Talk:Caral–Supe civilization

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#Archaeology
Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#An_issue_with_the_title_of_the_english_version_of_this_article
No 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)

Ruth Shady Solis's publications were of Caral-Supe: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It is also false to state the the official Peruvian position does not include Supe: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

From the history section:

The radiocarbon work of Jonathan Haas et al., found that 10 of 95 samples taken in the Pativilca and Fortaleza areas dated from before 3500 BC. The oldest, dating from 9210 BC, provides "limited indication" of human settlement during the Pre-Columbian Early Archaic era. Two dates of 3700 BC are associated with communal architecture, but are likely to be anomalous. It is from 3200 BC onward that large-scale human settlement and communal construction are clearly apparent. Mann, in a survey of the literature in 2005, suggests "sometime before 3200 BC, and possibly before 3500 BC" as the beginning date of the Caral-Supe formative period. He notes that the earliest date securely associated with a city is 3500 BC, at Huaricanga, in the Fortaleza area of the north, based on Haas's dates.

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)

@SpinningCeres, regarding your addition of the AI-generated tag, may I ask what indicated this to you and what (if any) remedies you have in mind?  Cup o’ Java (💬 talk ✉️ email 🕓 contrib) 00:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Cup o' Java: the most obvious are the edits Diff/1320700136/1323860829. These should be fairly easy to just remove from the article. You can also work your way through the references, keep anything that is verifiable, remove all the WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL words from the prose and fix the verbiage. Just yoinking it all out wholesale is usually the easiest/best solution in my experience.

But I wouldn't remove the tag right away, because it seems like that SpinningCeres identified more problems than just these edits since they chose to tag rather than revert. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed some of it: Diff/1343132339. Left one paragraph that seems to have been fixed up by someone else. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn

I had a question here about Wikipedia's policy on AI.

The reverted material was manually checked against the cited source before posting. I drafted the substance myself and used limited machine assistance on wording, then verified the content before saving.

This wasn't just clicking on a few buttons and a bunch of AI stuff popped out and I cut and pasted it without looking. I put some time into it.

I looked again and the source supports the added facts. I'm not sure how exactly I'm supposed to fix this because I don't see anything wrong with it.

If there is a specific wording problem or sourcing issue, please identify the exact sentence so it can be corrected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caral%E2%80%93Supe_civilization&diff=prev&oldid=1342973064 Emeraldflames (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I cut and pasted it without looking.

That is exactly what it looks like happened, because that would in fact be indistinguishable from the results that you added to the article.

not sure how exactly I'm supposed to fix this

The fix is to stop asking a clanker to generate your Wikipedia contributions for you and sit down and write your contributions yourself. Also read the sources that you reference, in full and without relying on a summary from a program that is unable to comprehend.

please identify the exact sentence so it can be corrected

Nope, and this question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I put some time into it.

As a bit of friendly advice, it will actually take you less time to write it yourself. According to the recent analysis done by WikiEdu, LLM generation followed by the required level of human analysis takes more time than just writing it yourself. As an added bonus, you will retain more of the knowledge from reading and summarizing the sources, and you will actually be able to take credit for contributions made by your username. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with what was posted. As I stated, I drafted the substance myself and limited assistance on wording. As I stated, I did indeed read the sources I sited, and I verified the content before saving. You are not pointing out *any* actual problem nor are you referring me to *any* policy that outright prohibits assistance on wording or formatting. You say it looks like I just cut and pasted without looking and yet you have not identified a single error of any kind- just hostility towards "clankers". Show me the error and I'll fix it. Show me the policy and I'll abide by it. If you are not able to do either one then it should be restored. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, this only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the problem is. If I point out anything specific to you, then I suspect that you would just address those specific issues and insist on making the changes unless you are shown policies explicitly prohibiting them from being made. But the problem, namely that you did not write your edit yourself, is still there even if you paint over some symptoms. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I *did* write it- with limited LLM assistance. You have more or less implied that I lazily cut and pasted it without thought and care, and that is just not accurate.

You don't cite inaccuracy, you don't cite difficult phrasing, you don't cite policy. OK, fine. Forget policies then for a moment. Let's look at this very simply.

What *harm* has been done here? Why wouldn't somebody reading this article benefit from having accurate, well-sourced, verified information relevant to the article? How does it serve the reader to be denied this information?

The potential problem with AI implemented editing is enormous. On that I agree. They can be terribly inaccurate and they can't always be trusted. But this is not such a case.

Having an LLM assist an editor in phrasing and formatting, with intentional editing, and manual, eyes-on verification of all links is just not problematic. This is not an example of a problematic use of AI. And I disagree that ANY usage of AI, in ANY capacity is automatically bad and should be removed.

The issue is not black and white. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)