Talk:Kʼàakʼ Chiʼ

Doubts

There has been a media rush on this, but it is mainly fueled by social media. There are no reliable sources at the bottom of this. For a healthy dose of scepticism see this article, well worth reading, and the only one I've found that actually spoke to a Mayanist (David Stuart). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Another More Complex Site 2.75 Kilometers Southwest 225°

There appears to be another site .2 kilometers at 150° south of the indicated area. Also, a much larger and far more complex structure can be seen at 2.75 kilometers at 225° southwest. John Huebner (talk) (Cartographer/Surveyor) 9:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Elevation diagram

I've moved the elevation diagram down to de-emphasize it a bit; can anybody explain why it is here? The co-ordinates given don't seem to bracket the site, so I'm not clear what it is supposed to tell us. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd get rid of it. Simon Burchell (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Corrected coordinates.Girardelli G.Escucho 15:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice the elevation diagram has been removed now, but the issue still remains as it is still on Commons and in use elsewhere.

First, I see you changed the co-ordinates here before it went, but that then put them at odds with the co-ordinates on the file at Commons. So which are correct? The ones at Commons or the ones you put here?

Second, where does the information come from that was used to create the profile? There is no source given in the Commons file, nor were there any here; how is this image verifiable?

Third, the profile as amended shows (or purports to show) a cross-section of a spit of land extending into the lagoon/lake and is about half a mile from the location of the features indicated by the co-ordinates on the page; so what connection does the profile have to the subject of the article?

Can you shed some light on this, as without some satisfaction on these matters it will be necessary to propose the file at Commons for deletion as being non-Verifiable, (ie Original Research) and non-Notable (ie not connected to the subject here, or anywhere else) Moonraker12 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I took the image off the page after comparing it with a track on the coords given on Google Earth, which showed no peak at all, rather a smooth drop-off towards the seasonal swamp. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Espanol

English

Gracias por su paciencia. Primero: Olvidé corregir las coordenadas en Commons. Ya lo hice. Segundo: La información es proporcionada por Google Earth Por ello las coordenadas deben ser precisas. Tercero: El perfil es una captura del Google Earth. La distancia a las coordenadas del artículo es menor a 600 m. No es una fuente primaria ya que está anunciado por múltiples portales. (Los siguientes son en español) [1][2][3] Girardelli G.Escucho 00:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. First: I forgot to correct the coordinates in Commons. Already did. Second: The information is provided by Google Earth. Therefore the coordinates must be accurate. Third: The profile is a snapshot of Google Earth. The distance to the coordinates of the article is less than 600 m. It is not a primary source because it is advertised by multiple portals. (The following are in Spanish) [4][5][6] Girardelli G.Escucho 00:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK - I see with the new coordinates it is showing a cross-section of the peninsula that extends into the swamp. However, dropping this image into the article without comment gives the misleading impression that it is showing a cross-section of a pyramid, which it clearly is not - taking a profile using coordinates along the axis of the peninsula would tell a different story. Secondly, the peninsula is not the reported location of the satellite objects, making this just an arbitrary terrain profile in the general locality, about 0.5km to the west of the reported site. No coordinates are given in any of the three sources you have cited. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

However good a journalist Lia Grainger might be, she is not an expert on the subject and the Daily Buzz is clearly not a reliable source. Its website says "ABOUT THE DAILY BUZZ The Daily Buzz is a multimedia digital platform, striving to deliver the best the internet has to offer: from the uplifting to the sidesplitting. Our Meme Masters and Video Virtuosos serve up buzzworthy content and news on a daily basis that’s sure to make even your most hipster friend crack an unironic smile. If we’ve done that, we’ve done our job. So whether you need a laugh or a 3PM pick me up, look no further"[7]

The sources used to claim more discoveries by the University of New Brunswick don't back that claim, and only the National Geographic comes close to meeting WP:RS. Doug Wellertalk 10:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If it were up to me, the whole article would be deleted as unsubstantiated rubbish (schoolkid gets a wild idea, naive press runs with it), but that's been tried that before (no consensus). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Forthcoming documentary and unrevealed possible discoveries

I've spent too much time on this already, someone want to add this?[8] Doug Weller talk 10:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Last Paragraph Is Confusing

The final paragraph contradicts itself. It suggests that the lost city both does exist and does not exist. It needs to be edited for grammar and clarity, please. 2001:569:731C:4300:F8E3:6D06:5E45:EB9E (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)