Talk:Gornaya Shoria megaliths

Not a neutral point of view

I realize this article is little more than a stub, but the current state of it does not present a neutral point of view at all. It goes out of its way to "debunk" what it points out are "fringe articles", when in fact nothing much is known about these megaliths at all. These may well be natural formations, but to my knowledge there has been no solid scientific study to make that determination. It is my opinion the article should be rewritten completely to balance the opposing viewpoints without taking sides. Levontaun (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter, looking at the sources, including a number of articles that my native Russian wife translated for me into English, is that there is a complete absence of any identifiable solid scientific study to make any credible, reliable case that these features are manmade and that the stone blocks are indeed real megaliths. What we found are references made to anonymous geologists and archaeologists in articles either written by or citing people who lack any documented expertise in either geology or archaeology and have elsewhere made various other pseudoscientific fringe claims. Pointing out the truth that the claims are made by sources, which are regarded by Wikipedia standards to be unreliable fringe sources that lack any serious credibility is not debunking as is incorrectly claimed above. Neither, it is pointing out a viable alternate explanation for the origin of these stones also debunking as is incorrectly claimed. Nowhere did I state categorically that these stone blocks are natural. I only explained truthfully how stone blocks comparable in size and shape to the alleged megaliths might have formed as an elaboration upon and clarification of what was reported in a couple of the Russian articles as how they might have originated by intense weathering. Simply providing the opposing point of view does not violate a neutral point of view. Neither can it be considered debunking. Paul H. (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, given that there is a lack of of any identifiable solid scientific study that can be used as an acceptible credible, reliable Wikipedia source that these features are manmade and that the stone blocks are indeed real megaliths. In the absence of such a source or sources, they should not be identified as megaliths either in the title of this article or in its text. For sake of the article and to foster a neutral point of view, I decided to overlook this matter. However, if there are to be illegitimate claims of debunking and complaints about a lack of a neutral point of view, we can also visit the problem of whether it is proper to call these stone blocks megaliths in a Wikipedia article without a proper source that provides solid scientific research that these stone blocks are indeed manmade. Paul H. (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though occasionally the term "megalith" simply refers to a large stone block, the vast majority of the time it refers to large blocks used in man-made structures, so I agree with you that the word should not be used in the title. In response to your comments that the "fringe" articles promote views that are not scientifically verified, I agree. However, there has been no definitive determination that they are in fact natural formations, either. The opinion that they are probably naturally made, and the lack of any scientific data or primary sources to that effect, unfortunately for now puts the "natural formations" argument on the same footing as the fringe sites. My initial comments were not meant to criticize you, but rather just to point out that one opinion was represented with a few words while the opposing opinion was several paragraphs long. I felt like this in itself constituted debunking as the reader is given very little information on one viewpoint while information on the other viewpoint was abundant, which in my opinion would likely lead the reader to make the conclusion that the blocks were in fact natural formation. All I'm asking for is some equal representation of two viewpoints which at this time are both unproven. Levontaun (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag

I'm gonna go ahead and add the POV tag to the article. My reasons for doing so are above, and I'll be checking back to see if the author or others have responded. I won't make any changes to the article itself until there has been a discussion. Cheers! Levontaun (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree the POV tag should remain until the fringe hype is removed and solid relevant references can be provided. Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems

The article is based on 1> a popular press article in Epoch Times which hypes the rock formations as megaliths based on blog posts of John Jensen and Russian Valery Uvarov, "a Russian author interested in the Egyptian pyramids." Next the fringe Ancient Origins is cited. Neither of those seem to qualify as WP:reliable sources for the claims made. A couple of Russian language sources have been added, but one appears to be a blog and the other a popular "news" account. I can't read either. Sum so far: blogs, popular news hype and a fringe website -- rather a poor show. Then the article proceeds with an analysis of the geology of the site based of solid geology sources which I don't think specifically address or discuss the location. In other words WP:synthesis of good refs lacking a direct RS connection to the Gornaya Shoria rocks. Bottom line: a poorly sourced stub making fringe claims (by its content and title). Unless far better sources can be found, the only reasonabe option is to redirect to Mountain Shoriya and work to improve that stub using reliable sources without the fringe nonsense. Vsmith (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. However, redirecting this article will only shift the problem of poorly sourced fringe material to the Mountain Shoriya article. It might be better if this page was simply deleted, given the above problems, until reliable sources without the fringe nonsense can be found. Paul H. (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is my take on the fringe stuff. Because the sites like Epoch Times are promoting that they are man made, other sites are beginning to pick up on this and consider the possibility in a "less fringe" way. Academia.edu has an article by Mr. John Jensenthat considers the possibility somewhat more scientifically. I feel like because of the growing interest in the possibility that these structures are man made, until such time as a scientific examination of them reveals definitively that they are in fact natural (which in my opinion will eventually be the case), and a primary source is published to that effect, I feel like the "fringe" viewpoint should be fairly represented, just not presented as fact. Levontaun (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do we draw a line on what fringe material is acceptable and what is not? For example, according to your own criteria, fringe article claiming objects what are clearly fossil crinoid stems to be the remains of Paleozoic manufactured high technology would be acceptable for a Wikipedia article. Like the these pseudo-megaliths, these pseudo-artifacts are getting lots of attention on the Internet. Should they be also given an article simply because they have also appear on numerous web sites even if they are clearly laughably wrong? (By the way, if interested, some comments on these crinoid stems can be found at Another Crinoid Stem Mistaken For Paleozoic High Technology and Fossil Russian Screws” - Practical Internet Jokes Using Crinoid Fossils. In fact one of the articles that claims crinoid stems are high technology uses a crinoid picture from Wikimedia without any credit as an example of Paleozoic technology in their web page.) Paul H. (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition, neither publication in either the Epoch Times article nor Academia.edu article by Mr. John Jensen provides any credible information about this "discovery." The Epoch Times has published some really awful, even scientifically illiterate, articles full of misinformation and mistakes about topics simply because they are popular or trendy. Similarly, postings on Academia.edu are not peer-reviewed. anyone can post almost anything they want, including self-published articles, that lacks any review of its scientific content of any type. For example, there are some remarkably scientifically illiterate and self-published articles in Academia.edu claiming that natural calcite-cemented concretions found in Bosnia are manmade. In case of Mr. Jensen's Academia.edu article, it is quite lacking in any real detail or scientific arguments. It consists mainly of his opinions and pictures and text rehashed from Internet web pages. In addition, the Academia.edu article about the alleged megaliths is self-published and, as a result, unacceptable as Wikipedia sources. If a person takes some time to search the Internet, he or she will find that the Academic.edu article is a simplified, unvetted version of one of his self-published Internet blogs in which in its comments that he and another person make about conventional geologists and archaeologist being simply too ignorant of stone working to able to recognized manmade stone blocks when they see them. Paul H. (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Geolocation is questionable

Following the coordinates sends me to the middle of a forest. This seems very dubious. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Editorial commentary?

Paul H, you removed the following section at the end of the article:

"However, at this point it is not possible to clearly determine the origin of these formations and further research is necessary."

You called it an "editorial commentary". In what way is this sentence against the Wikipedia guidelines?

-- AJ, Nov 26, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.216.230 (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems I removed an unsourced editorial comment on 26 Nov. The same comment with additional detail and sourced to a blog or forum post by G. Sidorov was removed by Paul H. on 21 Nov. A blog or forum post simply fails WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I also remove the comment because Mr. Sidorov is into promoting fringe "archaeology." He complains about "pro-western" academicians in Moscow, who disprove of his ideas and are suppressing his ideas and "archaeological" research and "reactionary forces," which he suggests might include the Masons and Illuminati, are sabotaging his effort to popularize his discoveries at Shoria Mountain. He believes that the megaliths at Shoria Mountain were built by a lost antediluvian, possibly Aryan, civilization. Paul H. (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of the "editorial comment" that was removed as it gets right to the heart of the matter as I see it. Since these blocks are not scientifically verified yet some form of it needs to be included. Surely we can find a source that admits that these blocks need more study?Levontaun (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we can worry about a credible source that provides proof that the origins of these blocks are not scientifically verified yet, there is needed a source with detailed arguments supporting the concept that the stone blocks might be artificial to begin with. We can't use self-published articles that have been posted to Academic.edu without any review of any sort by Mr. John Jensen, who believes conventional geologists and archaeologists are by default too stupid to recognize manmade stone blocks and himself lacks any identifiable expertise in either geology or archaeology. The rather vague Epoch Times and Internet blogs are certainly neither credible nor reliable enough to be used as a source as it cites a fringe UFOlogist and another person of dubious expertise. In addition, Mr. Jensen's blog and Academic.edu article are based on the writings of Valery Uvarov, who is Russia’s foremost UFOlogist, and Mr. Sidorov, who believes the "megaliths" were built by a group of prehistoric Aryans, who were the basis of all Russian culture. Mr. Sidorov is a biologist who also believes that pro-western scientists and politicians and "reactionary forces" are out to get him and suppress his research into the alleged megaliths. He and his writings is certainly neither credible nor reliable enough to be either a source or the basis of sources that cite him for a Wikipedia article. Without a source, excluding the clearly woo-woo crowd, that provide reliable, credible, detailed arguments for the stone blocks being manmade, the so-called Gornaya Shoria megaliths are no more notable than and no different from the claims that certain fossil crinoid stems are actually examples of fossilized Paleozoic high technology. Paul H. (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Георгий Сидоров (George Sidorov)

George Sidorov (Георгий Сидоров) is a major proponent for the claim that the stone blocks, which have been reported from Shoria Mountain (Горную Шорию), are manmade megaliths (мегалиты) of a "Russian stonehenge" ("русский Стоунхендж"). A commentary by George Sidorov on the importance of the Shoria Mountain "megaliths" can be found in Георгий Сидоров: А вы испугались, «господа». A short blurb about George Sidorov can be found in Сидоров Г.А. It includes a listing of some of his books. Rough translations of these web pages can be obtained using Google Chrome. Paul H. (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what about a big wall (door included) that is NOT a natural formation? Old sciencie, please, reinvent yourself. 88.4.17.217 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)