Jump to content

Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Move request 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed by nominator – pretty clear that the connotations of pyramid scheme are objectionable. Relisting below w a modified name. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis → Bosnian pyramid scheme – This is the phrasing used by the fullest academic treatment on the subject, from the dept of archeology at Cambridge. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The current title is unsatisfactory on two counts: The common name is "Bosnian Pyramids", not "Osmanagic Pyramids", and it is not a hypothesis, but a fraud. We have debated whether or not it is a "hoax"; Puritt (2014) is of the opinion that it is not, because a hoax is designed to fool the academic community rather than the public, as in this case. Her phrasing, "Bosnian pyramid scheme", was also used by Harding (2006).

Some have raised BLP concerns, but since we have numerous RS's that this is indeed a fraud/hoax, using words to that effect is simply being honest, and is not a BLP violation. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as that name seems to be preferred by the strongest sources. Rather than BLP, I was concerned that the name was meant to be a witty allusion rather than purely descriptive; but still, if it's been taken up by multiple reliable sources rather than just being a single headline, I can live with it. bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Later comments about recognisability make a good point; I would be happy with something like "Bosnian pyramid hoax" as a second choice. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Since "scheme" is more accurate than "hoax" then I support it. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Per previous discussions. Its most definitely not held up by any sources, but rather just a clever phrase to sensationalize. I suggest taking this to NPOVN before continuing any attempts to change past consensus. Failure to address the NPOV concerns means there can be no policy-based consensus. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's held up by multiple sources. If not "scheme", then we're left with "hoax". Would you prefer that? — kwami (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The proposed title has a POV problem. Opinions about the validity of the pyramid concept should be described in the article, but not in its title. The word "concept" might be OK, but using "scheme" would be an expression of an opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:Pseudoscience, we're encouraged to call pseudoscience for what it is, and we use "hoax" in the titles of other articles. Hypotheses are scientific, so the current title is unacceptable. Do you have an alternative? — kwami (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the current title is OK – a hypothesis can be correct or incorrect. But I see what you mean about it. What about "Bosnian pyramid concept", as I just suggested above? I also wouldn't necessarily be opposed to your previous suggestion of 23 July – "Bosnian pyramid claims". –BarrelProof (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a problem here with recognizability, as the proposed title seems to describe a pyramid scheme perpetrated in Bosnia. Maybe the people who have used this phrase were trying to be clever, but I think we need to be clearer. I'm not opposed at this point to calling it a hoax, though. That's a claim we can properly source. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Bosnian pyramid hoax would be my second choice. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The word "hoax" has even more of a POV problem than "scheme". Opinions about the validity of the pyramid concept should be described in the article, but not in its title. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. As noted, referring to a 'pyramid scheme' in the title is liable to be confusing. Given the clear statements to that effect from qualified academics (e.g. the European Association of Archaeologists), I can see no objection to the use of the term 'hoax' in the title. There are no legitimate grounds to make concessions to purveyors of fringe nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pyramid scheme sounds vaguely reminiscent of some sort of banking fraud, which isn't really the case here. "Osmanagić pyramid hoax" probably isn't a bad idea. 23 editor (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Inaccurate: It's definitely not a pyramid scheme. Some writers may have been using that phrase because it's catchy, but it's completely inaccurate per the definition of pyramid scheme, and so such a title would be misleading. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Move request 4

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bosnian pyramid claims. After a lengthy discussion failed to reach a clear consensus, the proposal for a neutral and non-judgemental title was unanimously supported by everyone who commented on it. Congratulations to all involved -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis → Bosnian pyramid hoax – This is how we present it in the lead, and is similar to the phrasing used by academic treatment on the subject — kwami (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The current title is unsatisfactory on two counts: The common name is "Bosnian Pyramids", not "Osmanagic Pyramids", and it is not a hypothesis, but a fraud. This is a violation of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Since people have objected that the phrasing used by Puritt (2014) and Harding (2006), "Bosnian pyramid scheme", is misleading (it's not a pyramid scheme), I'm proposing "hoax" instead.

Some have raised BLP concerns, but since we have numerous RS's that this is indeed a fraud/hoax, using words to that effect is simply being honest, and is not a BLP violation.

Other suggestions ("claim"? etc) welcome. Just as long as we don't call them simply "pyramids" and don't call them a theory or hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your vote. You say it's okay to have a POV title ("hypothesis") because it's neutral, and say that the current name follows COMMONNAME? The current title is obviously not the common name, which is "Bosnian pyramids". — kwami (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a move to either "Bosnian pyramids" or "Bosnian pyramid hoax", or "Bosnian pyramid [something else]. The current title is a bad compromise due to the controversy. It is also seriously misleading as "hypothesis" implies a valid scientific standpoint. We should follow WP:COMMONNAME and include "Bosnian pyramid(s)", and then either go for wp:concise for the shorter title, or wp:precise per the nomimator's suggestion. Bosnian pyramids claim would be the best option in my opinion, as though as it has been scientifically falsified and they are conclusively not man-made, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Osmanagić does not genuinely believe in his hypothesis and is a deliberate con-man and hoaxer, and is therefore the most accurate description. walk victor falk talk 09:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Agree that "it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Osmanagić does not genuinely believe in his hypothesis". Also, if we really are revisiting this issue again, if the consensus is that, despite the WP:COMMONNAME "Bosnian pyramids", a word should be appended, "claim" is WP:NPOV, unlike the proposed words "hoax", "scheme", etc. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. POV title. Lots of people believe completely insane things without being dignified with the term "hoaxer". I disagree with the notion that the word "hypothesis" implies a valid scientific standpoint. Even most hypotheses advanced by professional scientists get proven wrong. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: POV title. See previous comments. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. What exactly is a "POV title"? Surely "pov" doesn't mean closely adhering to what reliable sources say; usually "POV" is supposed to mean the opposite. Here, reliable sources say that it's a hoax, but instead we pretend that it's a "hypothesis". bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Many – probably most – of the sources cited in the article do not say it is a hoax. The relevant experts generally say that the idea is incorrect, but there is a big difference between simply being incorrect and having a "scheme" to perpetrate a "hoax". Some of the reliable sources also do not necessarily declare the notion to definitely be incorrect, although some do. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Those who address Osmanagic rather than just the hills call it a "fraud", "scheme", or "hoax". — kwami (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, Osmanagic's claims are too ridiculous to have been disseminated with the intention of tricking anyone into believing anything that Osmanagic himself did not believe in. If you want to trick people, you say something believable. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of "hoax", but would support alternative that has "Bosnian pyramid..." instead of "Osmanagic pyramid...". I also wouldn't mind finding something other than "hypothesis" (why not "claims"?), but "hoax" seems wrong, as it entails systematic intent to deceive and awareness of the falsity of the claim on the part of its proponent. I see no evidence in the article that reliable sources take such an intention on the part of Osmanagic to be a proven fact, or even the most likely scenario. It's certainly crackpot pseudo-science, but it's not a hoax. I'd actually say for us to call it a hoax in the title would be a WP:BLP violation, and the same is already true of our use of the term in the lead sentence. The sourcing of that term to the EAA declaration doesn't help us here – the archaeologists don't appear to be intending to make any definite claim about Osmanagac's intentions, so when they use "hoax" in their text they are using it much more loosely and more carelessly than we are forced to do. I'd also argue that while they clearly are the reliable experts when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the proposal as such, they are not a reliable source when it comes to looking into Osmanagic's mind, so their opinion piece can't serve as our basis for such a problematic claim here. I wouldn't mind having some alternative but still very strong wording in the lead sentence – why not in fact start out straight away with "'Bosnian Pyramids' claims are a pseudo-scientific proposal promoted by..." (and then "... have been labelled as a 'hoax' by..." a bit further down)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
"Claim" works for me. I just want to get rid of "hypothesis". — kwami (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What Victor falk and Fut.Perf. said: Bosnian pyramids is the most preferred, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME title; I could reluctantly live with Bosnian pyramids claim, I guess. I really don't get the outcome of #Requested move 2, which led to the current, unrecognizable and contrived title.
    I sort of recall that Ronz (?) once posted a thorough analysis of the name usage across reliable sources, and demonstrated that the vast majority uses "Bosnian pyramids", or a variant thereof, with or without scare quotes: that's the name of the phenomenon we describe, and there is no need to teach the controversy in the very title. That it is a pseudo-scientific fringe theory is described in the body of the article; we ought not pass judgments in the title, scientific or not. No such user (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact that RS's put it in scare quotes shows that simply calling them "pyramids" is unacceptable to them. I've also seen "Bosnian pseudo-pyramids", but that has a non-psuedoscience usage. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move. Anything but the absurd word "hypothesis", which implies that the whole thing is being conducting along scientific lines when in fact the hypothesis stage (if there ever was one) has long been past and the claim of pyramids has been disproved by renowned geologists and archaeologists. --Elnon (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move, but to Bosnian pyramids. A title with "hypothesis" in it is out of the question, though. It an obvious weasel word in this context. Peter Isotalo 23:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Bosnian pyramids seems unacceptable as pov - people will read it in the same way they would Egyptian pyramids, as an article about pyramids in Bosnia. On the other hand, Bosnian pyramid dispute does describe the content. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I would find that even more problematic – "dispute" implies there is something worth taking serious enough to be disputed. Serious people don't engage in a "dispute" with Osmanagic; at most they debunk him. On the other hand, I don't share the concerns either about "hypothesis" or about plain "pyramids". A "hypothesis" can be a crackpot hypothesis, and "pyramids" can be read just as "Loch Ness Monster" or "UFO": denoting a fictional topic about which claims are made, but not real-world objects. I find No such user's argument above persuasive – the simplest title that merely labels the topic works well, and there is no need to pass off the "fringe" judgment already in the title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I totally agree with FutPerf about "dispute"; it makes one think of "scholarly dispute" or "academic dispute" or "scientific dispute"; check this link to see it's not what we're talking about here. However, I very strongly disagree about "hypothesis"; it has specific meaning in the scientific method and the theory of science, and this article is related to a science, archeology, and therefore it would be WP:IMPRECISE to use "hypothesis/theory" in their colloquial sense where they are more less synonymous, and makes "Bosnian pyramid hypothesis" completely wrong and disinformative. walk victor falk talk 10:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I take the point about 'dispute'. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. All reliable sources call it a hoax or a fraud or both, as does our article. To avoid calling a spade a spade in the title is the POV, not the other way around. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, Pruitt [1], possibly the most detailed scholarly treatment, explicitly argues that it is not a "hoax". Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      She's introducing a technical distinction that is not used by other sources, where a "hoax" targets the academic community. Since it's too transparent a fraud to fool archeologists, and Osmanagic doesn't seem to care about them, she argues it's not technically a hoax. But then she also uses the word "pseudoscience" as a type of fraud, where other sources accept well-intentioned pseudoscience (such as a lot of astrology). This was one reason I suggested "scheme" above. But we only have so many words to choose from, and if none of them are perfect, we need to choose the least bad. "Hypothesis" is clearly not it. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Not by a long shot. But remember here we're talking about the article title, not content. Distinctions between "fraud", "hoax", "falsehood" etc.. belong in the article, not the title. For the title we want something recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. It doesn't actually say accurate but surely this is a given, and hypothesis is just plain inaccurate. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Many – probably most – of the sources cited in the article do not say it is a hoax or fraud. People repeatedly saying that they all do doesn't actually change that. Is it necessary to mention specific ones that don't call it a hoax or fraud? Going back to remarks of 21 and 22 April (and 23 July) that have seem to have mostly not been noticed in this discussion, "concept" and "claim" are words that remain available, do not imply validity, and are less POV than "scheme" and "hoax" and "fraud". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Absence of evidence, ... Do any of the sources say it's not a hoax or a fraud?
I'd be happy with "claim". I've suggested that before. "Concept" is inaccurate: it's more than a concept, and using that word would be wishy-washy. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources that strive for objectivity do not make POV declarations one way or the other (in the absence of proof). Would others be satisfied with "claim" / "claims"? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I should have said All reliable sources that take a stand either way call it a hoax or something equivalent, that's what I meant. But I admit I haven't checked all the references in the article, have you found any that say otherwise? Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It is generally desirable for a source to refrain from jumping to conclusions in the absence of adequate evidence. We should not assume that the sources that "take a stand" are the only ones worthy of considering. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the first statement, but it's irrelevant. As to the second, if a source doesn't take a stand, then it's not a source at all on the issue in question. This is a case where the argument from silence is simply invalid. On the other hand if the source explicitly says that it's not known whether it's a hoax or not, then that would be a source. But we don't seem to have any of these. We just have ones that make no statement, and therefore are not evidence either way. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current name is fine, although I suppose I wouldn't be adverse to "Osmanagić's pyramid hypothesis" or "Osmanagić pyramid claims" if people really hate the word "hypothesis" for some reason. "Hoax" should have a VERY HIGH STANDARD to be stuck in the title, and it is being used in two different ways. As already noted, hoax usually means intentionally false, and it furthermore implies something "constructed", e.g. Osmanagic sneaking in overnight, building some pyramids, and dumping a layer of earth over them, a la the Piltdown man. There's been no such confession from Osmanagic or his supporters. This appears to be New Age woo nonsense, not a hoax, and people calling it a hoax are more likely using it in the weaker "this is all wrong" sense. "Bosnian pyramids" (and variants) is also a bad title, because that implies there really ARE pyramids. What do we have left? The proposer's (crazy) claims about pyramids - "Osmanagić's pyramid hypothesis", aka where we are right now. (or "Osmanagić pyramid claims" if you want, sure.) SnowFire (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
By calling it a "hypothesis", we are engaging in pseudoscience. But I'm glad to see that "claim" is okay. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
What kwami says. I don't care much about "Osmanagic" or "Bosnian pyramids" ("Bosnian pyramidoids"?). What is absolutely intolerable is "hypothesis". So what about the solomonic Osmanagić pyramid claim? walk victor falk talk 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Would still very much prefer "Bosnian" over "Osmanagic", but would be okay with "claims". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree about Bosnian. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. It looks to me like claim might be the go, reluctantly. It's not a controversy, and most reliable sources do seem to avoid the word hoax although that's what they say it is, just in other terms. It would be good to use English as she is spoke, but... Any better suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As a note, "Osmanagić" is obviously Bosniak to anyone with a passing familiarity with Serbo-Croat, muslim name "Osman (name)" + patronymic suffix "-ić". So, there's at least a little hint there. He is also notable for this, and the name might be familiar and recognisable to someone interested in the pyramids. So, this is not totally devoid of recognisability. However I agree that "Bosnian" just feels much more natural, despite the possibility of confusion with Egyptian and Aztec pyramids, but if a lot of readers come out with that impression that is proof that we have written a very bad article indeed. Most readers won't be familiar with the factors in favour in "Osmanagic" I mentioned, so in the end, I'm falling behind the line for "Bosnian". walk victor falk talk 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Slight nitpick to the above: if moved, I'd suggest the plural Osmanagić pyramid claims - he's not only claiming that these are ancient pyramids, but also that they have the power to break the cloud of negative energy, are ur-pyramids that were the basis for Egyptian & Mayan pyramids, etc. "Hypothesis" naturally implies subtopics & lesser results, but "claim" doesn't, so it reads better plural as "claims." SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


How about Osmanagić pyramids? That avoids having to say whether they're real, fictional, or whatever, and it's concise. It's growing on me. Bosnian pyramids has some of the same advantages, but it was the name before the first move discussed on this page, so maybe not. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't see the advantage in this one. It fails the "common name" criterion by a mile when compared to "Bosnian pyramids", and to those editors who are concerned that plain "pyramids" without a following "claim/hoax/hypothesis/whatever" would imply their real existence, this version would carry the same problem. (Not that I personally share that concern, mind you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, we seem to be converging on Osmanagić pyramid claims (or perhaps Bosnian pyramid claims). It would be nice if we could retain a focus on that, lest we otherwise just end up with a "No consensus" closure and end up needing to discuss it all again in a few months. Personally, I don't have a big problem with the current title, but it seems unacceptable to some significant portion of our editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that both options are much better than the current title, count me as support for "Bosnian pyramids claims" over "Osmanagic pyramids claims", but I'd rather have "Osmanagic pyramids claims" than no move or no consensus. walk victor falk talk 04:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy with Osmanagić pyramid claims (with a singular pyramid). Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I also prefer the "X pyramid claims" format (with "X" being "Bosnian" or "Osmanagić"). I believe that "X pyramid claims" implies that there are multiple claims, but is silent about whether the claims are about multiple pyramids or not. I hope we don't get stuck on the question of whether "X" should be "Bosnian" or "Osmanagić", as I think that's a really minor aspect. I hesitate to declare a preference on that topic, but somewhat prefer X = "Bosnian", because the so-called pyramids belong to Bosnia but do not belong to Osmanagić (although the claims primarily seem to belong to Osmanagić) and because naming something after Osmanagić might seem to increase his prominence. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, the common name is "Bosnian pyramids", so it would be good to stick to a recognizable variation on that. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The advantage of using Osmanagić in some variation is that his is the only notable view that they are pyramids, so the topic is in this sense more recognisable by such a title. But agree that it's a minor point compared to issues with the current title. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a more accurate title for sure. But apart from us, who's even heard of him? — kwami (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with pyramid singular. walk victor falk talk 08:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Have we converged on Bosnian pyramid claims? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
These "claims" have long been disproved by archaeologists and geologists. The title "Bosnian pyramids claims" would have been correct when the whole affair was started in 2005. Nearly a decade later, I would not be so sure about the word "claims" still applying. --Elnon (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we have. Elnon, Osmanagic is still claiming these are pyramids, so yes, of course they're claims. What they aren't is a hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I concur, they never were a hypothesis in the first place as the scientific method is alien to inventors of ancient man-made pyramids. As to the relevance of using "claims", I remain unconvinced but will not insist on barring it. --Elnon (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Bosnian pyramid claims on the basis that it looks unlikely that we'll do any better, and it does address the major issue with the current title. A definite improvement. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I think "Bosnian pyramid claims" is what we can converge on. Perhaps somebody could close this now. Do we wait for a formal outside closure, or do we all agree clearly enough we can simply call it a day and go ahead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal and proposed closure

I think we have consensus above to move to Bosnian pyramid claims, but that we should wait for an uninvolved administrator to close the RM, in that this consensus is hard won and precious! In that this RM is already on the RM backlog, that should not take too long. (But there's quite a backlog of tricky ones at present... I'll try to clear a few of the others, that will also help.)

At the risk of asking people to repeat themselves, it might also speed up the process if those supporting this close explicitly indicate this below (and feel free to oppose if you so desire as well of course). I expect the closing admin will at least skim the whole discussion in any case, but this will make it a little easier for them to do so, and the easier we make this one look the sooner it's likely to be closed! TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Any of us can do it if we're all agreed. I would if I weren't nominator. Could anyway, really. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
We could indeed be bold and/or involve the snowball clause, we have a clear and strong consensus IMO. My suggestion that we wait for an uninvolved admin is just to reduce the likelihood of future challenges, and having to go through this all over... Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at closing Talk:Chersonesus (Crimea)#Requested move to Chersonesos myself several times, and it's just too hard... I can't even come up with a rationale for a helpful "vote" without doing a lot of the work which the proposer and other participants could and should have done. But I'll get to it eventually if nobody else does. On the other hand I often look down WP:RMB in an odd minute and see whether there are any closes that I can do reasonably quickly, remembering that backlog means just that, they have actually been available to close for 24 hours when they enter it. And I'm not the only one I'm sure. So if we can make this one look straightforward despite its length, we may get lucky. Or that's my strategy here. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support formally as the formal proposer of this alternative, see above. Recognisable, attested in sources, and unanimously agreed to be reasonably accurate, regardless of the POV of the assessor of this accuracy! Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (reluctantly) as there doesn't seem to be any better wording. --Elnon (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semir Osmanagić Merge

Semir Osmanagić's sole claim to notability is his ridiculous Bosnian pyramid claim. Per WP:BLP1E it should be covered under the event and not an article about the individual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Very good point. Anyone disagree? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do. The simple reason is that the article would get messy. True, the pyramid are his sole claim to notability, but it's not one "event" (in BLP1E lingo). It is a phenomenon that has lasted for years, and he devoted mot his activities to it throughout this period. We routinely separate articles about authors of one-time wonders from their action iff they are widely known, even if the work is the sole reason for it. BLP1E has an entirely different rationale behind it: to discourage writing articles about people of only a short-term fame. No such user (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at BLP1E, I'm not clear on what one event covers (criteria 1), but he's definitely not a low profile individual (criteria 2), and his role is substantial though the documentation is sparse (criteria 3). He only needs to fail one of the three criteria, and he probably fails them all. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:PSEUDO "Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is notable only for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." and WP:1E "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." are probably a better pointers than BLP1E. None of his other wacky claims are of note except in putting into context his wacky claims about the pyramids. Notable content about him can easily be covered in this article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
But let's take a look at the context: it is from Wikipedia:Avoiding harm (itself an essay, although a widely accepted one), and it gives an overview:

In some cases, a person is notable primarily for a single event in their life. This may be the case with the subjects of Internet phenomena or unusual medical conditions, the children of notable individuals, or the victims of notable crimes. In many of these cases, the person in question is a child, or was a child at the time of the notable event. In such cases, some sensitivity needs to be shown [...]

Osmanagić is not someone who needs such protection from public scrutiny; on the contrary, he is someone who actively seeks attention (and, well, gets it), and apart from the pyramids he makes other wacky claims. And he gets coverage by press and media, a lot of it yellow, but some serious ones as well. I'm not strongly against merge, but at least it should be done for the right reasons, and BLP1E is not one. No such user (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The two articles are too long (and too different in scope) to merge into one article; therefore merge criteria are not met. Also, Osmanagić is not known for one event. He is known for one subject matter, but many and varied events and writings over 8+ years. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge for the same reasons as expounded above. --Elnon (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

There's an upcoming episode about these claims on the science channel. I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone that these are anything other than natural formations, but this article reads with such a sneer towards the claim that it is clearly lacking any neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:80:4C4:A10D:3162:EF60:3F18 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Unexplained Files, a The Science Channel series on which Semir Osmanagić is featured, is a cable series that is heavily into UFOs, cattle mutilations, Peruvian alien skulls, Russian yeti, the Mothman, and other such fringe, pseudoscientific subject matter. As a result, that an episode of The Unexplained Files discusses the Bosnian pyramid claims does nothing to either support or advance the credibility of Osmanagić’s arguments. It certainly does not help that he shares the show with an investigation of an alleged lake monster in Lake Labynkyr, Siberia.
I taped this show and later watched it. It does illustrate some really nice, classic examples of naturally jointed bedrock, which Semir Osmanagić incorrectly claims to be manmade pavement. However, the arguments for them being manmade are incorrect, factually bankrupt, and quite naïve. Instead of being unique as is falsely claimed, the arrangements of the stone blocks shown in this episode are quite typical of naturally jointed bedrock. In one segment, it is quite revealing that Semir Osmanagić is deaf, dumb, and blind to the presence of ancient ripple marks on a layer of stone and that they match across the joints. This contradicts the argument that this layer of bedrock was quarried and brought in from elsewhere. This episode also discusses material about active energy beams emanating from the summit of these hills that is hopelessly fringe and silly. This episode is quite embarrassing and certainly not at all helpful in regards to the claims being made about the alleged Bosnian pyramids. Paul H. (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an interesting review of the epidsode of The Unexplained Files, which is mentioned above and features Semir Osmanagić. It is "Review of The Unexplained Files" Segment on the So-Called Bosnian Pyramids 09/03/2014. Although it cannot be used as a source, it still provides useful background information and context to this controversy.

Also there is an earlier National Geographic documentary that is discussed on Le Site d'Irna in the article There and Back Again. This documentary includes archaeologist Dr. Henry Chapman, and geologist Dr. Dougal Jerram. A revealing rebuttal to the National Geographic documentary can be found on the Bosnian Archaeological Park web site. It is Ferhand: National Geographic is Lying about Us! Although neither can be used as a sources, they still provide background context in understanding the controversy about Osmanagić's ideas. Paul H. (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of impartiality and poor sources

The lack of impartiality in this article is as astonishing as it is horrendous; added to which, the poor quality of the source material, upon which this article is based, makes for a wholly disastrous, and rather pitiful, Wikipedia entry.

It amazes me that this article has been allowed to degenerate to this extent. It is articles like this that give Wikipedia little credibility, and general derision, as a reliable source of information.

I suggest drastic action be taken: a complete rewrite using quality source material or total deletion are the only options that I see as acceptable. Vicky Coren (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article in quite a while, but I just glanced at the lead section and it is a superb representation, telling the reader that the claims are pseudoscientific, that the geologic feature is naturally occurring, and that claims are a hoax. Perfect!
So what was your concern, specifically? What "quality source material" do you think was missed? Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking over the article, I find that the claims that this article lacks impartiality, has poor quality of the source material, and is wholly disastrous, and rather pitiful to be without merit. Requiring an article to be either neutral or impartial does not require that a false balance be created by giving undue attention to fringe (marginal) opinions that are published in unreliable sources and unsupported by credible sources and the weight of scientific agreement. According to the Wikipedia policy on Fringe theories, A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. This is what the Bosnian pyramid claims article currently does. Pretending that scientifically illiterate fringe theories have any credibility in order to create either a fake neutrality or false balance would definitely open Wikipedia to general derision and make it the laughing stock of geologists and archaeologists in general. Paul H. (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat. Paul H. (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the impartiality of this article has been discussed before. These discussion can be seen in the Archive and include There is no pyramid - Majority viewpoint? Scientific consensus?, Where is the neutrality of this article?, this makes a mockery of wikipedia., and Are we losing balance?. Paul H. (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Forum: Reliable source.

The opening section of this article contains the phrase "He opened excavations in 2006 which have reshaped the hill, making it look like a Mayan step pyramid". The source given does not, to my mind, appear reliable. Though the Smithsonian Magazine is certainly a respectable source of information, I do not believe that the context of the article permits such a stringent interpretation. The passage on which the source is based reads thus:

"Similarly, in a 2006 letter to Science magazine, Schoch said the hills in Visoko "could well yield scientifically valuable terrestrial vertebrate specimens. Presently, the fossils are being ignored and destroyed during the ‘excavations,' as crews work to shape the natural hills into crude semblances of the Mayan-style step pyramids with which Osmanagich is so enamored."

The problem, as I see it, is that the source (here the Smithsonian Magazine) is neither endorsing nor rejecting this statement. It is merely reporting that one person made the statement. This person does not appear to represent the university of Sarajevo, or any other institution, in an official capacity. His opinion cannot be directly attributed to any formal body and is therefore the opinion of an individual. As such, the statement may not be taken as representative of the general academic opinion (which we must recognise as the defining source for an article such as this) per se. Furthermore, this is a source quoting a letter posted to another publication, rendering it a shaky tertiary source at best.

My current proposition is to remove the statement from the page until such a time as a proper source can be found. Otherwise we are potentially harbouring and disseminating libelous claims. In the interests of establishing a consensus, I shall await any feedback which the watching powers may wish to contribute, before making any alteration. If anybody can find the text of the letter, as it was presented to Science magazine, that would be ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.94.78 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That is clearly a Smithsonian sanctioned blog and not a mere forum post. and the author Colin Woodard qualifies under WP:SPS even if it were just a random blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
IP, a simple fast search of "2006 letter to Science magazine, Schoch" turned up Schoch's own webpage citing/endorsing Woodward's article.[2] I'm not clear why anyone should be representing the University of Sarajevo or its relevance. And clearly his excavations have shaped the hill - are you actually denying that? Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The reliability of the Smithsonian Magazine is not in question. I have attempted to acknowledge that the Smithsonian Magazine is indeed a "respectable source of information". If I have failed to communicate this, please excuse my error. The issue I take with this source is that the Smithsonian Magazine makes no endorsement. The source proves that Mr Schoch made these claims, but it does not prove that the claims are valid. On what basis do we publish this claim as the truth? Essentially, I do not believe that a claim can be vindicated by quotation alone. One could not read the article and say "The gentlemen at the Smithsonian Magazine declare that the design of the excavations, is to erect a facsimile of a Mayan step pyramid". And yet this is the implication given by the opening paragraphs here on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, I wish to inquire as to what is meant by the use of the word "clearly". "Clearly" does not conform to any encyclopedic standard of evidence with which I am familiar. I am not "actually" denying anything beyond the interpretation of this source. The Smithsonian article appears, to my reading, to be largely impartial, quoting both sides of the dispute. The author does not express a preference for one side or the other. He makes no particular conclusion. The author's reputation cannot, therefore, be used to interpret any quotation used by the author as being accurate in its implications.
To distill my objection: where precisely does Colin Woodard say either
it would probably be an improvement to the article if we did not quote Robert M. Schoch - although when your ideas are considered fringey by the fringe....-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I wish to propose that we make one of following two modifications. Either:
  • a) Remove the reference to reshaping entirely (Barring an explicit source).
  • b) Stipulate that this is a claim, not a verified fact. Videlicet: "Osmanagić opened excavations in 2006, after claiming to have found tunnels, stone blocks and ancient mortar, which he suggests once covered the Visočica structure. However, it has been suggested that these excavations are in fact a fraudulent attempt to "shape the natural hills into crude semblances of the Mayan-style step pyramids".
Personally, I favour option b), as the excavations probably are fraudulent.
IE • Communicate 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Colin Woodard and Tere Pruitt have made observations similar to Dr. Schoch. First, Colin Woodard in his March 30, 2007 article, The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?, in The Chronicle of Higher Education states:

With the help of a backhoe, the adjacent hillside has been excavated to suggest the steps of a large pyramid, with layers of sedimentary rock creating an arresting visual effect.

Second, Tere Pruitt expressed similar thoughts in her Pyramids Performance and Pseudoscience in Visko, Bosnia in Forum: The limits of collaboration. Osmanagić. in the campus in Online Journal in Public Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 24-54 On page 31, she states:

His excavations look like he is carving pyramidal steps out of the hills,…"

Finally, on page 64 of her 2007 thesis, Addressing invented heritage: The Case of the Bosnian Pyramids, Tere Pruitt states:

When visitors approach the Pyramid of the Moon, they find large-scale excavations of monumental steps leading up the mountain. [Figure 22] Visitors like Joshua Foer exclaim, “Suddenly it dawns on me—and I’m shocked that it has taken me so long to figure this out—that Osmanagić is carving pyramids out of these pyramid-shaped hills.” (2007, emphasis added). Osmanagić has chipped away at the mountainside until it physically resembles pyramid steps. This behavior is performative: Osmanagic is playing the part, constructing (quite literally) the right image, and thus inventing heritage.

and the caption to Figure 22 is:

Steps are carved into the side of the Pljesevica Hill, creating The Pyramid of the Moon.

Paul H. (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Should we change or add more of these references? --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I changed the sources for this sentence to two publications in which the author clearly state their opinion of the "steps" and were both subjected to significant editorial / peer-review before they were published. A person can email me from my talk page for more information about the specific sources in my changes. Paul H. (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Like many of the commenters above, I believe much of this article is very speculative and opinionated, while being presented as science. This is highly inappropriate and is duly noted as so by the above commenters, but to no avail. The offending language remains. This IS why Wikipedia is getting quite a bad reputation.207.172.178.196 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Rollin Shultz

Hi Rollin, I reverted your edit as you actually removed a correctly attributed quote in which Robert Schoch makes speculations - not this article. As you should see from the first sentence; the article is introduced as being about pseudoarchaeology. I'm sorry that you feel that Wikipedia's reputation is tarnished by this article despite having seen the debates between well-informed editors on the talk page. If you can find other reliable sources on this topic you're welcome to add content and coverage as necessary. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article from someone who as I recall supervised the archeology several years ago

See [3]. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Alongside these difficulties is the major problem of ‘pseudo-archaeology’. Several years ago, a self-styled ‘amateur archaeologist’ claimed to have discovered pyramids within the country. The knock-on effects of this to the archaeological profession have been disastrous, and some of these outcomes will be detailed.

Perfect! Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Something else for later

By the way, the article is really outdated too in some sentences. It would be nice to change that too, but one step at a time. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please leave that out of the two current suggestions, as we need to be able to focus on each one specifically without having to ge into all sorts of side discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Ok, first of all I want to remove pseudoarchaeology from the article, because I feel that a project that has spent hundreds of hours of resarch of the structures does not deserve pseudoarchaeology.

Suggestion:

Remove pseudoarchaeology and claim from the article and just call it Bosnian Pyramids.

I think it is better to write that it is a debate between resarchers if it is a man-made structures or a natural formationw, than call the whole project claim because there are so many people involved in it, and not only Dr. Osmanagich. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't happen as it would violate basic policy, see WP:NPOV#Fringe theories and pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The "pseudoarchaeology" is well documented by reliable sources and represents the academic consensus among respected archaeologists. As for a "debate between researchers", it really isn't, not in academia, because the debate was settled long ago that the pyramid claim is bogus, and serious professional archaeologists have simply walked away and are no longer debating it as there is really no point. Also, presenting it as an equal debate between two sides would, as Doug says, violate Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But is it possible to remove claims from the article, since there are so many people involved in the project and not only Dr. Osmanagich. This happened for ten years ago, much has been discovered since then. Like tunnels, more concrete blocks, carbon datings etc.

The project does not belong only to Dr. Osmanagich, but all the volunteers that have participated and helped, plus many independent and dependent resarchers all over the world, but yes Dr. Osmanagich discovered the structures. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they are still only claims as they have not been corroborated independently or published for critical analysis in peer-reviewed academic sources. And no, Dr. Osmanagich claimed he had discovered the strutures, but independent archaeological experts (of which Dr. Osmanagich is not one) rejected his claims (and even I can see how ignorant some of his claims were). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but a lot has happened in ten years! Discovery Science for example is a good source (I know that videos can't be included, but still): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCV4KVs-rTQ

--TheBIHLover (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Discovery Science "Unexplained Files, season 2014-2015" is not a good source, it's pop pseudoscience. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, you are calling a channel pseudoscience too? So everything that does not agree that the pyramids are a *hoax* is pseudoscience? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree and think the "Unexplained Files" program (or any of those other woo-woo sources you keep trying to use) is a reliable source for scientific claims, then feel free to ask for a review over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. But look, an encyclopedia is written using serious academic publications as sources, not TV programs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_pyramid_claims/Archive_5&oldid=1136574682"