"Matt S." Has deleted my fully researched, cited, accurate and pertinent section titled "controversy on the grounds that it argues against the existence of the article itself. It does not; it questions the validity of assertions within that article, and does so justifiably. I am the only contributor to this article who has researched and cited their contributions in accordance with documented history and Andeanist scholarship. A lot of work went into researching and citing this; it should not be removed prejudicially. If "Matt S." favors the original assertions, he should provide them support and citations.
czypcamayoc
I have edited the article "Chakana" to qualify its categorical presentation as fact a highly questionable assertion: that the "chakana" design is an ancient and traditional motif in Andean culture and that it represents an identifiable symbology. This is not done to be mean-spirited; it is done to clarify and inform. In fact, the "chakana" appears to be a modern convention and to have few or no roots in pre-columbian cultures. This is something the reader may wish to know. If evidence to support the contention of the article as it read before this amendment exists, please present it here or within the text. Please do not reflexively revert valid modifications.