Talk:Clovis culture

message: Hopefully the latest study to plaster the media is useful for the sections of this article within the section "Alternatives to Clovis-first". It might apply to both sections: "Evidence of human habitation before Clovis" and "Coastal migration route". I would write something, but this is new to me and I am still trying to get a handle on it. 
It looks like more evidence for a route between the glaciers in the far north and the lower 48 that both humans and bison used. Hopefully, that is an accurate summation. 
Here is a really good article in the journal Science about it  and here is the actual scientific paper  and full text is available, which may be only temporary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New research for this article

message: Part of the fall-out from creating a navbox for prehistoric caves is discovering that we have some pretty poor articles. Nothing in the stub that still is Pendejo Cave mentioned this until I happened to see the article and wonder if it was worth including in the navbox. I didn't expect to find that Richard MacNeish had dated occupation there back that far. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pendejo Cave]] - occupied 75,000 years ago? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clovis culture. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508060759/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/seac/outline/02-paleoindian/index.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/outline/02-paleoindian/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest that the Austronesian Migration Hypothesis merits some mention.
Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to Clovis-first 

message: The "Other sites" section is a mess. It largely duplicates the sites included in the "Evidence of human habitation before Clovis" section, it has chunks of unsourced material that look suspiciously like original research, some of the sites are not actually older than Clovis, and it is not in the "approximately reverse chronological order" promised at the top of the section. I'm not sure why the section exists. I propose that we remove the section as unnecessary to the article. - Donald Albury 03:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sites section 

message: * Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum (2021) Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed  

message: My view is that Clovis First should be split into a separate article, leaving Clovis Culture as what it should be ie about the palentology, history, and archaeology of the culture. The CF idea causes all sorts of contention which makes what should be a straightforward science/history wiki article a mess and controversial. Just MHO.Ploversegg (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree and please see my message below under "Poor Organization and Too Much Off-Topic Information." SpringDraw (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: "this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,200 to 12,900 calendar years ago."
Calendar years? For a range as broad as "13,200 to 12,900" the detail of "calendar" years is superfluous. 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:1DC8:7E3A:BA5F:8540 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Calendar years as opposed to radiocarbon years. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary modifier 

message: This article leaves the impression that Clovis First was not challenged by archaeologists until perhaps mid first-decade of the 21st century.  This is not true. In the last third of the 20th century there were a number of archaeologists who questioned Clovis First.  Work done at Monte Verde reported in 1982 indicated a pre-Clovis date, and in 1990 (The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990 | American Antiquity | Cambridge Core) there was already a review of the debate over radiocarbon dates the preceded Clovis at Meadowcroft.  And not a few North American archaeologists not specializing in Paleo-Indians informally voiced openness to earlier dates.  See also Some Evidence of a Date of First Humans to Arrive in Brazil - ScienceDirect (published around 2003 but with references to somewhat earlier arguments), Sandia Cave (not pre-Clovis, but for some time considered a candidate), the Solutrean Hypothesis (only held by a very small number of archaeologists, but nevertheless a pre-Clovis hypothesis, dating to the 1970s), and a review in the '80s: Waters, Michael R. "Early Man in the New World: An evaluation of the radiocarbon dated Pre-Clovis sites in the Americas." Environments and extinctions: man in late glacial North America (1985): 125-144.  Given all these data, the presence of  onl-going nay-sayers and skeptics should be mentioned in the article. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D44:D7F8:84F1:F3FB (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free. – Joe (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The image in the article of pre-Clovis sites: :File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-americas.svg, has the Buttermilk Creek site (Gault site) in the entirely wrong location.  It is near Salado, Texas, and this is pointing to somewhere in Mississippi.   Could this be fixed?  The original uploader, User:Pratyeka, seems to have resigned from Wikipedia.   Can anyone else with the appropriate skills fix it? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect location on map... 

message: The archaeological information on Clovis seems largely accurate, but is minimal and poorly organized. The larger problem is that the clear majority of information on this page is not about Clovis so much as it is about reactions to Clovis first and pre-Clovis arguments. These are fine, but they should be made into a separate page. My archaeology class on Paleoindians is overhauling this page as a group project. We aim to address these issues by uploading a substantial amount of new content focused specifically on Clovis period archaeology, and making recommendations for splitting other content off to a new article.  SpringDraw (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. This article is already too big. I will therefore move a lot of material to a new article, temporarily called Alternatives to the Clovis First theory. Some of this material could perhaps be absorbed into the existing article Peopling of the Americas, although that article is already much too big itself, so maybe material from there might be moved here etc. Wdford (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - in my opinion the site is greatly improved, and that is exactly where I would have separated things topically. I am working with students to compile a document that combines existing content with expanded information on dating, technology, diet and subsistence, art and aesthetics and some key sites - all strictly related to Clovis. We'll be uploading new content soon. Thanks for helping to clear a path! SpringDraw (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am finally getting around to posting the updated material that my students compiled. Although I've done some general editing, I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement. I'll be uploading over the course of the next day or two. SpringDraw (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   I've reverted your new version for now because your version had many problems 1. the lead is way too short. 2. Though you provide brief in section citations, oftentimes these have no corresponding references, for instance you cite "Boldurian 2008", but there's no sources by Boldurian listed at all in the article, effectively making them uncited, and it's not fair to force editors to try to track down the sources you are referencing based on just the name and year. That said, there are many good things about your new version that are much better than the old one, but the citation issues really need to be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, I've gone ahead and rewritten the article from the ground up, using some of the citations and text from your version where there was usable sourcing, and extensive additions from my own research Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor organization and too much off-topic information - offering an overhaul by archaeology students 

message: I created a spin-off article from the article Clovis culture at Alternatives to the Clovis First theory. This article was getting too big, and the content was becoming incoherent. Much of the work done in that article was therefore done by editors at this article. Much clean-up work is required over there. Please help. Wdford (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created a spin-off article at [[Alternatives to the Clovis First theory]]