Talk:Caral–Supe civilization

message: The article and others linking to it paint a very black and white picture of Norte Chico being one of six ‘original’ civilisations. Granted there is no universal agreement on a cutoff between other advanced cultures and civilisations, and as far as broader zones of civilisation are concerned, the oldest massive jump representing the Andean-Peruvian coastal region should get a serious mention, but why is eg Danubian cultures not included? This list of six is hardly a scholarly consensus and the subjectivity involved should at least be emphasised. 
Otherwise, what black and white criteria include Norte Chico but not eg Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which had an even more probable form of proto-writing, proto-currency, visual arts galore, apparently larger settlements by population, ceramics, etc., technologies that Norte Chico lacked? They also had large-scale architecture, though admittedly their largest known temple is puny in comparison. Is it then the scale of monumental architecture that is taken as defining? Should this be clarified? Harsimaja (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compact list of civilisations? 

message: The legal name is Caral Civilization stated by the Peruvian Government (Ministry of Culture). Moreover, the most common name is Caral Civilization because it's used in any translated materials for tourists who came to Peru. Moreover, Ruth Shady who is the founder and director of the archaeological project at Caral, named Caral Civilization.
What is more, here there are many section referring to this topic:Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#ArchaeologyTalk:Norte_Chico_civilization#An_issue_with_the_title_of_the_english_version_of_this_articleNo one has pointed out any argument in opposition to those points even though that past long time. According to Wikipedia:Consensus#In_talk_pages: Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. So, that situation afforded to do the changes following the Wikipedia rules.Jjrt (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruth Shady Solis's publications were of Caral-Supe:   SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

text: It is also false to state the the official Peruvian position does not include Supe:  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're replying to an out-of-context comment. The article has (finally!) been changed to "Caral-Supe", but when Jjrt wrote, it was called "Norte Chico", which is what he wanted to have changed. You can see the section below in purple, it talks about this change! 212.97.248.219 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caral Civilization 

message: Tagged as needing update for recent research. The article should be expanded with this research. Eg  looks to contain a lot of information about political structure that is not covered in the article. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]] 

message: :Norte Chico civilization →  – It's been suggested in multiple places that the article's name should be changed; see above for an argument for "Caral civilization" and here for "Caral" or "Caral-Supe civilization". In terms of Google Scholar, the results since 2010 are:
*"Norte Chico civilization", 35
*"Caral civilization", 28
*"Caral-Supe civilization", 12
The trend does seem to be going towards Caral or Caral-Supe, the former is the official name used by the Peruvian government, and is far more common in Spanish than Norte Chico (per Google Scholar). I express no opinion. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 March 2022 

message: From the history section:
Two problems with this:
1. Charles C. Mann is not an archaeologist. He is a journalist, who interviewed archaeologists to write 1491. And sometimes he goes off on a tangent and attempts to speak on his own behalf which is where that otherwise decent introductory book begins to fail. The point is, he shouldn't be cited in this context as if he were a primary researcher.
2. I don't have 1491 on hand right now, but I do have Hass' paper which is cited here, and that's not what it says at all. It mentions nothing about Huaricanga being the earliest city, and in fact he gives 3200 - 2500 BC as the range for the proliferation of monument building and citymaking, nothing earlier. He even mentions that "it is unlikely that which site was ‘first’ can ever be known" .
Unless anyone has any informed objections, these claims are going to have to be thrown out. TangoFett (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology