Talk:Returned Treasures Program

Article concerns

A few things don't seem to quite stack up for this article. I can find no mention of any such program at INAH or MNA, or in fact mentioned pretty much anywhere other than this article or the blog maintained (I presume) by the article's creator. The article doesn't really say anything concrete or verifiable about the nature of those institutions' relationships with this program; on the face of the evidence provided I doubt whether there is any such formal association. The citations given are either incorrectly named or else do not exist, since neither the journal nor the book can be found in any publications catalogue or index (or indeed anywhere else on the web). Some of the association names given are also not to be found anywhere else - even if these are rough translations of the original name of the org or association in spanish, there should be something else showing up.

Also, a couple of the names mentioned here—Malpaso Company and Ernest M. Edsel—have had wiki articles on them recently added but then deleted on account of failure to demonstrate notability/advertising. Coincidence or not, hard to say.

It seems to me, that if the program exists then either the article badly misrepresents it and misnames the sources, or the program is being made out to be much more notable and official-sounding than it actually is -- hence I doubt its inclusion on WP:NN grounds. Alternatively, this particular program does not exist in any meaningful form, and is either some kind of promotion for a private endeavour or possibly an intentional hoax.

The first thing to do would be for the article creator to more clearly specify the sources given. The article creator also needs to clarify just what is the association, if any, with actual institutions like INAH or MNA. Basically, provide anything to demonstrate that this program exists and has been notably referenced by independent third-party sources. Otherwise, inclined to nominate for deletion. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

This article has been improved by direct SOURCE citations to official INAH magazine articles on the subject matter and persons mentioned in the wiki article. Please see factual support from two articles on the Returned Treasures Program and its initial funding as reported in the official INAH magazine Cultural Agenda.

See also, the cited SOURCE information on this topic matter from the relevant INHA Directorate, Dirección de Patrimonio Mundial.

I will be adding additional sources and links, including to respected but obscure mueseum/antiquity journals and publications, such as Antiquity, a quarterly review of world archeology, Ed. Martin Carver, which maintains a website/weblog at http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/. Please let me know if this respected journal is found in any list of scientific publications or journals.

Also, a search on Google is not the equivalent of a science journal index sich as those from MacMillan/Pergamon Press; a Google search is merely preliminary and not indicative of anything (see, e.g., recent NY Times article on "deep web" searches and how Google does not find/webcrawl all websites and only indexes a small percentage of all webpages).

For example, try a Google search on the 1982 theft of a Maya codex from France's National Library and its continued possession by INAH over French government demands the codex be returned. Please let me know what you find since that well-known theft in the museum community only has ONE google entry in a NON-museum publication (brief mention in a law review article).

And, please note that INAH website itself does not report all of its activities and programs, no more than does any U.S. Museum, including the Getty (Los Angeles, CA), which has been plagued with scandal over looted antiquities it had to return to the country of origin (as well as misspending of Getty trust funds and sexual harassment of male and female staffers)

Lastly, as a female Hispanic with an anthropology doctorate, I'm surprised to be accused in wikipedia of engaging in an "international hoax", specially when it come to my reporting on the Aztec codex stolen from the French National library in Paris.

I hope that this article is not being targeted for deletion because it is not as notable as a Eurocentric or white European-focused article, because it depends on Spanish language and Latin American sources, or because funding of the topic program came from wealthy, controversial, and unpopular Jewish investors, such as Paul Bilzerian, eventually convicted of securities fraud in takeovers of public companies. I note for the record that wiki articles on such investors, or their companies, are often vandalized and/or targeted for deletion. For example, wiki articles on Robert M. Edsel and his art philanthropy have previously been deleted.

In conclusion, proposed deletion does not serve the need for more diversity and depth in wiki articles, specially in neglected areas of Latin American culture and history.

Thanks, ChloeChloefern (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Chloe Chloefern (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Chloe Chloefern (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the user that nominated this page for proposed deletion and would like to address some of the concerns you have raised.

First off, you did exactly what the proposed deletion process asks of article authors when their articles are nominated: You fixed the article to address the concerns that were raised AND you discussed the matter on this talk page. I can't tell you how many pages I have come across that were proposed for deletion (for whatever reason) where the author simply contested the proposed deletion but didn't address the concern or explain why he/she contested it. The reason why the proposed deletion process has a 5-day waiting period is so that we have time to address the concerns. And in all honesty, it's entirely possible that a proposed deletion patroller with access to journalistic article databases (such as someone at a university or public library) could have come across this article before you and refuted the hoax claim.

Which brings me to the next issue you raised. Because of its nature as an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, Wikipedia is wide open to the possibility that people will use it to propagate hoaxes. It has happened, it's happening now, it will continue happening. And frankly, many of the hoaxes I've seen sound very plausible, realistic, and carefully worded to evade detection as hoaxes. Wikipedia has a policy against creating hoaxes, and on occasion I keep an eye on those articles that are flagged by other users as potential hoaxes and nominate for deletion those that I can't verify. Have I gotten some wrong? Absolutely. But that's why the proposed deletion and articles for deletion processes work: They expose the article to a broad group of editors that might not otherwise come across that article.

Finally, by its nature as English Wikipedia, I will concede that many of its articles, particularly its good articles and featured articles, revolve around concepts that are known to the English-speaking world. To take it a step further, I've seen – and agree with to some extent – accusations that English Wikipedia is USA-centric rather than Eurocentric, as evidenced by many articles favoring USA spellings over UK spellings (e.g., center vs. centre). BUT I disagree with the claim that this article was targeted because it is not Eurocentric. If you would like to see just how diverse the 2.7 million articles in the English Wikipedia are, I suggest clicking the "Random article" link in the navigation bar (or here).

KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article verifiability etc concerns still an open question

Apologies, only just now getting around to reviewing the responses by article creator to the concerns I'd raised a couple of weeks ago, afraid I've been busy/distracted on other activities.

While I appreciate Chloefern making the effort to respond, I'm afraid those responses raise still more questions and doubts, and to my mind at least the issues have not been satisfactorily addressed. Unfortunately am out of time right now to document in more detail my concerns, however I will endeavour to do so on this talk page here within another 24-48 hours.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be taking longer than anticipated to doublecheck those refs. The INAH site has been off the air for a few days, but looks to be back now. Will take a couple more days.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)