Talk:Potano

Move back to Potano?

This article was moved without any discussion, and with no clean-up. I think that it would be better moved back to Potano, where it had been for years. If it stays at Potano people, then several other articles need to be fixed. I would ask that nothing be done to those other articles until we can discuss moving this article back. -- Donald Albury 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur, move back. All of those moved earlier today by one user should be moved back. Heiro 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's move all of them back to where they were, pending discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New material

I don't think that new material belongs in the article, at least until we have a stronger source for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence is on editors introducing or restoring material to defend it. Please explain why this new material should be in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. I am one of the archaeologists following the controversy concerning this site's identity, and, at the request of General Ization, already put a request for comment on the Hernando de Soto page concerning this issue. Specifically: the increasing consensus of the archaeological community is that the "White Ranch" site referred to in the 2012 article by Susan Latham Carr is dubious at best and an outright fraud at worst. The 2014 article by Fred Hiers was published by the same source as the 2012 article by Carr, discusses the controversy, and specifically discusses the fact that professional archaeologists have called into question the very existence of the "White Ranch" site, let alone its identity as San Buenaventura. Accordingly, the newer, more recent material, as well as the controversy, should be referred to in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.208.181 (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. For the future, please stop edit warring over this material, or you're likely to be blocked from editing. The source looks okay, but have there been archaeological publications on this? That would settle the issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is not my intention to engage in an edit war, as I would prefer to reach a consensus on these issues. However, you are the first editor other than General Ization to actually respond or attempt to reach a consensus.

As I noted in my discussion with General Ization on the de Soto talk page, Dr. Willet Boyer, the archaeologist who discovered the mission church and mission structures at the Richardson site, has presented several professional papers on those finds, though I would prefer to see a publication in a journal which has been peer-reviewed. For future reference, if such a publication is made, would you, as an editor and administrator, consider that the "final word" in terms of resolving the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.26.222 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

172.56.26.222, sorry for the delay. Yes, we should rely on the best sources we have available, and a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Boyer would fit the bill. I'd rate any paper by Dr. Boyer above a newspaper article, though the newspaper article may be useful for providing the background of the whole dispute, if it's even notable enough to include. What are the papers that have come out so far?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cuchulain and others - I've been following the controversy over the sites for some time now, and I note another user has updated the article references to reflect a journal article published by Boyer on the Richardson site last year. I would suggest that, since this is the only peer-reviewed source available at this point, that it reflects the current archaeological and historical consensus unless and until there is a peer-reviewed publication by White available - if ever.Veritas20132014 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)