Talk:Olmec alternative origin speculations/Archive 3

Bearded man
Dear Clovis Point:

The man shown on La Venta Stela 3 is a bearded man. As just-now referenced by me (today's footnote 28), Michael D. Coe explicitly says he is (and also describes him as having an "aquiline nose"). And to me and to just about everyone who views it, that does appear to be an accurate description.

So, let's just be simple and direct. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it looks like a man with a beard. I was trying to emphasize that other interpretations are always possible (this whole article is about divergent interpretations). However, I don't know what the "bearded man" is supposed to prove, unless one believe's that all artwork is a direct, realistic-as-possible, imitation of life; and further believes that Native Americans are genetically incapable of growing facial hair.  I personally would prefer a photograph of the Stela, rather than a drawing/painting which gives prominence to particular features.  On the other hand, I don't have any photos on hand, so the current image will have to do.  ClovisPt (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * incidentally what is "non-hemispheric" supposed to mean here? Wouldn't extra-hemispheric be more correct? And wouldn't a completely different word be preferrable?·Maunus· · ƛ · 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another word would certainly be fine with me.
 * I don't think that the term "bearded" is supposed to "prove" anything, but I certainly get the impression when Coe and when Christopher Pool (in his 2007 book) draw attention to the beard, they imply that beards are uncommon among Mesoamericans (which is true) and that is why this particular depiction has suggested extra- or non-hemispheric visitors to many observers.Madman (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Beards are uncommon among Native Americans, true. However, Native Americans are simply more hairless than Europeans, not hairless, and beards cannot be seen as proof that a person, statute or image is European.Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Epigraphy section
I have made changes in this section to show that Rafinesque and Leo Wiener both supported an African origin for writing in Mexico. The chnages are not self promotion they represent factual support for the theory that Africans invented the Olmec writing system.

Manus should not be allowed to edit out these changes until he proves that the references cited in this section are false.Clyde Winters (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that continued wholesale reversion of these changes without any discusson is not the right way to proceed. While there is some digression that is not appropriate for this article (e.g. "The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799"), there is also some pertinent and apparently well-documented material.  Madman (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is selfpromotion when Mr. Clyde Winters writes that Dr. Clyde Winters is the only one to have succesfully deciphered the olmec script - it is also clearly misleading, since he has not, and no scholar except Mr. Winters have yet accepted his deciphering. When he puts together different circumstantial evidence to draw the conclusion that the vai script is "ancient" that is synthesis of material and OR. When he argues for likeness between two unrelated languages using only one word which has a coincidental likeness then that is OR and OR that would never get publication in a peer-reviewed journal (which is why Mr. Winters have published these same theories on free hosted websites since the mid nineties). All this taken together justifies wholesale reversion of Clyde Winters recent edits. When he furthermore cannot write in a proper style or use references correctly and finally signs his username in the middle of an article then I cannot see why I should be expected to do anything other than revert. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 10:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; well stated. ClovisPt (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Manus and Madman this piece was not self promotion it is further support for the theory that the Olmec writing may be of African origin. Below are the changes:

Some, particularly Dr. Clyde Winters, claim that some Olmec icons are similar to the Vai script which includes all of the signs used in the Libyco-Berber writing system, in particular, the symbols on the Tuxtla Statuette and the celts in Offering 4 at La Venta and Cascajal Tablet. Dr. Winters based his research on that of Samuel Rafinesque and Leo Wiener. Rafinesque noted that the Mayan inscriptions were probably related to the Libyco-Berber writing of Africa.

Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America (V.3) claimed that the Tuxtla Statuette possessed signs found on the Rock Inscriptions common to Mandingo sites in the Western Sudan. He wrote "Precisely such gadwals have been found in the region of the Mandingos, and these have glyphs that bear amazing resemblance to the Central American glyphs, especially those of the Tuxtla statuette, where we find similar signs encysted in squares and parallelograms".

The signs associated with the Mande writing systems are found throughout West Africa and date back to ancient times. Many of these signs have been found in the Tichitt area. Tichitt is an early region in West Africa first settled by Mande speakers over 3000 years ago.

All of these signs in the Saharan and Libyco-Berber writing are found in the Vai writing system. The Vai speak a Mande or Mandingo language.

Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai writing.S.W. Koelle reported that the Vai writing was invented in 1829 or 1839 by Bukele. This has led some to consider the connection at best coincidental as the Vai script was suppose to have only been developed in the 19th century at the earliest.

This late invention of the Vai writing is disputed by Delafosse who claimed that Vai inormants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times.We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script, because they were known to African slaves in Suriname.In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing by a man while possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that component parts of the symbols written by this man were found in the Vai and other writing systems found in West Africa.

The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result,there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing, if it had been first invented by Bukele.

Winters claimed to have deciphered the Olmec script by using Vai characters in 1979, and claimed that Olmec symbols are a script that encodes a Mande language. Winters claimed that the Olmec called themselves 'Xi" or "Si". Dr. Winters based this proposition on his decipherment of a bi-lingual Mayan-Olmec inscription. This was a breakthrough in determining the name of the Olmec people because the The Maya claim they got writing from the Tutul Xiu, a group of foreigners from zuiva, in Nonoualoco territory. In Spanish the "x" is pronounced 'sh'. This means that Xiu would be pronounced Shi-u. This corresponds to the Mande term for race Si, plus the Malinke-Bambara suffix -u, used to make the word plural.

For many reasons, these assertions have found no support among Mesoamerican researchers. While scholars have made significant progress translating the Maya script, except for Dr. Winters, researchers have yet to translate Olmec glyphs.

You claim that I wrote that Dr. Winters was the only one to successfully decipher the Olmec writing this statement is not found anywhere in the proposed revisions. As a result, why do you continue to claim that the piece is self promotion.

The piece only confirms that fact that the proposed decipherment of the Olmec writing is based on the research of a number of researchers, and confirm that Leo Wiener said what I claimed he said. It shows that the symbols found in the Vai script were in use 3000 years ago in Tichitt where the Mande people lived until they settled around the Niger River, this is important information because many people claim that West Africans did not have a native writing system; this information makes it clear that this is not true.

I will remove the staement about Suriname. I used this statement to show how Africans were already using the symbols associated with the Vai script before Bukele's alleged creation of the Vai writing. This added additional support to the antiquity of the script.

Manus, clearly you are afraid of the truth. The sources are provided can be found in any good library. I challenge you to prove my citations wrong before you allow you doxic assumptions to lead you to delete material that is material to the case for a Mande origin for the Olmec writing. Furthermore, it is still made clear that the Winters' decipherment is not accepted by the mass of MesoAmerican scholars.

Given the facts, you have no right to continue to delete this material. I have deleted material found improper.Clyde Winters (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You sir, have not the least interest in "the truth" - you clearly only wish to advance your agenda. As for your edit not being selfpromotional I draw your attention to this diff in which Clyde Winters wrote: "For many reasons, these assertions have found no support among Mesoamerican researchers. While scholars have made significant progress translating the Maya script, except for Dr. Winters, researchers have yet to translate Olmec glyphs." If this is not an attempt to promote Clyde Winters' own supposed deciphering of the Olmec script on the expense of real scholarship then I don't know what it is. I do not dispute that your references say what you say they do. I do however dispute that those references are worth the paper that they were written on, and I dispute that they can be used to draw the conclusions that you draw from them. Bringing together four separate sources (hearsay from Belafosse, hearsay from Mr. and Mrs Herskovits and Rafinesques uneducated guess about the Mayan writing systems origins (from before anyone had seen proper reproductions of mayan glyphs) and Leo Wieners astonished commentary about the amazing resemblance of squares and parallelograms on the tuxtla statuette and vai writing) to draw a controversial conclusion that has not been published in any peer-rewieved source is a clear violation of WP:SYN. You cannot advance the theory that vai-writing is ancient in this article - not untill there is a scientific journal that decide that the theory is well enough founded to publish it. The best wikipedia can do for you in your quest to advance your agenda is to state those facts that are undisputably true: namely that "Scholars, including Leo Wiener (1921), Ivan van Sertima (1976, 1992 and 1995) and Clyde Ahmad Winters (1981) have argued that the Olmec hieroglyphic script is based on Vai writing - although the Vai script is generally thought to be only two hundred years old." Anything beyond that would be misrepresenting facts and would reflect poorly on wikipedias reliability. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Manus none of your comments justify deleting this material. Now that I am back from vacation I will respond to your comments. First, this is not a peer reviewed journal it is a section on Olmec that discuss alternative theories. You claim that no material should be published here if it has not been peer reviewed. This is a biased argument because these are alternative theories because they are not accepted by mainstream authorities.

For example, the material on Chinese relations with the Olmec was not published in a peer reviewed journal, should it be removed also?

The material I published is important for understanding the African origin of Olmec writing. It shows that Rafinesque, and Wiener noted that the early American writing systems were related to African scripts. Moreover, Wiener made a specific identification of the Tuxtla inscriptions that was confirmed by the characters used by the ancient Mande speaking people.

The idea that any statement arguing more then the contention :"Scholars, including Leo Wiener (1921), Ivan van Sertima (1976, 1992 and 1995) and Clyde Ahmad Winters (1981) have argued that the Olmec hieroglyphic script is based on Vai writing - although the Vai script is generally thought to be only two hundred years old", is not true. It fails to provide the evidence that the script may be older and fails to reflect the acturl evidence relating to the antiquity of the script.

In the original post there is discussion of the fact that the script is only 200 years old. The evidence of Hsu and Delafosse make it clear that there are traditions and archaeological evidence that illustrate that the writing probably dates pre-European contact. You can not give one view for the origin of Vai writing when the evidence shows that the view it is only 200 years old is disputed by archaeological evidence from Tichitt and other Mande settlements dating back to Olmec times.

Representation of the full record relating to the African origin of Olmec writing provides a full account of the theory relating to the African origin of the script. This material is not self promotion it just shows that the idea the Olmec writing is African is supported by a number of sources.

Your attempt to deny public access to this information reflect your own biases against the theory. You have not presented evidence that the glyphs associated with Vai script were not in use by mande speaking people in Tichitt around the time the Olmec writing originated. Your attempts to deny the facts will not make the truth disappear.Clyde Winters (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC) SOU


 * You are right that my reasoning is biased. It is boiased towards enacting Wikipedia policies. Your reasoning on the other hand demonstrates no understanding of such basic wikipedia policies as WP:NOT, WP:SOURCES and WP:FRINGE. I will spell it out for you one more time (I know I have done this several times in the past). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a depository for information. This means that the information that is to be included in wikipedia needs to conform ceratin encyclopedic principles. These principles are laid out in the wikipedia policies which are presented to all editors upon joining the project. One of these policies describe what wikipedia is not. Part of this policy describes that wikipedia is not the right place to publish novel theories or original research, but only research that is documented and verifiable. That is what you are doing wrong: you are trying to use wikipedia as a vehicle for your own personal interpretations of evidence and thus violating wikipedia policies on Original Research. I am not required to present evidence against your theories - but you are required to demonstrate that those theories have merit by citing them to reliable sources, this is not just a requirement for the sources you build your conclusions upon but even more importantly it is a requirement that the conclusions can be demonstrated to have merit, in this case you have not, and cannot produce such demonstration since the theories are not published outsid of your own personal websites. In short wikipedia is NOT the place for you to publish your research, this you can do on your various geocities websites as you have done the past ten years.·Maunus· · ƛ · 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Again you have not read the article. It is not about personal interpretation of evidence it is the presentation of evidence relating to alternative olmec theories. You claim that the theories are only published at my website this is false. The references to Rafinesque and Wiener show that the idea that Mexican writing is related to African scripts is supported by other researchers. Moreover, Wiener specifically pointed out that the Tuxtla symbols were related to the Mande writing system that was in use during the Tichitt civilization which dates back to Olmec times. This makes it clear that your ideas have nothing to do with wikipedia policies, they reflect your own narrow mindedness and biases.Clyde Winters (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me what i have and haven't read. I can accept that the article mention that the idea of a connection between Olmec writing and African writing stem back to Rafinesque and Leo Wiener since this is fact. However the attempt to "prove" that the vai script is older than 200 years is entirely on your account though and should not be mentioned. I once again refer to wikipedia policy of WP:SYN which clearly state that "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is what you are doing. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is just as much proof that the Vai writing is ancient as asserted in the revised article. These are alternative views and do not imply that the ideas are accepted by all researchers so the claim for an ancient origin is just as valid as your assertion that the script is only 200 years old. You maintain this position to justify your opinion the scripts are not related. Any statement related to the Vai script should present all sides, not just the view you accept, there is no way that presenting both sides of an issue is an attempt by myself to advance my position, it is just showing that in relation to dating the Vai script controversy exist regarding its origin.

You make it appear that dating of the Vai script is established. This is far from true. There is considerable evidence that the Vai writing was invented millennia before 1820. This view is supported by the presence of signs analogous to the Vai script being found on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger Valley and beyond that make up the corpus of the Vai script.

Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai script. Delafosse claimed that Vai informants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times. [b]S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849) [/b] claimed that the writing system was invented by Bukele in 1829 or 1839.[b] David Diringer in The Alphabet (London,1968,pp.130-133)[/b] reported that there was a tradition that the writing was invented by a group of eight Vai.[b] Marcel Cohen La grande invention de l'ecriture at son evolution (Paris,1958, p. 21)[/b] believed that the Vai writing system was not invented before the 18th century, but more probably at the beginning of the 19thth century.

The story about Bukele's dream is just a cover, used by Bukele to keep members of the Gola Poro society from being angered by Bukele's open teaching of the Vai script.

We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing because it was known to African slaves in Suriname. In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing written by a man while he was possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that "Most of the component parts of are to be found in the syllabaries of West Africa which we have just discussed"[b] (see: K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).[/b]

The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result, there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing under possession by the spirit winti if the writing was invented by Bukele.

If you read the history of Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script we discover that although Bukele dreamt of the Vai characters he was able to "reconstruct" the symbols not by deeply meditating on the dream, he: Later Dualu retired from his work as a steward and returned to his hometown in the Vai chiefdom. But he couldn’t forget the idea of having a means of writing. He asked himself, “Why can’t we have something like this for our own Vai people?” One night he had a vision in which he saw a tall white man who said, “Dualu, come. I have a book for you and your Vai people.” The man in the vision then proceeded to show him the shapes of the Vai characters used in the Vai writing system. When Dualu awoke, he began to write down the characters he’d seen in his vision. Sadly, there were so many he could not remember them all, so he called together his friends and fellow elders and shared with them his vision and the characters he had written down. His fellow Vai elders caught his excitement and over time, they added more characters in place of those Dualu could not remember.

This is the main give-away that the writing existed before Bukele's alleged invention. Firstly, how could "his friends and fellow elders" help him recover the Vai signs, if the signs were not already invented--since these men had not had Bukele's dream.

Secondly, before Bukele popularized the Vai script he sought protection from King Fa Toro of Goturu in Tianimani for his school. The King granted protection to the inventors of the Vai script because "The king declared himself exceedly pleased with their discovery, which as he said would soon raise his people upon a level with the Porors and Mandingoes, who hitherto had been the only book-people" [b](see: S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)[/b]

Bukele needed a Kings support for the teaching of anyone the Vai writing because the first schools set up to teach the script at Dshondu and Bandakoro were burned down along with the Vai manuscripts found in the schools after 18 months.

If Bukele had invented the Vai script as he claimed, why did he need protection for his schools? The answer is that he didn't invent the writing he just popularized the script.

The Vai script was taught in the Mande secret societies. This is why eventhough the script is well known, it is cloaked in an aura of secrecy.

This view is supported by the fact that when Thomas Edward Beslow, a Vai prince who attended mission schools in Liberia and the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts was initiated into the Poro Society he mentions in his autobiography that many members of the secret society could write in Vai[b] (see: T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).[/b]

What do we learn from this report. First, the Vai script was known to Vai elites. Obviously, members of Poro would not like non members of the society to know about this writing. Yet, Bukele was teaching the Vai writing to any one who desired to learn it, so the Vai would be recognized for their literacy just like Europeans. Secondly it was being taught in the Poro society, which King Fa Toro, did not belong too.

Today eventhough the Vai script is well known the writing is semi-secret. As a result. some commentators believe the Vai no longer write in the script. This led Christopher Fyfe in A History of Sierra Leone, to write that: "Though an English trader who spent some time among the Vai in the 1860's found schools where children were still learning it, it was almost forgotten by the early twentieth century, and today is only studied by linguist".

Fyfe was wrong. Gail Stewart, only five years later in Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia [b](African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)[/b] found that the script was still very popular among many Vai.

David Dalby wrote about a Gola student of William Siegman, who allowed Siegman him to copy the inscription but he would not translate same. This student attributed the writing to the Poro Society, and said he was taught the writing by his grandfather. Dalby wrote: "After the present paper had gone to press, Mr. William Siegman of Indiana University gave me information on a fifteenth West African script, used in Liberia for writing Gola. Mr. Siegman had seen a young Gola student at Cuttingham College (Liberia) writing a letter in this script in 1968, but although the student allowed him to take a copy of the letter he declined to provide Mr. Siegman with a Key"[b](see:D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).[/b]

Dalby viewed the assertion of the student that the writing was used by members of the Poro Society with skepticism. But Dalby should not have been skepticism because Beslow had made the same claim.

In conclusion, Bukele probably did not invent the Vai writing. This is supported by the fact that 1) the symbols associated with the Vai script were well known to members of the Poro Secret Society; 2) descendants of Maroon Blacks in Suriname were familiar with the script; and 3) the Vai writing, for the most part remains in use but it is maintained in a semi-secret fashion and not usually shared with people who are not members or kin of members of a secret society, this is why the Gola student would not translate his letter for Mr.Siegman.

Finally it must be remembered that the symbols engraved on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger bend and other areas where the Mande live are identical to symbols associated with the Vai script. This shows the continuity of writing among the Mande speaking people over a period of 3000 plus years.

The evidence from Suriname, symbols on the rocks near Mande habitations, and the existence of the symbols relating to the Vai script in other Mande writing systems and their continued use by members of the Vai and members of secret societies support Delafosse's tradition that the Vai writing existed in ancient times.

This makes it clear that your statement that the script is only 200 years all is not truely discussion of all the evidence relating to a possible African influence on the Olmec writing. It is just a view you accept. All of the sources I provide in the revision of this section are related to the theme that the Olmec writing system is related to African writing systems.Clyde Winters (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The age of vai writing is not the topic of this article. Any discussion of the dating of Vai writing should go in the article on The Vai Script NOT in the article on the Olmecs. It is simply not relevant to the article and you still have not provided any reliable sources that have come to the same conclusions about the vai scripts age as you have. If you have such sources they would be relevant to include in the Vai article but NOT HERE.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way I am not going to revert the new, considerably shortened and improved version of your edit, which is acceptable for now. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue of reliable sources is mute, you can only use the available sources which appear in published books and articles. I may make a few changes to clean up the grammar within the piece, but it will remain basically the way it is. Also, I searched for the Vai article but it has been deleted.Clyde Winters (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. I firmly believe that the Epigraphy section as it presently stands presents the basic points of the African-origins-of-Olmec-characters school of thought without long digressions or becoming a pulpit.  It is short (4 sentences total, of which only 2 really present the position) and to-the-point.  I also (reluctantly) agreed with Maunus on the Original Research guideline and the general guideline against self-reference and so removed Dr. Winters' name from that section.  This should satisfy all parties (I hope!).  Madman (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's okay with me, great job.Clyde Winters (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay with me too. Thanks Madman for solving the problem to everyones satisfaction. And Mr. Winters the article on the VAi script can be found here: Vai script ·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.Clyde Winters (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

a caution to regular editors
Just quickly reading the article, it has a texture or tone of original research promotion of these theories. Not a big deal, and there do seem to be quite a number of references used throughout. Maybe there would be some value in folks double checking that the refs are a) reliable sources and b) are used with as little interpretation as possible. It's an interesting set of fringe theories that should be included, but as with all fringe theories care must be taken with sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should not attempt to prove that Olmecs were indigenous
The scope of this article is to dispassionately describe the Olmec alternative origin theories/speculations that have been advanced. The scope is not to prove matters one way or another or even to fully discuss the origins of the Olmec.

The reason that Olmec art is included in the article is not to argue one way or another, but rather to show the artwork that has drawn the attention of the alternative-origin school (as well as to enliven the long blocks of often-boring prose). Certainly, it improves this or any article if we can show artwork while we discuss it.

The point of this article is definitely not to prove or argue for the indigenous origin of the Olmec. Goodness knows we could fill whole books on the matter and we do have many articles that make this point largely by default. So, that is why I reverted that image purporting to show indigenous features on that jade head -- it is off-topic. It really does not elucidate or explicate the alternative origin theories, the subject of this article.

Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So where exactly are you supposed to post studies that directly refute these hypediffusionist studies, as you give a platform for their off the wall claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsassin (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they should go in the criticism section which needs big expansion in my opinion.·Maunus· · ƛ · 12:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, studies that "directly refute" (to use your words, Salsassin) belong in the article. However, a jade bust with non-African features doesn't refute or demonstrate anything.
 * And remember that the focus of this article is the "alternative origin speculations" and not "Theories of Olmec origins". You are welcome to write the latter article, but this is not it.  Thanks,Madman (talk)

13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by important. That there were African soldiers and sailors I am sure about. There was an African sailor with Columbus on his first expedition, Juan las Canarias. Obviously it's hard sorting out truth from myth, and you know what I think about people like van Sertima and Winters. But see for instance: A History of Native American and African Relations from 1502 to 1900 Latin America and the Conquistadors African Explorers of Spanish America Then of course there would be Moors, some of whom would be considered Black. Then there must have been people and even voyages for which we have no record -- I suspect even where we do have records they don't cover that much detail of who was pure Spanish, who freed slave, etc. So yes, I'm sure about black soldiers and sailors although not about their numbers. I don't blame you for checking though!--Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I've added an external link to an article that deals with the nonsense put forward by Winters, etc. Does the Viewzone external link meet Wikipedia standards?--Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in particular since it does not provide advertising and is not literally selling anything. Thanks, Madman (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So absolutely any site that isn't advertising or selling can be an external link? Blogs for instance? That doesn't sound right.--Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my statement referred to that particular site you added and was not intended to state that any site without advertising would be OK as an "External link". See External links for a comprehensive guidelines on the matter.
 * On another matter, you keep adding that Africans were brought to America as soldiers as well as slaves. I am unaware that African soldiers were an important component of the African diaspora to Mesoamerica and so I have reverted your adds.  I would be happy to discuss.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There were free men of African descent among the first conquistadors - see. e.g. Restalls "seven myths"·Maunus· · ƛ · 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the criteria for external links, and they say to avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Viewzone is a personal webpage, so? I was told I couldn't link to a Geologist's blog, so why is Viewzone ok?--Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

section headings change
Hi. I think that the some of the section headings should be changed slightly, from "Olmecs as..." to "...origins". i.e., instead of "Olmecs as Africans", "African origins". I believe this more truly reflects the range of claims made by various proponents. I'll go ahead and make the change, feel free to revert and discuss here if you think it is inappropriate. ClovisPt (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine, and an improvement. Thanks.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 23:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Genetic evidence
Is there any good reason to keep the Genetic evidence section in this article? In addition to its poorly written and confusing style, it doesn't appear to be very relevant to this article. As far as I can tell, none of the quoted articles are actually making the argument that Olmecs were influenced by Africans, only that Indigenous people in modern Central Mexico sometimes have some African ancestry from the colonial and post-colonial periods. There may also be undue weight issues here. I suggest either removing it entirely, or (maybe more fairly) replacing it with a sentence or two to the effect of: "Proponents of African influence on the Olmecs claim that some genetic studies support their claims, although the authors of these studies generally consider African admixture to be a post-Colonial occurrence." with appropriate citations. Thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, ATM the genetics section is more along the lines of a collection of random, unrelated studies that somewhere mention "african" genetic traces, cobbled together with a presumed intention of making it seem like they all add up to evidence for Olmec origins, when they've really nothing specific to say on it. IIRC much of this was added in by Dr Winters, but rather the emphasis needs to be altered to say african origins proponents claim genetic studies support their position, rather than saying genetic studies may support the position.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That section is certainly not very tightly written. Howver, since this article is about the theories, I do believe that the article needs to at least mention that the Out of Africa proponents claim that genetic studies support such a theory, with appropriate citations.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I want to undertake this, but I am having trouble deciding what to use as a source for the statement "Proponents of African influence on the Olmecs claim that some genetic studies support their claims" - any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, is Clyde Winters' Geocities site usable as a source for this? On the one hand, it is where these claims come from (directly, as in cut and paste); on the other, a Geocities page isn't a reliable source, and if we can't locate anything besides a single Geocities page, how notable are these claims? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clean it up in the past. I do question its notability. Have you seen this by the way? . Doug Weller (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a good rebuttal of the wiercinski material. I think the critique points should be included side by side with the claims.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the vast majority of the content in this section, replacing it with one sentence. I sourced the genetic evidence for African origins claims to Winters' website, where at least one of his texts deals with the topic. After reviewing that text, and the edit history of this article, it appeared to me that the content needed to be removed immediately, as it constituted original research, possibly copyright infringement, and a clear case of a conflict of interest. I realize the content I replaced it with may be too little, hopefully other editors will build upon it. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ClovisPt, I think that might be as far as we can go for now. Had a bit of a look around, but couldn't find any proponents other than Winters who go into specifics about "genetic evidence". Van Sertima pays some lip service in a couple of his books, but doesn't seem to cite any actual study & it's no more than a generalisation he presupposes as given. If someone can dredge up a notable proponent making these claims in a usable published format, then it could be added. Or, if Winters has published somewhere other than his website.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look too. There is, for example, this article. It is important, however, to note that this "genetics show African chromosones" theory is primarily a non-academic phenomenon, and to exclude it because it hasn't been published would be a mistake. There are 28,600 Google hits for "olmec africa genetics -wikipedia" and 27,000 for "olmec africa DNA -wikipedia" (there's a lot of overlap, non-supportive articles, etc, though). So this is a notable subject. We just need to accurately represent it. I'll give it a try. Madman (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted removal of links
Since this article is about alternative origin speculations, it makes sense to link to web pages that promote those speculations, to let those folks speak for themselves. Thanks, Madman (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. My concerns are based around the guidelines laid out in External_links. Generally, I think these links don't really fit any of the criteria for what should be linked. Specifically, the second category of sites from the "Links normally to be avoided" section reads: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".  I hope you understand where I am coming from.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from. I researched the external link page, and I don't see anything there that would prohibit these sort of external links.  You refer to the "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research".  That would certainly prohibit these as external links at the Olmec article, but this whole article is about fringe theories.  It only makes sense to link to what we're writing about.  (BTW, The Winters link is the 6th one on the google of "olmec" and "africa" -- our article is 2nd -- there are 43,300 such links.)
 * In fact, these links fall under: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in [this] article".
 * Finally, the link labels present the web pages as fringe theories, and not as fact. I don't see the downside of linking them, but I see a great upside.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Viewzone doesn't qualify under WP:EL so I've removed that. Winters and Xu are academics at least. Doug Weller (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the moment I've removed the extraneous Winters links, leaving only his actual website. ClovisPt (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to Xu's website, as well - for the simple (and non-controversial?) reason that it is already used a source in the article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the correct thing to do. Doug Weller (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)