Talk:Ley line/archive 5

Cultural reference

There is a frequent use of Ley Lines in an anime series that perhaps bears mentioning in this article in that section, since it is relatively uncommon. It's from the anime/manga series Eureka Seven - the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Seven . The Ley Lines in the series are what is used to follow the "trapar waves," which is the energy source used for propulsion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helliongoddess (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Anybody know where the term "ley line" comes from? There's a term "lay line" used in sailing (especially racing), meaning a line extended from an objective at a heading that is the highest that a given sail boat can point into the wind. Once the boat reaches the lay line it can sail to the objective without further tacking. Could "ley" be an archaic spelling of "lay"? Toiyabe 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling? That ley lines may have appeared thousand of years ago, when there really was no written langage. See The_Old_Straight_Track or the book itself! Gordo 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that the name "ley lines" came from the fact that the original "lines" connected British villages whose names ended in "-ley", like Shipley, Bromley, X-ley, Y-ley, that kind of thing. If I remember right, the name was made up by Watkins in the 1920s. I'll see if I can dig up the reference. HEL 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, e.g., here. One such string of place-names is Crossley, Longley, Shepley, Shelley, Emley, Midgley East, Coxley, Stanley, Scholey and Methley and Astley. Pretty cool, eh? Also, the "leys" aren't exactly straight; apparently Watkins thought they were old roads or tracks connecting strings of villages. I don't have easy access to the original sources, but that site quotes Watkins's original publications as its sources. HEL 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR YEARS LATER and there is still the need to ask such a basic question: where did the name originate?

Really, people, the etymology of an expression, ANY expression, is among the most basic pieces of information expected from any encyclopedic entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.189.180 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers are above, but not in the article, so I've added a sentence with a reference. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this will advance the discussion very much, but I think that the explanation above has the cart before the horse. The names will probably be the various owners of the "ley" (which is cognate with "lea" as in "the lowing herd winds slowly o'er the lea"!) A ley in southern England is a temporary pasture (as opposed to a 'permanent pasture') so farmers - ley farmers they were called - rotated their cropping fields into pasture to rest them. They were used to graze stock which would help return the fertility to the soil which cropping removes. So there was Mr Cross's ley (Crossley), the ley for sheep (Shepley) the school's ley (Scholey) maybe etc. In the north of England the term "thwaite" was common, which a piece of cleared land for growing crops. So the Postlethwaite was the Apostle's (novice monk) thwaite, probably where he/they grew veges! The point of all this being that the 'ley' suffix had not much to do with ley lines. But then what do I know :-) hypotaxis (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archeogeodesy

An anonymous IP editor (who identifies himself by name) has been edit warring at the article Archaeogeodesy which seems to have something to do with the Ley lines, resulting in a comment posted at WP:ANI. He also added the term here, per this diff. This editor is posting what seems to be his own original research. Are there any other editors knowedgeable about this area who could join in to either verify that his work is notable and provide a sourced, neutral summary of it, or if its a hoax, help us delete it? Thatcher131 12:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this term be "leyline"?

After doing a search to find this article, I discovered that this is the only article that mentions the term which spells it as two words, and redirects suggest that formerly the subject here had been spelled thusly. Even this article links to two of those articles which render the term as one word. So I am wondering if everybody else is wrong, or if this article is, in regards to whether the term is one word or two. Definitively settling this matter could avoid some redlinks. B7T 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Cohesion

This article illustrates an phenomenon that is all-too-commonly seen in wikipedia articles that try to provide multiple viewpoints on controversial subjects - subsections that blatantly contradict one another. Most blatantly in this case, the section labelled "are alignments and ley lines the same thing?" outright contradicts both the section that preceeds it and the section that follows it. It's never easy to cover all the viewpoints on a controversial subject in a NPOV manner, but all too often lately the attempt has resulted in articles that provide contradictory statements. This is a very mild case - there are many such articles on wikipedia where this phenomenon can be observed, quite often to a greater extent, and they seem to be becoming more common day by day - but in no case should this be seen as an acceptable way to resolve argument. An article should be comprehensive, but internally consistent. It should never contain warring subsections - it's an article, not an editorial debate. 66.18.209.190 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later the artile is still in the state described! Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

This is from the first or second para of the "New Age" section:

"Underwood conducted various investigations and claimed that crossings of 'negative' water lines and positive aquastats explain why certain sites were chosen as holy. He found so many of these 'double lines' on sacred sites that he named them 'holy lines.'"

Who is Underwood? No one named "Underwood" has been previously mentioned in this article. The citation requires a full name and a source citation. Who is "Underwood" and when and where did he conduct "various investigations"? Where and when did he claim "that crossings of 'negative' water lines and positive aquastats explain why certain sites were chosen as holy"? Why is "negative" in single quotes while "positive" isn't in quotes at all, and what do these terms mean? This entire passage is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual gibberish. 71.204.204.249 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ley lines in fiction

None of this is remotely encyclopedic or relevant; I'm removing this entire section. - ∅ (∅), 07:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that paragraph an consider it an important part of this article. Some items could be added: Dan Brown's books about Robert Langdon; the maglev transport in "Ringworld"; Robbie Williams current hitsingle; I am not sure about this and don't want to meddle, what do you think?. (79.196.218.214 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Why the name?

"Ley" apparently means a field or a pasture. Why is this phenomenon called "ley" lines? 99.129.197.254 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[Watkins] subsequently coined the term "ley" at least partly because the lines passed through places whose names contained the syllable ley, stating that philologists defined the word (spelled also as lay, lea, lee, or leigh) differently, but had misinterpreted it.[5][6][7] He believed this was the ancient name for the trackways, preserved in the modern names." Bmh81 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America's Eastern seaboard cities aligned with Stonehenge

In the documentary Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings the concept of Ley lines is presented, and in particular it is pointed out that the five US cities, Washington, Baltimore, Philadelhia. New York City, and Boston all lie on a straight line, and, that when extended, this line also crosses Stonehenge and London. No deviation. If this can be corroborated I would suggest that such strong evidence, both for the reality of these lines, and for the awareness of such being foremost on the minds of national leaders throughout the ages, be mentioned in the article. __meco (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The five US cities are sort of in line if your line is really wide, but then that isn't a line, is it? Look at Google, a straight line between DC and Baltimore misses the other cities, for instance. And no one placed Manhattan Island where it is, nor Boston Harbour, etc. which were natural places to build settlements. I can't see either how you can then get a line going through any two of those cities to even touch the United Kingdom.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Doug Weller, I'm afraid that these ley lines are without mystical significance. It is natural to try to get from one place to another using the most efficient route, and it is natural to prefer places located along useful transportation routes as locations for settlements. In the Eastern United States, many of the most traveled roads follow the routes of trails that Native Americans used. And it was not unusual for such trails to have been used by animals as well. It is common, when walking in the woods, to find small trails that are clearly too small for people but are just as clearly used by some animal or another. If you were looking for a route from Point A to Point B, it would make sense to follow an animal trail like that, if one were available. And as human traffic increased, a trail will naturally widen because trails are formed by traffic (unlike roads, which are built -- although roads have often been built by widening existing trails). So-called ley lines can be explained by a combination of coincidence, the natural tendency to seek the most efficient route when moving from Point A to Point B, and the natural tendency to locate settlements in places that are convenient to transportation. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The five US cities may be in line - deviation is not dramatic. But the other claim, alignment with Stonehenge, lacks substance - to say the least. I looked into 2d and 3d maps, globes and software, and yet cannot find an alignment from the US cities to Stonehenge. -- Mike Lousado (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual ley lines articles nominated for deletion

The pages for Alfred Watkins ley, Rudston Ley and the Alaskan Ley Line have all been proposed for deletion, as it is claimed that they are unverifiable and not noteworthy. If anyone wants to get on over there and have a go at rescuing them, you'd best do it sooner rather than later as they're due to be wiped out in about 5 days Dom Kaos (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images, please!

Could we get an image or two for this article? The subject has been around for hundreds of years -- there must be some public domain illustrations --RyanTee82 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mercator/polar projections?

Does anyone have any sourced detail about map projections used to identify lines? Regards, Springnuts (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the notion, though this request was in August of last year. Pages involving locations of ley lines don't seem to be connected to this article. For those researching or through mere interest, others with the knowledge of the subject matter should be more specific. 70.114.63.215 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can wikipedia.org locate a Ley-Lines Map? I found one here. :

Or have info any basis and or info about how the maps are determined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.248.13 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and lack of balance

This article is currently written entirely from (primary) sources from, and the viewpoint of, proponents of the existence of ley lines. It is in desperate need of secondary sources and WP:DUE weight to scientific and skeptical viewpoints. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 2011, the article seems to have acquired balance -- but the trouble is, a great deal of the criticism is OR and has been marked as such for months. I have left the OR, disturbing though it is, for lack of time to follow though on researching/fixing or deleting it. I suggest, though, that if it cannot be sourced, virtually all of it will have to be deleted as OR. The article also lacked coherency as a narrative, jumping back and forth in time -- and this i have edited lightly to bring about a natural chronological / developmental framework to the paragraphs. Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boothby & Smith paper

If we need to include this - and it does seem to be the first step in the pseudoscientific appropriation of leylines - can anyone help us get the full bibliographical detail? The Journal was first published 1933 (copies in the British Library, University of Oxford and other locations), but this may not mean that Vol. 2 was 1934. Can the author Robert Boothby really be the Conservative politician linked to? He served in the forces in the Second World War; does the "Captain" mean anything? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, the linked to figure was a stockbroker (and later a Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve Flight Lieutenant), not a soldier (or naval officer). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Underwood(1968), Boothby was a captain in the Royal Navy (and apparently held that rank in 1935). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The Religion of the Stone Age', Capt. F. L. M. Boothby, was republished in Dowsing and archaeology: an anthology from the Journal of the British Society of Dowsers, edited by Tom Graves, p 40. pp 41-?? is 'Archaeological Dowsing' by R. Allender Smith. (Google Books) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good lateral googling (books rather than scholar), thanks Hrafn. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boothby is listed in the contents as "JBSD II, 115-116", which I would interpret as 'Journal of the British Society of Dowsers, Volume 2, pp 115-116. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Something that old I always assume its more likely that whoever threw it into the article either read a reprint, or saw it cited elsewhere, rather than read the original.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A less reliable source cites it as "Captain F.L.M. Boothby, The Religion of The Stone Age, in JBSD II, No.10, Dec 35, pp.115-16." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. F. L. M. Boothby was an RN officer - see 1927 The Aircraft Engineer issue here: [1] or here: [2] He had retired from the navy by then but it was usual to keep any substantive rank as an honorific title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rudgley as a source

The article on Richard Rudgley offers the following comment from a review of Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age:

Rudgley almost always finds himself taking the minority view over controversies, and his conclusions are occasionally facile or follow discredited authorities. But throughout the book we find clear exposition, a refreshing straightforwardness about the complexity of the archaeological record, a willingness to explore many sides of an issue, and a zest for discovery that makes it a page-turner.

This is not the description of a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the problem here. The problem is that he isn't discussing ley lines, and sources must be discussing the subject according to our policy on original research. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the book, so was unaware of that (though I probably should have suspected from the wording), sorry. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various

I've just been reviewing this article and immediately a couple of things come to mind. Firstly, should the very first sentence be in the singular, to reflect the title of the article? Secondly, this subject of this article is categorised as "paranormal". While there is much still to understand about ley lines (if they exist), I don't think they fall into the area of the paranormal. What does anyone else think? The Roman Candle (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the title is in the singular to reflect Wikipedia titling policies, whereas the first sentence uses it in the plural, as this is the way they are most commonly discussed -- "ley lines", rather than "a ley line". I don't see this as a problem, and it probably sounds more natural. I have seen no source placing the topic in the realm of the 'normal', scientifically-explicable or non-WP:FRINGE -- so the categorisation would appear appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the categorisation. "Paranormal" is diffent from "unexplained". From the point of view of sources it would be more appropriate to find one that placed the topic in the paranormal sphere rather than one that excluded it from such. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I just found a reference that relates Ley Lines to paranormal experiences. For me it's a bit tenuous, but there is stuff out there, so I suppose it's reasonable to have this category. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL yields hundreds of sources that place ley lines in the context of the paranormal -- and "unexplained" is not the same thing as 'inexplicable'/not "explicable" -- the latter means unable to be explained, not simply not (as yet) explained. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the article on Sacred Sites????????

I just read an article on the 10 most popular Sacred Sites on Yahoo. So I was wanting to find other sites so I went to Wikipedia and entered Sacred Sites and lo and behold, I get Ley Lines. Really? Really? What the heck do Ley Lines have to do with Sacrid Sites? What gives? Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok a friend told me to drop the S on Sacrid Sites and now I go to Shrine. You know, you could link Sacrid Sites to Shrine also. In no way does Sacrid Sites have anything at all to do with Ley Lines. Golly! Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not just wipe out a bunch of people's additions without proposing it first, OK?

Let's not do this. If the assertion is ref'd to the actual work (a primary source) that's OK, unless you're asserting that it's trivial. If it's not reffed and you're asserting that there's reason to believe it's not true, that's one thing. Are you? If there's not reason to believe it's not true, then either find the ref yourself or tag it so someone else can. Don't just erase it. Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Hardy

We can't use her as a source, see [3] where she says "in the Land of Tilmun (the Sinai Peninsula and Northern Egypt) a new spaceport is built to replace the ancient one in Sippar and a new Mission Control Center (Ekur) to replace the ancient one in Nippur]" - she's another Sitchin. We can't claim Michell was the first to say something without a reliable source. And we can't use language that has Wikipedia suggesting that these alignments actually exist. Many of the claims for such alignments are actually wrong. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ley line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809012401/http://www.gothicimage.co.uk/books/leyhunter1.html to http://www.gothicimage.co.uk/books/leyhunter1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ley line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ley line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]