Talk:Calico Early Man Site

message: What's happening here, brother? I'm trying to go over the the ref system, not take out your references! Then I plan to put the parenthetical stuff in notes - got any objection?Dave 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autoedit in midstream

message: Hi there. I did contact CJLL. I'm glad we aren't getting excited about this so it can be settled objectively. You are right about about Morell. I didn't really get that far yet. This book is THE book to read! Chapter 27 is entitled "Misadventure at Calico". But, in the context of the whole book it does not mean much. Louis was a far thinker and the more cautious people were forever holding conferences about what he said and usually deciding he was all sorts of bad things but, wouldn't you know it, 10 years later they were all wrong and he was the prophet. However, he was wrong a lot of times and he knew it. He kept rewriting Adam's ancestors, as he said it became outdated every 10 years. So, as I see it, the 1970 conference may as well not even have been held, or if it was, it could never have established anything but the momentary sentiment. That is true of all archaeology. That is why I say, the case does not seem to be closed. Mary you know wasn't too happy with Louis, as, after she more or less forgave him for Rosalie Osborn, he took off after Vanne Goodall and then flung himself after Dian. Somewhere along the line she decided to get mad and I don't believe that is an objective state of mind. Bottom line: if the case is not closed, all I am saying is, should Wikipedia represent it as being closed? You decide. For myself I would have gotten to the misadventure chapter and this article but now I think I will stay out as you seem to have it under control. It's mainly the articles that need improvement that attract me. The book has to go back to the library soon anyway and then I'm moving on to other parts of my interest. I sort of rotate. Best, Dave 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it is represented as "closed", but merely that today's consensus opinion is that there is no sign of human activity.  I do believe that we should state detail the consensus viewpoint whilst also stating the minority opinion(s).   Madman 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all, looks to be an interesting and well-thought out article. As dan notes I've been offline the past week or so, and am just now catching up on the invitation to comment from Dave. FWIW I tend to agree with dan's comments about archaeological sites proper needing substantiation of human occupation, I guess this is similar to other disputed artefact claims like the Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay. Saying it's a "possible arch. site" seems a reasonable compromise, and the rest of the lead I think adequately covers the geofact vs artefact identification. Given the nature and standing of the artefact theories and proponents, a 'pseudoarchaeology' label would prob be a little harsh. However, the 'archaeological site' categories applied here might need revising- perhaps there is a need for a category:Disputed archaeological sites or something similar...?--cjllw | TALK 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misadventure at Calico

message: Where is the Calico Early Man Site located – longitude and latitude??? --79.218.78.55 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 34.947396" N, 116.760944" W. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: A whole lot of unsubstantiated claims are laid down with no evidence and no citations, and make things seem like they are a lot more exciting than they actually are. The article doesn't have a neutral POV and seems to have the impression that this is an equal debate as opposed to an absolute Longshot of a proposition. Aqua817 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs real work 

message: BLM closes Early Man Site -- Victorville daily Press
BARSTOW— The Calico Early Man Site, near Yermo, once a bustling scientific stop for both professional and amateur anthropologists, is closed until further notice, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
“Approximately two years ago the site became a public safety concern,” said Katrina Symons, Field Manager for the Bureau of Land Management's Barstow office. “There was a lot of vandalism and theft which gave us no choice but to shut the site down indefinitely. Doors were torn off the two cabins there and artifacts were stolen from the cabins.”
The site, about 15 miles northeast of Barstow, became famous after Louis Leakey, the world renowned anthropologist, visited in 1964 and worked the site off and on until 1970.
Besides vandalism and theft, there is a potential health concern at the site.
“There is a very serious chance of the Hantavirus at the location,” Symons said. “That is why the area is secured with double fencing. No one is allowed out there until these concerns are first taken care of.”
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed to public?