Last updated: September 15, 2026
MayaSkies.net is an independent educational publication exploring Maya astronomy, calendars, mathematics, archaeology, architecture, cosmology, archaeoastronomy, writing, and digital heritage.
Our editorial goal is straightforward:
to make complex subjects understandable without replacing evidence with speculation, oversimplification, or sensationalism.
This Editorial Policy explains how topics are selected, how sources are evaluated, how uncertainty and scholarly disagreements are handled, how corrections are made, and how technology—including artificial intelligence—may be used in the publishing process.
1. Editorial Mission
Maya Skies exists to help readers understand the relationships between the sky, time, mathematics, architecture, archaeology, and Maya cultural history.
Our content is intended for readers including:
- students;
- educators;
- researchers;
- history and archaeology enthusiasts;
- astronomy enthusiasts;
- museum and planetarium audiences; and
- general readers seeking reliable introductions to Maya-related subjects.
Articles should provide genuine educational value rather than exist primarily to capture search traffic.
A page should help the reader understand its subject more clearly than before visiting it.
2. Core Editorial Principles
Content published on MayaSkies.net should follow several basic principles.
Accuracy
Claims should be supported by reliable evidence appropriate to the subject.
Writers and editors should verify important names, dates, places, calculations, quotations, archaeological claims, astronomical information, and interpretations before publication.
Context
Facts should not be presented in ways that materially change their meaning.
For example, an astronomical alignment proposed for one building at one archaeological site should not automatically be presented as a universal practice of all Maya communities.
Transparency
Readers should be able to understand where important information comes from.
Significant factual, archaeological, scientific, or historical claims should be accompanied by appropriate sourcing whenever practical.
Independence
Editorial conclusions should not be changed to satisfy advertisers, sponsors, commercial partners, political interests, or organizations mentioned in an article.
Respect
Maya peoples are not merely subjects of an extinct ancient civilization.
Millions of Maya people and numerous Maya-language communities continue to exist today. Content should avoid stereotypes and should distinguish carefully between ancient evidence, later historical traditions, and contemporary communities.
3. Evidence Before Sensationalism
Maya history and astronomy have frequently attracted sensational claims involving hidden knowledge, mysterious technology, prophecy, extraterrestrial intervention, catastrophic predictions, astronomical perfection, and the year 2012.
Popularity alone does not make a claim historically credible.
When such subjects are covered, MayaSkies.net should attempt to explain:
- what the claim says;
- where the claim originated;
- what evidence supports it;
- what evidence challenges it;
- how specialists interpret the evidence; and
- what remains uncertain.
Headlines and summaries should not exaggerate findings merely to attract clicks.
A fascinating story does not require presenting speculation as fact.
4. Levels of Certainty
Archaeology and archaeoastronomy often involve interpretation.
For clarity, MayaSkies.net may describe claims using terms such as:
Established or Well Supported
Supported by substantial archaeological, documentary, astronomical, epigraphic, or other relevant evidence.
Likely
The evidence strongly supports an interpretation, although some uncertainty remains.
Proposed
A plausible scholarly interpretation that has not reached broad agreement.
Debated
Multiple credible interpretations remain in active discussion.
Speculative
An interpretation for which the available evidence is limited or indirect.
These labels are not rigid scientific classifications. They are editorial tools intended to help readers distinguish evidence from confidence.
5. Source Standards
MayaSkies.net aims to rely on the strongest available source for each type of claim.
Sources may include:
- peer-reviewed academic journals;
- archaeological reports;
- original excavation publications;
- scholarly books;
- university publications;
- museum research;
- government archaeological institutions;
- cultural heritage organizations;
- epigraphic databases;
- astronomical datasets;
- primary historical documents;
- inscriptions and archaeological records;
- established reference works; and
- recognized experts in relevant fields.
Sources from institutions such as universities, museums, archaeological authorities, UNESCO, and scholarly publishers may be particularly useful, but institutional status alone does not make every claim unquestionable.
Sources are evaluated according to the evidence they provide.
6. Primary and Secondary Sources
Where practical, important claims should be traced to original or near-original sources.
For example:
A claim about an excavation should preferably lead to an excavation report or scholarly publication rather than a blog summarizing another article.
A claim about an inscription should preferably reference epigraphic research or authoritative documentation.
A claim about an astronomical cycle should be checked against credible astronomical data or scholarship.
Secondary sources are valuable for explaining context, synthesizing scholarship, and making specialized research accessible.
However, MayaSkies.net should avoid creating chains in which one unsourced website simply repeats another.
7. Wikipedia and General Reference Sources
General reference sources, including Wikipedia, may be useful for identifying terminology, references, names, and potential research directions.
They should not ordinarily serve as the sole authority for important or disputed claims when stronger original or scholarly sources are available.
Research should continue beyond the summary whenever the subject requires greater confidence.
8. Scholarly Disagreement
A disagreement between researchers is not necessarily an error that must be resolved into a single answer.
When credible scholars disagree, articles should explain the major interpretations fairly and identify the evidence behind them.
MayaSkies.net should not manufacture false balance where overwhelming evidence favors one conclusion.
At the same time, a minority interpretation should not be presented as consensus simply because it is more dramatic or interesting.
9. Archaeoastronomy Standards
Archaeoastronomy requires particular care because architectural orientations can sometimes produce apparent astronomical relationships by coincidence.
An article discussing an astronomical alignment should consider, when relevant:
- the accuracy of the measured orientation;
- the horizon and local landscape;
- the period in which the structure was constructed;
- astronomical conditions during the relevant period;
- whether similar orientations occur elsewhere;
- calendar or ritual context;
- archaeological evidence;
- documentary or epigraphic evidence; and
- alternative explanations.
A visual resemblance or approximate alignment alone should not automatically be treated as proof of intentional astronomical design.
10. Calendar and Chronology Standards
Articles and tools involving Maya calendars should clearly identify the calendar system being discussed.
These may include:
- Tzolk’in;
- Haab;
- Calendar Round;
- Long Count; and
- other historical calendrical systems or cycles.
When converting Maya dates to Gregorian or Julian dates, the correlation method or assumptions should be documented where relevant.
If different scholarly correlations can produce different results, readers should be informed.
Calculator output should not be presented as more certain than the underlying methodology permits.
11. Mathematics and Numerical Tools
MayaSkies.net may publish calculators, converters, interactive diagrams, and educational tools involving Maya mathematics.
Tools should be tested before public release.
When practical, methodology should be documented so readers can understand:
- what the tool calculates;
- what assumptions it uses;
- how values are derived;
- what limitations apply; and
- whether alternative conventions exist.
Tools are educational aids, not substitutes for primary research.
12. Digital Archaeology and Reconstruction
Digital reconstruction can help readers understand archaeological sites, but a reconstruction may contain both evidence and interpretation.
Images or models should therefore distinguish, when relevant, between:
- surviving archaeological remains;
- measured or scanned geometry;
- evidence-based reconstruction;
- hypothetical reconstruction; and
- artistic illustration.
A reconstructed building should not be presented as a literal photograph of the past.
Where substantial uncertainty exists concerning colors, materials, roofs, decorations, landscapes, clothing, or missing architectural elements, that uncertainty should be acknowledged.
13. Images and Visual Evidence
Photographs, maps, diagrams, illustrations, charts, renderings, and generated images should not intentionally misrepresent evidence.
Captions should provide appropriate context.
Material should be identified when it is:
- an illustration;
- a reconstruction;
- a simulation;
- an artist’s interpretation;
- a modern photograph;
- an archaeological drawing; or
- an AI-generated or AI-assisted visualization where disclosure is appropriate.
Digitally altered imagery should not be presented as documentary archaeological evidence if the alteration materially changes what the original image showed.
14. Artificial Intelligence and Automation
MayaSkies.net may use artificial intelligence and automated tools as part of its research, drafting, editing, translation, data processing, coding, or production workflow.
AI may assist with tasks such as:
- organizing research;
- generating outlines;
- identifying questions requiring further research;
- language editing;
- summarizing material for internal review;
- generating code for educational tools;
- processing structured information; or
- assisting with preliminary drafts.
AI output is not treated as an authoritative source.
Factual claims produced with AI assistance should be checked against credible sources before publication where verification is reasonably possible.
AI should not be used as a substitute for evidence.
MayaSkies.net does not aim to mass-publish automatically generated articles simply because search terms exist.
Human editorial responsibility remains with the publication regardless of which tools were used during production.
Where the use of AI materially affects how readers would interpret a piece of content—particularly generated historical imagery, simulations, or reconstructed scenes—appropriate disclosure should be considered.
15. Originality
Articles should provide more than a rearrangement of information already available elsewhere.
Original value may include:
- clearer explanations;
- comparison of multiple scholarly sources;
- diagrams;
- tables;
- calculations;
- interactive tools;
- timelines;
- source evaluation;
- myth-versus-evidence analysis;
- synthesis of research;
- identification of scholarly disagreement; or
- connections between related subjects.
Plagiarism is not acceptable.
Quoted material should be attributed and used within appropriate legal and editorial limits.
16. Authorship
Where practical, articles should identify their author.
Author pages may explain relevant experience, research interests, editorial responsibilities, or areas of coverage.
A byline does not mean that an author personally discovered every fact discussed in an article. It identifies editorial responsibility for the published work.
Where specialist review has genuinely occurred, a reviewer may also be identified.
MayaSkies.net should not invent academic qualifications, reviewers, authors, field experience, or institutional affiliations.
17. Expert Review
Some subjects may benefit from review by specialists, particularly content involving:
- archaeology;
- archaeoastronomy;
- epigraphy;
- Maya languages;
- calendar correlations;
- historical astronomy; or
- cultural representation.
An article should only be labeled as reviewed by an expert when meaningful review actually occurred.
Expert review does not eliminate the possibility of future correction or scholarly disagreement.
18. Contemporary Maya Peoples and Cultural Representation
Content should avoid implying that the Maya disappeared.
Ancient Maya civilization includes many historical periods, regions, languages, political centers, and cultural traditions, while contemporary Maya peoples comprise diverse communities with their own identities and experiences.
Writers should avoid using one community as representative of all Maya peoples without adequate justification.
Where possible, terminology should reflect the preferences and usage of relevant communities and credible scholarship.
Sacred, culturally sensitive, funerary, or restricted material should be approached with appropriate care.
Educational interest alone does not remove the need for respect.
19. Terminology
Terminology may differ among disciplines, languages, institutions, and communities.
As a general editorial convention:
Maya is normally preferred when referring to people, civilization, history, astronomy, mathematics, art, archaeology, or culture.
Mayan is commonly used in linguistic contexts, such as the Mayan language family.
Exceptions may occur when quoting sources, using established proper names, or following terminology appropriate to a particular scholarly context.
20. Headlines and Search Optimization
Search engine optimization may be used to help readers discover relevant content.
SEO considerations must not override editorial accuracy.
MayaSkies.net should avoid:
- misleading headlines;
- fabricated urgency;
- exaggerated historical claims;
- keyword stuffing;
- pages created solely for minor keyword variations;
- unsupported superlatives;
- misleading dates; and
- titles implying certainty that the article itself does not support.
Titles should describe the actual content of the page.
21. Advertising, Sponsorship, and Commercial Influence
Advertising or commercial relationships should not determine factual conclusions.
Where sponsored content, paid placements, affiliate relationships, or similar commercial arrangements exist, they should be disclosed where appropriate.
Advertisers do not receive the right to alter independent archaeological, historical, or scientific conclusions.
Editorial coverage should not be presented as independent research when it has actually been paid for by the subject being covered.
22. Conflicts of Interest
Writers or editors should disclose material conflicts of interest when those relationships could reasonably affect how readers interpret the content.
Potential conflicts may include:
- financial relationships;
- employment;
- paid consulting;
- institutional affiliations;
- sponsorships; or
- ownership interests directly related to the subject.
Not every ordinary connection requires disclosure. The guiding question is whether knowledge of the relationship would materially help readers evaluate the content.
23. Corrections
MayaSkies.net aims to correct substantive factual errors when they are identified.
Corrections may include:
- correcting names or dates;
- replacing an inaccurate calculation;
- clarifying misleading wording;
- updating outdated scholarship;
- fixing incorrect attribution;
- revising unsupported conclusions; or
- adding important context.
Minor typographical, formatting, or grammatical fixes may be made without a formal correction notice when they do not change meaning.
Substantive corrections may be disclosed on the article when appropriate.
We prefer to correct an error transparently rather than leave inaccurate information online simply to preserve the original version.
24. Updates
An update is different from a correction.
An article may remain accurate but require revision because:
- new archaeological evidence has appeared;
- a new scholarly paper has been published;
- an interpretation has changed;
- a digital tool has been improved;
- an external resource has changed; or
- additional context would benefit readers.
The modification date may be updated when meaningful editorial changes are made.
Changing a publication date solely to make an old article appear newly published is not our editorial practice.
25. Reader Corrections and Feedback
Readers are encouraged to report potential errors.
Useful correction requests should ideally include:
- the page URL;
- the statement believed to be incorrect;
- an explanation of the concern; and
- a credible supporting source when available.
Every disagreement does not necessarily require a change.
Corrections are based on evidence, not on which interpretation generates the most complaints.
26. Historical MayaSkies.net Material
The current MayaSkies.net is an independent publication.
The domain was historically associated with resources connected with the earlier Tales of the Maya Skies project.
Historical material, organizations, researchers, production resources, archives, and digital assets associated with that earlier project should not be represented as though they were created or owned by the present publication.
The current website does not claim institutional continuity with the original project.
Additional information is available on our Project History page.
27. Independence From Referenced Institutions
MayaSkies.net frequently discusses research, archaeological sites, museums, universities, government institutions, cultural organizations, and historical projects.
Coverage of an institution does not imply that the institution endorses MayaSkies.net.
Likewise, citing an organization’s research does not mean MayaSkies.net represents that organization.
The publication maintains its own editorial responsibility for how sources are summarized and interpreted.
28. Our Standard for Publication
Before publishing an article, the central editorial questions should be:
Is it accurate?
Can important claims be traced to credible evidence?
Does it distinguish evidence from interpretation?
Does it provide enough context to avoid misleading readers?
Does it respect the people and cultures being discussed?
Does it add meaningful educational value?
Would we still consider the article worth publishing if search engines did not exist?
If the answer to those questions is not satisfactory, the article should be improved before publication.
29. Changes to This Policy
This Editorial Policy may evolve as MayaSkies.net develops new tools, research practices, editorial workflows, and forms of content.
Updates may also be made as standards surrounding digital publishing, artificial intelligence, cultural heritage, and research transparency develop.
The revision date at the top of this page indicates when this policy was last materially updated.
Contact the Editorial Team
Questions about this Editorial Policy, factual corrections, source recommendations, attribution concerns, or other editorial issues may be submitted through the Contact Us page.
Maya Skies — Reading the Sky, Time, and Architecture of the Maya.