Talk:Stonehenge/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Remove the Sketch allegedly "...showing the tongue and groove and mortise and tenon joints used in the outer Sarsen circle" which is incorrect. Replace the sentence "The lintels were fitted to one another using another woodworking method, the tongue and groove joint." by the correct sentence "The lintel ends butt to one another." This is evident in aerial views. 84.214.215.102 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The claim that the lintels at Stonehenge were linked end-to-end by tongue and groove joints is seductive because it implies an astonishing, even incredible, precision of stone working. The idea also implies deliberate chirality of construction with implications for the direction of any circular ceremonial procession. The state protectors of Stonehenge, English Heritage, have sent the statement shown. There is not sufficient evidence for Dr. Greaney's claim that "some stones have one tongue and one grooves, others two of each" for me or WP:RS. Philvoids (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

DNA

The section about the DNA is growing bigger and bigger. To be honest, I have difficulty to see the relevance of DNA in relation to the stone monument. Just plain remove it might be a bit harsh, so I suggest a split off of the DNA-part into a new article. The Banner talk 17:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Banner I haven’t looked in detail but there may be some OR/synthesis. And of course “Notably” is a “ word to avoid”. I’m not convinced about an article or that this could be cut to a paragraph. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that section contains nothing about the aDNA of individuals actually associated with Stonehenge, and lots of stuff about ancient people only generally associated with the same time period. 🤔  Tewdar  19:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather than a new article, I think we should just retain and prune the parts relating to 'original builders==EEFs' and 'late stage associated with migrating Beaker folk', which is well documented, along with whatever other relevant aDNA results we can include relating to the Stonehenge site (and wider ceremonial landscape). Sound good?  Tewdar  19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on all points noted above. The article is now 25% larger than the recommended article size and needs to be trimmed/split not expanded. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Photos from 1931, hi-res downloads available.

Clean black and white photos of what seems to be S., probably taken by hungarian tourists: https://fortepan.hu/en/photos/?id=257403 , https://fortepan.hu/en/photos/?id=257404 , https://fortepan.hu/en/photos/?id=257405 (Note: Fortepan is a webportal indexing vintage photography donated by hungarian sources.) 19:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC) 94.21.229.41 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Short description

@GhostInTheMachine: I'm not going to spend any time defending a policy that I consider indefensible, but just for the record: Neolithic henge monument in Wiltshire, England is 46 characters so is not "short enough per guidelines". The "guideline" at WP:HOWTOSD says 40 characters max.

More significantly, the only reason to put the county in the SD is to disambiguate from the other Stonehenge in England. Only there isn't one. So I don't see the point? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Short description again

John Maynard Friedman updated the short description from Neolithic henge monument in Wiltshire, England to Neolithic henge monument in England then I changed it to Neolithic stone monument in England with a quote of WP:SDJARGON reading "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject" which Murgatroyd49 reverted saying "it is not just a stone monument". Clearly "henge" is jargon which will be meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the topic and cannot be placed in the short description. I have changed it to simply Neolithic monument in England. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking Stonehenge is not just a Neolithic monument, it is also a Bronze Age monument. :) DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ancient monument in England? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That would seem to be sufficiently accurate without any confusion/dispute. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't agree - "ancient" is vague, rather implies the Romans, & has confusing links to the legal term "ancient monument", which could mean far later. "Prehistoric" is better, and "stone" should be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest short description would be: Stonehenge. That is unambiguous and universally recognised. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That wouldn't last 5 minutes, as you are not supposed to repeat words in the actual title. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I know, the point is it doesn't actually matter what is in the short description, the title says it all. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Prehistoric" makes sense. "Ancient" is probably only especially meaningful to UK readers (xref Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979).

"Stone" is just part of the story: the earthworks are just as important although less obvious. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's face it, it's the iconic and still-visible part of the story. This is just a short-desc. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think ancient implies the Romans, simply before the fall of the Roman Empire. Of course there are ancient historical civilizations from before that time, but I think the word applies just as well to prehistoric. We could use the word prehistoric, but if Stonehenge is a monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 why not use ancient? If we look at Ancient monument the example picture is Stonehenge...

As far as "stone" or any characterization like that I'm comfortable just omitting it. Ancient monument in England or Prehistoric monument in England work just as well, although I do tend to prefer ancient. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 14 July 2023

Stonehenge tunnel is approved by government (again) See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-66201424 92.9.41.204 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Dating BC to BCE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose a blanket change from BC to BCE throughout the article when referencing dating. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose anyway, but under WP:ERA you are supposed to give reasons specific to the article. Not that it matters all that much, but note that the owners of the site, English Heritage, only use BC. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose no worthwhile reason for change. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose no real point, other than ideological.

(unsigned - [1] by User:Ario1234)

• Oppose, totally pointless.  Tewdar  21:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason to change. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to change. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Since the S. site was obviously built by "pagan" people, it would make sense to use BCE as that phrase (with Era at the end), is less theologically-ideologically charged than just BC. 94.21.229.41 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support It's more inclusive to secularists and non-Christian readers to use a non-religious dating nomenclature. Furthermore, the fields of study surrounding such sites, (archeology, anthropology, and so on) are largely science based fields of endeavour, which are increasingly moving towards adopting the BCE/CE format... Sometimes, though, it's just better to be on the right side of history; is it better, for example, to be considered as a John Butler, or a John Scopes? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Anno Domini assumes that Jesus is our dominus (master or owner), and I would like to avoid references to slavery. Common Era is inoffensive. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly object to the suggestion that using BC signifies support for slavery. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick didn't say that it signifies support for slavery, he said that it references slavery, which it objectively did historically. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting take. "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi" means "the year of our Lord Jesus Christ" which predates anything the Romans did...and at the same time, it's interesting to see this is where "Don" came from as a title. – The Grid (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Predates anything the Romans did... what? The Roman Empire was founded in 27 BCE. The anno domini calendar was devised in 525 CE and didn't come into widespread use until the 8th century. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

See, that's why confusion happens! I thought it was 27 AD. – The Grid (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Dimadick was joking. I hope so anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see a reason to switch the dating system for this article per WP:ERA. The arguments I'm seeing for the change go beyond this article. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a change of dating system, just a syntax of dating. BC = BCE, and AD = CE... but the numbers would be exactly the the same, where 2023 AD = 2023 CE, just a modification to "Before Common Era" instead of "Before Christ" but numbers are identical. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we all know that! Coming up to its 1st anniversary, this proposal has clearly not met consensus & is closed. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Hello i am a historian and i am researching about stone henge and would like to add some things to it so i wanted to ask if i can edit this source to add some things Abitd (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly were you thinking of adding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Please do not use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template when you are just asking a question. Only use the template when you are requesting an edit. Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Why was Stonehenge constructed?

What was in the mind of them??? 103.54.101.15 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There are thousands of books and articles debating this subject. No one really knows but we can make some intelligent guesses. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

meep. 209.242.141.143 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, which Stonehenge do you mean? As the article explains, there were a number of phases of consruction, demolition and reconstruction. We don't even know for sure if the site was used continuously between phases. There are many Henges all over Britain whose purpose is not obvious today, that are like Stonehenge I and II. That it marked the midwinter sunrise seems to have appeared in Stonehenge III (NB this is speculative). The apparent marking of other celestial events came later still. Modern scientific conjectures are not wild guesses but nevertheless are trying to infer the purpose from the physical evidence, in the absence of any contemporary records. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" and above that "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stonehenge article". This thread comes under the former, not the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read Theories about Stonehenge? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggest remove vandalism reference

Stonehenge has been vandalised many times in the past, generally considerably more significantly eg https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1961/mar/14/stonehenge-defacement and https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/03/21/Stonehenge-scarred-by-graffiti/1863637995600/ (Note second source's mention that on average graffiti artists vandalise these stones about once a decade)

Surely either none of these incidents are noteworthy or they all are? It seems strange to have a whole section and attached separate article for a very minor act of vandalism of no historic significance that I can see 2001:4646:4DE6:0:45A9:D292:3490:391A (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a mention of it, but an entire section is highly WP:UNDUE, yes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. WP:NOTNEWS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)