Talk:Builders' rites
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Builders' rites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who wrote this?
[edit]"The ordinary view that by such means particulars may be found of the event on the removal of the stone hereafter, may suffice as respects latter-day motives, but such memorials are deposited in the hope that they will never be disturbed, and so another reason must be found for such an ancient survival." This has to be one of the most laboured sentences on wikipedia. terrible.
- It also makes an unwarranted assumption, that just because the builders hoped the building would never be torn down, that the objects could not have been placed to be discovered by people in the future. All buildings come down eventually, one way or another, so the idea that the builders wanted these objects to be found someday is reasonable.--RLent (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sentence is awful. I'm not sure I even understand what it means.PurpleChez (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Savagery and it's necessity?
[edit]I note with an expression disgruntled that a certain writer chose to differ, obviously, Roman and non-Roman people as "savage and civilised cultures." I retained judgement however at first, believing that it followed on from the Grimms statement, but my rage returned to see that the quotes marks begged to differ. Surely new archaelogical evidence as well as the re-thinking of the Roman/Late Antiquity period would question such a remark as 'savage.' This does no good for the reputations of the Celtic, Slavic, Germanic and other's reputations.
- This article is basically lifted straight from the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. I think it is in need of a complete rewrite. The article could use a more modern historical examination rather than relying on 19th century sources, as does the 1911 article. It doesn't mean that the 1911 article is necessarily wrong, but we need not take its assumptions as fact.--RLent (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Origins?
[edit]This section seems to be nonsense with no contemporary evidence.92.0.40.230 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The only source cited in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article for the proposition that a living human was buried under the wall of Holsworthy church in the 15th century is available online and contains no mention of anything of the sort. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:AE0:CC70:799C:F8A7:BF57:AF34 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
History
[edit]Holsworthy states the sacrifice was buried under the tower rather than the wall. Which is correct? Have archaeologists ever looked into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)