Talk:Megaliths/Archive 2

Untitled

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (Abtract 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Akaulins, you have made some edits which I disagree with and which require substantiation. Your implication the megalithic technology dispersed from a central point needs backing up or at least a discussion of separate regional development.

The rest of your additions do not seem to be closely connected with megaliths, instead being a general view of the Neolithic and Bronze Age and I think it should be moved there for further discussion. In brief: Although Neolithic settlement sites are relatively sparse you should mention the 'absence of evidence' arguments of Megaw and Simpson and Burl's roundhouses. The precise domestic role of the Neolithic longhouse may be open to question but when coupled with the large number of ambiguous Neolithic structures found in Britain then there is a body of evidence you are ignoring. See also Skara Brae. adamsan 18:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nabta Playa

Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be clearer, with IN replacing FROM?

The term can be used to describe buildings erected by people IN many parts of the world living in many different periods. Angela26 14:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to merge megalithic archetictural elements with this

this article is t laid out well and could include all the info contained in Megalithic architectural elements which is in it self a merge of several small articles scattered in a rather unhelpful cat called [[Category:archaeological features]] which clashes with the term feature in [[Category: Methods and principles in archaeology]] Boris 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, How were the megaliths in Africa put up? What methode did they use?

paranormal?

Why is this topic not covered in paranormal interest?

Pjacobi removed it with the (not paranormal) edit.

J. D. Redding 17:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This topic belongs into archaelogy, and the myths and legends surrounding them, pre-date the notion of "paranormal" at least by centuries. --Pjacobi 18:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your country, but there are many new myths and legends in Europe where new age beliefs (not to mention megaliths) are more common. There are also many modern paranormal beliefs linking megalithic sites such as Stonehenge in Britain to UFOs, lay lines, supposed magnetic energy grids and even inter dimensional portals. All of which come under the domain of project paranormal.

perfectblue 07:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then they may deserve mention in a more specialised article -- but not here. --Pjacobi 08:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really you're place to decide, lets take it to the Project Paranormal discussion page. Let the project consensus decide.

perfectblue 10:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your problem: Thinking that Project Paranormal can decide this. --Pjacobi 10:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there's no mention of anything paranormal in the article, it seems a bit silly to slap a big project paranormal tag on this talk page. --Minderbinder 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can solve quickly solve that with 5 minutes, a keyboard, and a good Jerome Clark book. - perfectblue 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the question whether the paranormal connection is mentioned, but whether it should be mentioned. As per undue weight it shouldn't be mentioned here. --Pjacobi 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote me the exact section of "undue weight" that you are referring to. As I see it, the fact that there are so many associations between monoliths and the supernatural/paranormal in the popular imagination, means that the association would rate at least one well worded paragraph even if it is only to wikilink in to the pages about said beliefs. Said paragraph would be well within the weight limit and there is precedent all over the place with "in fiction" or "in popular culture" sections in hundreds of different articles.

perfectblue 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associations don't make change that Megalith is a topic of archaelogy. Only very tiny minority of archaelogists subscribe to the paranormal view of megaliths. Perhaps none. Can you name any one? --Pjacobi 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're statement makes no sense. Archaeologists are the last people that you would expect to associate monoliths with the Paranormal. The vast majority of NASA rocket scientists likely don't believe in UFOs, but that doesn't stop millions of non-rocket scientists from believing in them -perfectblue 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a project tags an article as under their watch does not make that article necessarily any less associated with other areas. The Paranormal project covers a huge variety of topics such as New Age beliefs, unusual phenomena, folk beliefs, cryptozoology etc etc. I am so tired of other editors jumping the gun and assuming that being tagged by ths project makes the subject matter somehow less credible. We have scientists, anthropologists, folklorists and other such academics in the project and many skeptics. All the projects seeks to do is improve articles, protect them from unconstrucive or vandalizing edits and to assure NPOV. This article belongs in the project. Nobody is "slapping" anything on an article when they add the tag. It's merely a tool to make sure it is listed in our area for our editors to see. Why would anyone object to MORE editors working on a project? Please remember that as editors, we are supposed to assume good faith. In addition, it would be appropriate for their to be a small section describing (but notadvocating) the New Age beliefs that have sprung up about Megaliths. LiPollis 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the project and I do not think that megalith belongs classified under such a project. Those who are interested in editting paranormal-related articles shouldn't be interested in editing this article for reasons related to the paranormal. To label this article as such opens up the possibility of people feeling free to begin describing paranormal associations with megaliths -- something rightly excluded by WP:WEIGHT. --ScienceApologist 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're also one of the most active skeptics in the group. I don't think that it would be a breach of AFG to say that you joined project paranormal with the aim reigning in what you see as being excesses. Weight only really applies when a minority argument is given too much presence. It's certainly not a breach to present a subsection of opinion in scale, and if you're worried about "the slippery slope", you can always set up a watch on the page, or expand the conventional sections to re-wight things- perfectblue 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the consensus. I am, by the way, someone who holds an actual degree in Archaeology. (I would be happy to provide my bona fides via email) and who worked, for a time as such for a museum. I wish the paranormal project had a better name because it's the name that seems to create the conflict in people's minds. When you consider that many megaliths were erected for religious reasons in the first place, religions that if practiced today would be probably fall under the project's jurisdiction, it seems a little bit overwrought to suggest the project's tag alone would be giving undue weight to something. As I said, I'll go with the consensus. Perhaps ScienceApologist can interest another more appropriate project to consider adding this article to their fold. Articles guided by projects tend to progress up the classes fasterLiPollis 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the general consensus is that paranormal associations with Megalith don't actually have any archaeological value, but are more a part of new age and UFO beliefs. - perfectblue 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus needed

There's a "bit of disagreement" over whether Megalith comes under Project Paranormal's jurisdiction. Consensus is needed. Please make your feelings known

perfectblue 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Megaliths are frequently the subject of myths legends and new age beliefs, they are also commonly cited in Ufology and modern pseudo-supernatural beliefs. For example, that they form part of a planet wide power-grid used by UFOs, that mark/create gateways to other dimensions which are responsible for numerous disappearances or strange sightings, or they were built by aliens or ancient people with paranormal abilities. - perfectblue 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per Perfectblue, this is definitely paranormal-related stuff.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES - I added my thoughts about this on the article's talk page. Other than LBGT project, I've not seen another project so universally assumed to be "up to no good" by other editors. There seems to be a serious lack of WP:AGF towards this project and it's a shame.LiPollis 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be for faith reasons? The projects that seem to come under the most attack are seem to be ones that deal with issues that religious conservatives have issues with. LGBT, project Paranormal, not to mention the informal groups trying to maintain the non-censorship policies. - perfectblue 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot comment on LGBT (only as it doens't interest me) but project paranormal isn't under attack, however some (a minority) of it's editors seem to suffer from a persecution complex. Shot info 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process all wrong

the following was moved from the Paranormal Project talk page, and is referring to that page Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place to discuss, let alone straw-poll, the issue.
Jurisdiction isn't bold, it's reckless.
My reservoir of AGF was rapidly drained in collision with some of the project members.

Pjacobi 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a straw poll, there are procedures for that. This is an informal discussion between members of a specific project as to whether or not the feel that a specific page comes under their jurisdiction. If a project can't decide what they cover, then who can?

perfectblue 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see a problem with a project group flagging an article for inclusion into it's own scope but editing the article needs to keep WP:WEIGHT in mind. Shot info 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think that you might have your wires crossed. I'm arguing that the article should come under the scope of project paranormal because monolith are sometime associated with the paranormal. I'm not proposing that the page be changed so that it is about monoliths in the context of the paranormal. At most, this page needs a simple paragraph mentioning the most notable associations and wikilinking into their articles. It's not a takeover so weight wouldn't come into it. - perfectblue 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop the "jurisdiction" and play nice. Any information "Paranormal connections of Megaliths" would add something about "Paranormal" to our content, not something about "Megalith". It's a bit like the "Trivia" sections which are spread by viral growth and often states, how the article's subject has been interpreted in The Simpsons -- that should normally go into some subarticle of The Simpsons, not -- e.g. -- into the Black hole. Compare the notable exception Stephen Hawking, as this is an out-of-universe factoid there. Or the more related example, where Neopaganism gets mentioned in European Megalithic Culture. --Pjacobi 08:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding something paranormal be so bad? like I said above, it's not a takeover attempt. - perfectblue 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't perfectblue, but when editors encounter rigid resistance to an aspect of a topic, it's best to just be the better person and leave it be. I've looked over the Megalith article and come to the conclusion that any mention of religious significance or neo-pagan interest in them should appear only on the individual megalith's article page. That way we can avoid some readers assuming that any mention of pagan or neopagan practices equals the assertion that all megaliths have pagan or neopagan significance. it's not an assumption I think too many readers WOULD make mind you, but let's err on the side of caution. If editors cannot or will not assume good faith on the part of the paranormal project, we should not dig our heels in. We should simply move on to another topic. Heaven knows we have many on our to do list!LiPollis 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is enough reason to remove the tagging of this article as under the scope of the Paranormal WikiProject to remove the template from this talkpage. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal##Talk:Megalith for more on this. --ScienceApologist 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove editor's comments, like this edit. J. D. Redding 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you actually name on wikireg or policy that says that this shouldn't come under the Project Paranormal? = perfectblue 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick look @ g.books (with search term "megalith paranormal") ...

Mysteries: An Investigation Into the Occult, the Paranormal And the Supernatural - Page 118; by Colin Wilson - 2006 - 667 pages
The Sociological Review - Page 375; by Sociological Society., University of Keele, Institute of Sociology - 1908
Diverse Druids by Robert Baird - 2003 - 368 pages

If ppl look into the situation, there probably alot more info/scolarly articles/published books. J. D. Redding 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (PS., you could also do "occult megalith", "ufo megalith", or "[insert your favorite paranormal term] megalith" and find thsi is not an unusual association within certian studies and research))[reply]

For what its worth, as a (light) contributor to the article, I agree with ScienceApologist on this, but also think that here is the wrong place for the discussion. It seems that this is broad intra project discussion about your own scope, and should be limited to your project's talk.

I admit that there is a lot of documented speculation on a possible paranormal aspect to Megaliths. As far as I can see, archaeology is a science based on objective empirical research, while the paranormal is a fringe science based on speculation. In my openion a paranormal banner misleads readers, and creates an association I'm not comfortable with. I'm not a scientist, just live in an area heavily populated with the things, and I stand to be corrected; but that's my take. Ceoil 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data and fact about megaliths in popular culture, which can be encountered in the realms of public speculation, science fiction, and fantasy, should be covered (with citations). Interpretations of scientific research (fringe and conventional) should also be included. J. D. Redding 20:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are bordering on trivia there. In particlar, references in science fiction and fantasy should be restricted to their own articles, and they are not welcome here. Ceoil 20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not trivia, just facts and data. AND there are alot of articles that deal with popular culture factoids in wikipedia. The notable facts should be included, until such time as they can be split off rom this article into thier own seperate article. J. D. Redding 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture factoids should be ~~shot~~ removed on sight, and often form the basis for oppose on both FAC and FAR. Do you have better arguments. Ceoil 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit in a POV fashion (eg., "shot"). Popular culture facts should be included. J. D. Redding 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What I meant was "Do you have better arguments"...because I'm curious as to how you are going to back out of this. "Popular culture facts should be included", have lost interest already. Reverted claim banner. Ceoil 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular culture facts should be included." By what reasoning/policy? --Minderbinder 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the thousands of articles that include popluar culture data. Did you look @ a simple search of wikipedia to see the multitude of articles that include popular culture data/info/facts? J. D. Redding 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the inclusion of pop culture material is much debated. I'm not sure what makes you think that one article having something is automatically a precedent that allows doing it in any article. --Minderbinder 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that thousands of articles need a clean up to remove unencyclopedic content, and this lower standard is the extent of your project's claims, then for god sake. The principals, policies, whateVer are WP:FACR, WP:MOS and WP:CRUFT. Ceoil 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FACR is criteria for a good article, but all the points support including such data and facts, such as "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details (such as from popular culture). The only thing remotely possible is "indiscriminate", but this is not non-selective or random information ... it's relevant and factually accurate info about the article @ hand.

WP:MOS guideline ... make sure the info is properly formatted. Ok.

WP:CRUFT essay ... not a policy or guideline. But "no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects". I also don't think "obscure" info should be included, but well known info shouls be.

J. D. Redding 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (ps., please don't "remove encyclopedic content" as you stated above)[reply]

You are interpreting policy to justify cruft, you realise that right? Ceoil 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder, can you rephrase your statement, as I do not know what you intended to say. Ceoil 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors oppose having pop culture sections in articles, it is a subject of huge debate. And the inclusion of a section in one article doesn't justify having that section in another article - "but this other article has one" isn't really an argument. Have I clarified? --Minderbinder 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Sorry, just wanted an explicit reasoning, as I feel im shouting to a wall here. Ceoil 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for "this is not a take over". — BillC^talk 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

Meta: Reddi, can edit one article without putting 200 entries into the history? Also these drive-by article extensions done by Google books searches without actually reading the references you give, are essentially unasked for.

IMHO the further reading sections should give our readers some advice for good summary article and books on different levels. We cannot seriously attempt to create a complete bibliography here, but perhaps we can link existing ones? Also, references and further reading applying to specific subtopics should better be given at the corresponding sub-articles.

Pjacobi 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Removal of primary sources, secondary sources, and tertiary sources. J. D. Redding

Any reason for the ignorant (eg., a lack of knowledge or uninformed) and POV (aka., anti-paranormal) edit WMC?

Mainly about stonehenge ... but has info about megaliths in general ... and astroarchaeology ....

Lancaster Brown, P. (1976). Megaliths, myths, and men: an introduction to astro-archaeology. New York: Taplinger Pub. Co.

About megaliths and alil' astro-archaeology ..

Kaulins, A. (2003). Stars, stones and scholars: the decipherment of the megaliths as an ancient survey of the earth by astronomy. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford Pub.

Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...

Knight-Jadczyk, L. (2005) The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive. Red Pill Press. ISBN 1897244169

Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...

Wilson, Colin (2006). Mysteries: An Investigation Into the Occult, the Paranormal And the Supernatural. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 667 pages. ISBN 1842931857

J. D. Redding 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SA (JS) removed a source. Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...

Grossinger, R. (1986). Planetary mysteries. Berkeley, Calif: North Atlantic Books.

J. D. Redding 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be added as source it should have been read and used by a contributor. Nor robot-like harvested from Google books. --Pjacobi 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added them as sources ... I did read many pages of these. I was going to use them. 'Fact based research (eg., All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.) with the help of Google books. J. D. Redding 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

Merge I propose that European Megalithic Culture be merged into this article because that article is mainly about structures rather than culture and the limited mentions of culture are an uncited combination of opinion, speculation and OR which could better be summarised in one section in this Megalith article. Abtract 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TharkunColl 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reasons might be useful? :) Abtract 15:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I think the European megalithic tradition in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age is famous and distinctive enough to merit an article of its own. TharkunColl 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree For the reasons discussed on the European Megalithic Culture, I would agree to merge much of that article in its present for into this one, and either add a section on the notion of unified "Megalithic Culture" here, or redesign the other article ot be more explicitly concerned with that topic. athinaios 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's also a lot of overlap with Megalithic tomb. What we have now are three medium-length articles that overlap a great deal, and two are very weak on citations. Depending on how long an article people feel comfortable with, I think it would be possible to merge both or even all three and have a thorough, well-cited article. Given that athinaios is willing to work on this, I lean towards Merge. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 16:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The danger is that such articles tend to become lists, and photo deposits. I'd keep regioanl articles out on their own. Ceoil 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as megaliths around the world [i.e. not just Europe but Indonesia, Korea, Kyushu (Japan), and Shandong (China)] are treated equally, I agree that Megalith should be merged with Megalithic tomb and European Megalithic Culture so that content is not unnecessarily diffused throughout the 'pedia. Grunty Thraveswain 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the second proposal to merge all three articles ... Megalithic tomb already contains a section on European megalithic tradition. I think we could make a really good article if combined. Abtract 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Experiment. I have prepared a rough idea of how a threee way merge might look. Feel free to comment or change it as you wish. I offer this as an aid to our decision, not as a perfect merge. Abtract 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this experiment looks promising. Abtract is on the right track I'd say. Grunty Thraveswain 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the timeline? And why shouldn't people who want to find out about European megaliths have their own article? TharkunColl 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about timeline, I overlooked it but have added it now. As to "why shouldn't people ... have their own article?" I just can't see it. We are not here to provide articles aimed at special interest groups, we are trying to create an encyclopedia where information is grouped into articles that hang together around a central topic - I believe "Megalith" does just that. If certain sections were ever to get too large in the future, they could be hived off to separate articles - though there is no sign of that yet. We have the opportunity to create quite a useful article here, one where info on a near world-wide phenomenum is grouped together in such a way where the reader can easily compare megaliths from around the world, can discover how and when these structures were built, how methods spread, what they were used for etc. Redirects will lead special interest readers here.Abtract 23:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks really good, Abtract! Good job! This is shaping up to be just what I had in mind - a solid article that covers all the bases, and could eventually reach FA status. TharkunColl, I have to agree with Abtract here, one well-rounded and thoroughly-sourced article serves the 'pedia far better than a scattered collection of unsourced and redundant ones. We can easily make redirects to the sub-sections, for those searching for info from a particular culture. Example: European megaliths -> Megalith#European megaliths, etc. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually rather like the way the new article is shaping up, and have no further objections to the merger.TharkunColl 08:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is little disagreement so far I am going to put my sandbox article in full view as Megaliths. I suggest we all edit that article exclusively for the next 7 days (so don't waste edits on the three articles we are debating). Once we are all happy it is OK we copy it into Megalith and redirect the other articles there. Alternatively we may decide that the article should be in the plural and keep it at Megaliths. Naturally if other editors come along who are not happy about the merge we can talk about that subject again. Abtract 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]