Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2014/January

Edits by Jasonasosa
Jasonasosa: I reverted your edits because: 1. The article you see is a mature article, the result of a vast amount of discussion on this talk page. Many editors have worked on it over many years and reached a CONSENSUS that some of the features you want to change, should be the way they are. These include the outline of the article and the terms used to describe the various calendars. Wikipedia's guidelines are for you to respect consensus. These discussions have been archived and I don't expect you to read them all. I know you just found this article. 2. You appear to be reading about this subject from unreliable sources. Unfortunately there are very, very many of these, from poorly researched ones (even some written by well-known scholars) pretending to be works of science to the pseudo-mayan new age balderdash of fringe writers like Jose Arguelles and Callemans to charlatans like Hunbatz Men who seek to profit from gullible people. An example of a horrible "reliable source" of the first type is Miller and Taube, who you cited. This book contains careless errors and interpretations of the facts masquerading as research. Since there are no footnotes you aren't led to further study by the brief factoid articles - sort of like a Wikipedia article but without the reliable sources. 3. Some of the edits you made contain factual errors like the "fact" that there are two 260 day calendars, the one that starts on 1 Imix a "Highland chol q’ij calendar, the cycle starts with the day B’atz’". This is new age revisionist nonsense invented by the infamous phoney shaman Hunbatz Men. Since various Mesoamerican peoples have different languages a CONSENSUS has been reached that the Yucatec names for these cycles should be used as they are found in a majority of mainstream references. If you look at the above discussion you will see that I generally discus changes BEFORE making them. This is not the standard Wikipedia way of doing things but in a field as clouded with BS as this one is, this is a good way to go. It can avoid the kind of reversions you have experienced. Senor Cuete (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)