Talk:Cascajal Block

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cascajal Block article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Mesoamerica (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas Mid‑importance

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Olmec hieroglyphs → Cascajal Block — The terms "Olmec hieroglyphs" and "Olmec script" are not particularly widespread outside of Wikipedia. The writing is usually just referred to indirectly, as "the text on the Cascajal Block" or the like. —Ptcamn (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Strongly support In fact, I was planning on do that very thing this weekend, without this discussion (but real life intervened). WP:Name would support "Cascajal block" as well ("Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. . ."). Note that the two non-English Wikipedia articles are also named "Cascajal block". As Ptcamn notes, "Olmec hieroglyphs" could refer to any number of glyphs, including those at San Andres or on La Venta Monument 13. Madman (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Strongly object At the moment, the San Andres glyphs are covered by Mesoamerican_writing_systems#Olmec_writing but not by Olmec hieroglyphs. This is very much misleading, in particular given the lack of consensus about the authenticity and nature of the Cascajal Block. Suggestion to remove the redirection and to have a separate page on Olmec hieroglyphs. Additional material (aside from San Andres) that can go into there could be the Olmec-era possible scripts mentioned under Mesoamerican_writing_systems#Other_potential_Mesoamerican_writing_systems as these have been discussed in relation to a potential Olmec script. Likewise, a passage (and a link to) Epi-Olmec can be added, so there would be enough material other than the Cascajal Block. Chiarcos (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

"@Chiarcos: this proposal is 12 years old and dead. It's best never to respond to anything other than very recent posts. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but creating a proposal for the exact opposite isn't exactly adding transparency to the discussion either. It does make sense in this case because there is non-Cascajal content that just cannot go anywhere on this page. I guess I just create a separate Olmec writing page and if anybody feels like merging this again, we can discuss then. Chiarcos (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Any additional comments:

comment: given that this article is almost all about the cascajal block discovery & reactions, I agree it cld make sense to move it to that title. However, I think there's also scope for a broader article that can go into the question of to what extent the Olmec had a writing system, since that's a lively enough topic on its own. Although few in number there are other inscriptions/glyphs attributed to the Olmec period/culture (the Humboldt Celt, La Venta Monuments 13, 19, 26 &c., some misc. pottery, Olmec(oid) inscr. in Guerrero, Chalcatzingo etc). So we cld retain the title Olmec hieroglyphs for this, or use some other, while also having the specific cascajal article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with this proposal, and would add the glyphs found at San Andres as well. Why don't I move the article and we can add an article on "Olmec hieroglyphs" or "Olmec writing systems" or ___ when we are able to put this together. Madman (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to Google Scholar, the preferred term is "Olmec writing" (71 results) or "Olmec script" (52 results), but not "Olmec glyphs" (11 results) and definitely not "Olmec hieroglyphs" (5 results -- three of these only mention Olmecs in passing, one is a somewhat speculative position paper about language contacts between Olmec and Africa, so there is really no serious basis for that term). Of course these counts include results for "Epi-Olmec ...". Chiarcos (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

"A couple years" -- needs re-writing

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently reads:

"Archaeologist Christopher Pool of the University of Kentucky in Lexington has known about the tablet for a couple years."

The phrase "a couple years" is perhaps incorrect today, and will certainly be incorrect within a year or two. This should be re-written to resolve the time ambiguity, e.g. "has known about the tablet since [year]".

Karl gregory jones (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hope that's better. I changed it to remove that entirely, make it clear Pool was talking in 2010. Doug Weller (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cascajal Block. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No image?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This seems like an important ancient artefact. Seems odd not to include a photograph of the block itself with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.73.236 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think a photo would be a nice addition to the article. However, (1) I am not aware of a freely licensed photo of the block, and (2) photos of the block really don't "say" anything. There is no real informational content. Here's a nice image: http://www.ancientpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cascajalblock.jpg What does it show? Nothing of note. User:Madman2001