Difference between revisions of "Talk:Quetzalcoatl"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Middle Man (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] | [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is why people don't take conservapedia seriously. The craziest 16th century theory is presented as fact. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:20, April 20, 2007
I would just like to point out that the validity of the content of this article is, putting it nicely, speculative at best and nominate it for correction or deletion.
I lived in Mexico for three years, visited all the major Aztec ruins, and I've never even heard that bizzare theory. Czolgolz 12:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
- This "bizzare theory" has been supported by Mexican intellectuals and theologians for centuries, including Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora, as noted in the article This isn't just some "speculation" or original research I've made up. --Ignatius 13:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Still, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in its current form, maybe you could add somewhere in the first paragraph that some theologians belief this STORY to be a possible explanation for Quetzalcoatl being represented as a white man.
This is why people don't take conservapedia seriously. The craziest 16th century theory is presented as fact. Czolgolz 13:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)