Talk:Krishna's Butterball

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

September 25 to October 1, 2016 (15th)

Natural formation?

There is no clear explanation anywhere in the article regarding the origin of the boulder and its geological features. Some parts of the article state that the "rock is estimated to be 1,200 years old", which would indicate its man-made nature. I run a relevant internet search but can't find anything among English-language sources - can somebody speaking Hindi or other look-up non-English sources for information on the rock's geological history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.15.87.196 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

45 degree slope?

The article says it is on a 45 degree slope, but the side view pic makes it look more like 30 degrees (still impressive) so I've marked that as needing a ref. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the pic it looks like a 45% slope would be more plausible (~ 24%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.21.64.154 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. Slopes estimated from pictures are very unreliable. The camera could have had a tilt when taking the pictures. This seems as if it's the case the for "side" view. Notice the structure in the background and the tree. That structure is probably some sort of tower is may give away that the picture is not orientated as it should be. The branches of the tree also feel unnatural as presented. I am very certain the angle shown in the side view is exaggerated. Physically (as in terms of the subject of physics), it seems like 45 degrees is impossible here. The first picture does make the angle look steep but it must be remember that a long lens shortens the foreground and would make it appear steeper than it is. Lastly, it is a fact that humans are very bad at estimating angles. People who have been there will overestimate the slope by a lot. I don't know what the slope is but 45 degrees is very very unlikely. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is 45-degree slope. At least that is what WP:RS says. Source: English language, Hindi, Marathi. For more try Google. Anup [Talk] 22:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but as for the English-language source, first of all, the Daily Mail is I think not well thought of. I'm not sure how rigorously they would check the angle rather than just taking it on face value from their source. Not very rigorously (or at all), based on my understanding of the Daily Mail's reputation.

But secondly, the Daily Mail article does include more photos, and this makes it clear: that rock is not sitting on a 45 degree slope. There may be parts of the slope near the rock that are quite steep. It looks like the slope steepens a bit below the rock. But so? That has nothing to do with the question at hand. Look at the photos! That's at most on a 30 degree slope (probably less).

Here's a GIF. It's clear from this that it sits right above a steep slope (probably not 45 degrees, but close). It's actual placement is on a fairly flat area. (With certain angles, such as the first photo here, it can be made to look like its on a steeper angle. But we now have enough photos, from enough angles, to know that this is an illusion.)

Yes there are many Google hits for "Krishna's Butterball 45 degree". None of them appear to be reliable. The Daily Mail seems to be the best of the lot. It's just something that has been passed around on the internet. "Something I saw on the internet" is not a good enough source for us. The Daily Mail we know is not a good source. DainikBhaskar I don't know, but they'd have to be pretty reliable to trump what we can see with our own two eyes.

(I also now question the seven elephants thing, which does not appear to be sourced. It might be more puffery for the tourists.)

Atlas Obscura, which I think is a somewhat reliable source, does not use the "45 degree" meme. IndiaTimes, which I think might be an arm of the venerable and reliable Times of India (not exactly sure), does not use the "45 degree" meme. (And if you look at the first photo in that article, it looks more like a 5 degree slope, which I think is also an illusion, but still... hard to reconcile with 45 degrees.)

This entity is clearly resting normally within its center of gravity. To repeat the false 45-degree meme promotes tourist puffery, quackery, and gee-whiz miracle-working. It's not miracle. It is an impressive sight, granted.

Not sure how to proceed. I'd like something like "stands on a slope above an even steeper slope, which makes its position appear precarious" or whatever. The problem is, the source for that is the photos, which are subject to interpretation to some degree, so that's original research. We have a negative source, in that the two reliable sources I have found so far don't repeat the 45-degree meme, but can't use negative sources. For now I've removed the sources which convey false information replaced "45 degree slope" with just "slope". Herostratus (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Bhaskar is the largest circulated daily newspaper of India. IndiaTimes and Times of India are both part of The Times Group. All are considered RS (can be confirmed at WP:RSN and WP:INB). In my opinion, Dainik Bhaskar is comparatively more reliable than that Atlas Obscure which probably re-prints the Indian sources.

I've one question. What are we doing here? WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH? Anup [Talk] 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research for the article, just for the purpose of vetting sources.

If Dainik Bhaskar says the entity is sitting on a 45 degree slope, they are wrong. Right? I mean you can see the pictures and videos as well as I can. Maybe they are usually reliable and just dropped the ball in this instance, or maybe they don't fact check that rigorously as a rule -- I don't know, and it doesn't matter.

If Dainik Bhaskar (or for that matter Der Spiegel or any other nornally-reliable publication) were, for whatever reason, to print that Moon is 12 meters away from Earth, we would not then be required to repeat this obviously false assertion to our readers. Same deal here. (It is near a slope that's pretty steep -- maybe even 45 degrees. I suspect this is why the meme exists. But what does that have to with the price of eggs?) It says "slope" now and that's probably best. Herostratus (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pics

Based on the leaning tower -- or whatever it is -- on the right of File:Krishna's Butter Ball, Mamallapuram.JPG, that pic may have been taken at an angle and so it's not a good pic. There are a number of pictures at Commons]. Here are a couple.

Name Change

Since the Atlas Obscura implicitly considers "Krishna's Butterball" as a misnomer, why not change the article title as "Vaan Irai Kal"? (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Obscure is just some random people. Check out Google Ngrams and Google Trends, or survey a number of publications, or something. I haven't checked, maybe "Vaan Irai Kal" would be a better name, but one source is not enough to show that. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Krishna Butterball_Below_Mahabalipuram_Sep22_A7C_02490.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 18, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-10-18. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna's Butterball is a large granite balancing rock that rests on a short incline in the coastal resort town of Mamallapuram in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It is approximately six metres (20 ft) high and five metres (16 ft) wide, with a mass of around 250 tonnes. It is balanced on a slope on top of a 1.2-metre-high (4 ft) plinth that is a naturally eroded hill. Krishna's Butterball is part of the Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram, a UNESCO World Heritage Site built during the 7th and 8th centuries as Hindu religious monuments by the Pallava dynasty. It is now a popular tourist attraction.

Photograph credit: Timothy A. Gonsalves

Recently featured:

Age?

Age is estimated to be 1200 years old. Not only does this seem to be incredibly young for granite, but there are references to people attempting to move the rock 1400 years ago. So this age cannot be accurate. Jlutgen (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo views, Havelock relation to object

Havelock died in June 1908, some four years after retiring from colonial service, so the statement that he was governor and tried to move the object in 1908 is probably incorrect.

The pictures captioned "from south" and "from southwest" actually show the same view of the object. Al Begamut (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]