating legends for monetary gain. They are not reliable sources for this kind of topic and should be avoided unless they are clearly and unequivocally notable in which case their views can be attributed to them directly. Frommer's mention is not notable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Frommers was used to source claims of the legend being old. I think it is an excellent example of the kind of speculation of later sources. If you want to debunk the oldness of the legend, I think it is much better to include examples of modern attempts to tie the legend into older things and explain that the older source doesn't actually say "ciudad blanca" rather than simply deleting such references entirely. Censoring any mention of such claims is unlikely to educate the reader that the claims are nonsense, rather they will simply think Wikipedia was unaware of them.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And Frommer's is not a reliable source for the age of the legend. Or for anything else regarding the legend. We don't want to debunk anything since that would be OR at this point. But we also don't want to pass on non-notable unreliable claims about the legend as fact. Exclusion semi-notable and non-notable claims and claims of dubious reliability is the best way to avoid both OR and misleading the readers. IN the absence of peer reviewed scholarly papers that relate the legend, the sources and the archeology of Honduras we simply have no basis for writing about any relation between reality and the claims about the legend. If the research and claims were scientifically well supported we would expect articles in scholarly journals - not just on personal websites and from the tourist industry.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are limited to what scholars say in journals, then we can't say a single word on the legend. Of course truth is not limited to scholarly journals and Wikipedia policy quite clearly allows the use of other sources.  Reliable (but not scholarly) sources that have made a connection between Pedraza and the legend are certainly valid sources for a statement saying such connections exist.  There is no doubt the Pedraza made the "plates of gold" statement - the only doubt is whether it is connected to the legend.  We know for a fact that people have made this connection.  If we are interested in conveying truth, it would be far more informative to mention the connection has been made but also include Pedraza's actual words so that the reader can decide if the connection is valid or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, for certain kinds of claims it requires a peer reviewed publication to establish that it is more than loose conjecture and advertising strategies. The connection to Pedraza is only notable and significant if it is made by someone who's interpretation of Pedraza is notable and reliable. That is the only way to avoid making pseudoscientific or crackpot claims into the basis for articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, But if we can't say Pedraza is connected then we surely can't say Lost World literature is connected. Not even non-scholars have made that connection.  As far as I know, the one and only place the connection is made is this Wikipedia article. (And no, I don't think it is at all obvious that English language fiction written in America is related to the development of a legend in Spanish speaking Honduras.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Pedraza
This last one seems to be the relevant one. ON pages 407-9 he describes a trip to a prosperous place that he diodn't know before called "tagiusgualpa" by the natives. He describes it as a place with gold and a gold foundry.
 * 
 * Note that the toponym he used was subsequently adopted for Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, which is located in central Honduras and not anywhere near Mosquitia (in eastern Honduras). No gold or gold foundry has been identified in either place and there is no evidence that Precolumbian goldwork was significant anywhere in Honduras (as it is in Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia). Hoopes (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (Here he describes how Cortes got news of Honduras and sent Cristobal de Olid to conquer it. No mentions of a white city, or any particular city of the many cities in the area that was conquered.)
 * .

Ok, I dind't read this in its entirity. But here it is for anyone interested in knowing what Pedraza wrote.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hoopes (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the most we can say is that X scholar "interpreted Pedraza's statement as a possible reference" to a lost city or whatever.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is the imaginative (and often sensational) interpretation of sources such as Pedraza that has contributed to the relatively recent hype about a "lost city" even when no city was ever mentioned. That is why it is important to identify the individuals making subjective interpretations and not present those highly subjective interpretations as if they were objective, established facts. Hoopes (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

UTL section
I have removed the following sentence form the start of the UTL section


 * For the May 6, 2013 issue, in an article whose title alluded to the search for El Dorado, author Douglas Preston published a popular account in The New Yorker magazine about documentary film maker Steve Elkins' quest for Ciudad Blanca.

The justification for the sentence in question was that the article (allegedly) influenced this article. That is an insufficient reason for giving so much weight to a source which in reality likely played almost no role in shaping the legend. (The events described in the section happened from 2009-12 and were largely documented in the popular media before said article came out.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence you have deleted is clearly a factual, correct statement. That is patently apparent. Hoopes (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article in question (reference #1) is still cited 42 times (down from > 50) is evidence in support of the assertion that it had and continues to have an excessively disproportionate influence on this Wikipedia article. The issue is not that the source played a role in shaping the legend, but that this strongly biased Wikipedia article contributes to reifying and promoting the alleged "legend." If there are significant events that were documented in popular media, then those sources should be provided with appropriate context. Hoopes (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence that has been deleted from the UTL section should be restored because it provides a necessary context that explains why this particular project (and the New Yorker article about it) is featured so prominently in this article. Hoopes (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, if your only justification for the sentence's inclusion is this article's use of the source, you have no ground to stand on. We most certainly don't make statements that imply source X is the main/only source of Y information because our article uses it for said information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at this now, I can't understand the argument for removing it. It's clearly relevant. Of course, I've said that I think the article relies on Preston too much, but that's a different issue. If his article is really unimportant, we shouldn't be using it as a source. But the bottomline is that it's a fact and aids the reader. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, how does putting a 2013 article before events that began in 2009 (implying said article is only source of the following information) make perfect sense? Your argument makes no sense - do we normally say "X wrote about Y" just because we used X as a source?  Of course we do not.  There is absolutely no requirement that a source be important to subject X to be used as a source of for article X.  Indeed, what would that even mean for a topic such as lions?  Is Wozencraft's article "Order Carnivora" (the first source in the article) important to the existence of lions?  Of course it is not.  Nor is there a line in that article that says "In 2005, Wozencraft wrote an article "Order Carnivora" that included information about lions.
 * So what exactly is the justification for opening a section of information by saying someone wrote about X (one of about 300 people who did so in this case)? The only justification offered is that the article in question was used as a source of this article, which is not a valid argument. If its "clearly relevant" then surely there is a justification beyond the article was used as a source for this article.  What is important here is the UTL project, not Preston's article about the UTL project.  It existed (and was in the news) for more than a year before Preston wrote about it.  Some of the information was even in this very article before Preston wrote about.   --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that it's a fact and aids the reader. Hoopes (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No the bottom line is that no justification has been proved for singling out this one source while not mentioning the 300+ other news sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well yes, there is. It should be obvious from the References section for this article that Preston's (reference #1) has been cited far more than any other (currently >40 times, but it used to be >50). As I've noted, earlier versions of this Wikipedia article contained significant paraphrase and direct quotations from Preston's article, even to the extent that it may have represented an ethical and perhaps even legal violation of standards concerning intellectual property and copyright. This article cited details that had been assembled by Preston concerning the UTL project, its history, funding, permitting, and results that were not to be found in any other source. It also reproduced assertions that had come directly from Preston as if they were facts. The reason why it should be singled out, rather than the "300+ others" is because the vast majority of those latter were just duplicates of information from press releases and wire service reports. Relatively few contained any original information and even those that did were not always reliable. The story produced a media flurry in May 2013, which was followed by extensive editing of this article in response to media activity, not the generation of new information or facts. Numbers such as "300+" are meaningless, since they simply represent how many news sources picked up on the story in one way or another. 1000+ sources are generated anytime Kim Kardashian farts. That does not mean that this information is in any way notable, significant, accurate, or reliable. I think this article is flawed because of its heavy reliance on popular news sources rather than scientific publications. If Wikipedia held to a standard requiring the latter, this article would be very short indeed. Hoopes (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have provided no evidence that Preston's article influenced the real world in any way. Being used here proves nothing beyond that I (one person) considered it to be a useful source.  My use of the source to write (part of) this article is not a notable part of the lengend's history.
 * Once again, you have provided no scientific sources to replace the popular ones. Complaining about the article's supposed flaws does not provide any insight as to how to improve it. There is NO requirement whatsoever that articles must be based only on peer reviewed journal articles.  If there are such sources, they are preferable, but if there aren't any there is nothing wrong with writing an article using the available sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, there actually is something wrong with writing an article using available sources if those sources are biased and unreliable. Given the passage of a year, it would be good to incorporate some updates on the UTL project. Has anything helpful been published yet? Hoopes (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)