Talk:Utah monolith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category:Monoliths of the United States

This category is about the geological meaning of Monolith, rather than the broader term - I'll remove it. Autarch (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC News article

Interesting material here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

protected from private manipulation?

It is not clear what is implied by "... protected from private manipulation". Should it be removed or linked to some sort of definition? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lack of transparency on image sourcing?

The article states that the monolith was discovered in 2020, yet the picture for the article says it was taken in 2016. What's the deal there? 210.87.7.123 (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Should 2016 be added to the photo caption, based on the metadata?—Jade Ten (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I do hope that the CC status of the file is OK.[1] There is Exif metadata which says that the photo was taken at 08:05, 15 May 2016. This is weird, because as we know the monolith was not discovered until this month, at least officially. How did this photo come to be taken and uploaded with a CC license? It is a mystery and some further clarification is needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the Exif data on the photo is wrong. The photo says it was taken in May 2016 but apparently the camera which the photo was taken with did not come on the market till Autumn 2016. More here https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/161337/where-is-this-utah-triangle-monolith-located/161339?noredirect=1#comment403183_161339 Sbgrant (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fujifilm X-T2 says that it went on sale in September 2016. There is something undoubtedly odd here, and I doubt if the photo really was taken in 2016. It is not impossible to edit Exif data [2] so there needs to be a much clearer explanation of how and when this photo was taken. I've left a note for the user who uploaded it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My guess is it was a known object occasionally visited, but didn't make news until found by authorities. There are a lot of greasy finger prints along the top edges of the monolith like people grabbing on and peering over. The uploader may be one of those earlier visitors who uploaded the image from their collection once it became a news item. The timestamp discrepancy is strange. Possibly if the date has not been set it defaults to a start date of camera manufacture. But these are speculations. -- GreenC 03:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I bought the camera used recently and didn’t update the exif date in the camera. I uploaded it on Wikipedia and I’m cool with it without copyright. The image is for the people. Patrickamackie2 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)patrickamackie

Thanks for confirming, Patrick. Nice shot, by the way. Sbgrant (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Cordinates

@Jade Ten:, we should leave in the coordinates of the location in which it was last seen (as these are known), which is still interesting to readers (and covered in the refs). thanks. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Stolen

The story goes viral https://mobile.twitter.com/brian_schnee --Jucos (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Then there will likely be reliable sources reporting on it eventually, and then it can be added to the article with those sources. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - Added following relevant link to the *External links* section => " * Official BLMUtah FaceBook Comments re Missing Monolith, November 29, 2020." - also, several WP:RS references - Hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Date stamp of Utah officials' first Instagram post

Why does the date stamp in this Instagram post say that it's from November 20? Didn't the monolith become headline news on November 23/24? Someone please explain. I don't understand Instagram very much. Thank you. —Jade Ten (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I answered my own question. —Jade Ten (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

President's removal of National Monument status

The phrase "...on public land that was removed from Bears Ears National Monument (a protected area of Utah) by President Donald Trump in 2017" was reverted twice from two IPs (both in London) that gave the same reasoning: "Nothing that happened in 2017 has any relevance to a piece of artwork being installed in 2016". The info was reliably sourced, and the source is not the only reliable one out there that covers this info. This shows that reliable sources consider the info relevant to the topic. Also, the removal of National Monument status for the site is relevant, as the Antiquities Act authorizes penalties for the removal or destruction of antiquities or objects of scientific interest, a concern that is also covered in the article and reliably sourced.

Another reasoning was that it was "only included to incite hatred towards...the president". This goes against WP:GOODFAITH. The editors who have added this info, including myself, have stuck to reliable sources, expanded what used to be a stub article, and given edit summaries. In contrast, this information was first reverted without any edit summary, qualifying the revert as vandalism.

The info should be restored. Or, in the interest of consensus, it can at least be restored without any reference to the president, such as "...on public land that was removed from Bears Ears National Monument (a protected area of Utah) in 2017". Thank you. —Jade Ten (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with inclusion. It's discussed in the sources considered important and we follow sources. It puts the location into the context of recent news and it is part of the larger narrative thread of protected land usage this story is central to. The "incite hatred" claim is baseless. -- GreenC 17:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree the info should be restored, including the statement "removed... by President Donald Trump in 2017". Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"inciting hatred" implies that the removal is something that most people would disapprove of. So the editor knows Trump is a bad president but still supports him. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus reached, or at least a majority. —Jade Ten (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal details

The insta video by people whose entire profile description is "WITNESSED THE #utahmonolith BEING STOLEN 11/27/2020" is hard to verify. There are concerns about the reliability of their report in the comments on the video; and details of the claims in the video are particularly hard to verify. I left the summary of that source short and more explicitly noting it as hearsay -- it does not itself seem to be the credible report referenced by Utah's Bureau of LM. – SJ + 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vegetation mystery

Not sure if it means anything, but no source mentions a detailed comparison of the 2015 and 2016 Google Earth images. The vegetation in the canyon has gone missing, and the area around the monolith looks packed down as by many footsteps. I thought it might be seasonality but similar looking vegetation elsewhere in the frame is still there. Why would the vegetation be missing? Another mystery. -- GreenC 00:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Too many people tramping about. That's why rednecks removed it and left a rude message. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd honestly like to believe there are tree hugging rednecks who did it. Or trolling the libs and selling the scrap. -- GreenC 17:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That area of the SouthWest has had serious droughts. The vegetation fluctions could be due to the time of year and/or drought cycles, monsoon cycles, etc. Netherzone (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, though vegetation elsewhere in the frame appears unaffected. And pictures of the monolith forum area show no sign of dried vegetation or cut stubs, like it was completely removed. -- GreenC 00:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing that flash floods through many slot canyons in the area, washed away the vegetation; and it seems that the monolith "points" towards one of them. Water from seasonal monsoon rains in that area which are short rainfalls, but hard driving, moves with great force thorough the dry slot canyons and arroyos, producing flash floods that wash away pretty much everything and can definitely can uproot vegetation that can travel for miles. I've been in a couple of these flash floods in the Southwest, and it was scary! Big boulders dislodged from cliffs and carried downstream - very dramatic! Anyways, GreenC it's just a theory :) - thankfully there are still mysteries in the world! Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Do rivets imply earthly origin?

It's not clear to me that the presence of rivets implies an earthly origin. Surely aliens are also capable of using rivets, either as a convenient method of construction, or to make it appear earthly. The same argument applies to the saw overcuts seen near the base.

To be clear, I believe it is overwhelmingly likely it was made by humans - I'm only concerned about the logic. LouScheffer (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The assumption is that aliens would have 'developed beyond rivets', but this logic is absurd. Humans have not 'developed beyond nails', we have been using them for thousands of years. Nails still have their uses in multiple situations. Some technology, e.g. the wheel, does not need to be improved upon if it does its job successfully. Sbgrant (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Re this edit: we do need to credit the readers with some intelligence, because it would require exceptional evidence to start suggesting that the monolith was built by anyone other than humans. This comes across as an attempt to insert personal commentary into the article and is totally unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We are following the sources. Any mention or comparison of 2001, which concerns an alien monolity, needs to be clear there are no suspicions of it being anything but human-made. The rivets easily settle it. If 2001 was never brought up it wouldn't be needed. -- GreenC 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There are two different questions here. One is "Was it made by humans?". The answer is overwhelmingly likely "yes". The other is "Does the presence of rivets proves it was made by humans?". Here the answer is no. It is certainly true that humans use rivets, and provides support in the Bayesian sense, but unless you have some proof that aliens never use rivets, it does not prove it. Anyone arguing it does would fail a freshman logic class - "Many males like football; person A is likes football; therefore person A is male". Wikipedia should show this logic is fallacious, even if the conclusion (likely built by humans) is true. LouScheffer (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 

It might be tricky to find reliable sources that prove that extraterrestrial creatures exist, that they have visited Utah (why are they allegedly so overwhelmingly attracted to visiting the United States, compared to other, equally attractive destinations such as Howth?), or that they do or do not use rivets. — O'Dea (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I added another reliable source that supports the wording that rivets suggest human origins. No one is saying that rivets prove human origin. We typically follow reliable sources. I say this without intention to ridicule: If a person were to apply the strict logic generally, they would have to refrain from saying that any manufactured object (a teapot, a pocketknife, a pillow) is made by humans, because logically aliens could have made it too and even made it look like it was made by humans. I advise not being that person. Thank you. —Jade Ten (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the most important point to make is that the monolith does not appear to have been constructed using any materials or construction methods that are unknown or unfamiliar to humanity. We're not saying that we've conclusively traced back the origin of the rivets, we're just saying that joining pieces of sheet metal using rivets is a common construction technique here on Earth, and therefore there doesn't appear to be any evidence that the monolith was created anywhere but Earth. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mysterious photo

Blowup pf "Utah Monolith.jpg" (about half-way up the sculpture on it's right hand side). The black strip on the left is part of the sculpture.

It was noted above that our photo had some mysterious dating in the EXIF metadata and the photographer answered the questions - more or less, I've got better things to do than try to create some extra mystery here - but I've still got a few questions. One has to do with the date in the extended EXIF data, the date that the EXIF data was last changed - which was the date of the upload. That struck me as a bit strange so I looked for anything in the photo that might date the photo. I couldn't really find anything on that. Maybe an expert Wikipedian(?) could be called in. If there are other photos that can be compared, perhaps the state of the extended cuts at the base of the sculpture (if I may call it that) - front left corner - that were supposedly made by a concrete saw, could tell us something.

But now - something I really don't know much about - but it is the strangest thing in the photo. Right where the rock wall goes up from the canyon floor, bordering the right side (viewer's point of view) of the image of the sculpture itself, is something. Could somebody take a look? Blow it up (click on the pic twice) and take a detailed look please. It might just be a rock with funny reflected light shining on it. But I've looked for similar rocks in the pic and don't see any. The yellow seems to be unique in the pic, and that exact shade of red is rare, I'll stop by tomorrow to see if anybody can give me a description of what they see. And then I'll tell you what I see (or think I see). No I'm not a complete nut-job, but when I run into something as strange as the "monolith" I just like to ask questions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: - unclear re the image area you've noted in your text description above - a ScreenShot of the exact image area may help I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I assumed the thing behind the monolith was a backpack. I do think it's a little strange that the last modified date stamp seems correct while the digitizing date stamp is supposed to be incorrect. But satellite images show the monolith wasn't there in early 2016, and there's already a bunch of handprints on the monolith in the photo. I'm thinking most likely the guy took the picture, then realized the date on the picture was wrong, then reset the camera's clock, then uploaded. —Jade Ten (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC)The photo loses a bit in the screen grab, so I'll recommend going back to the original - but you should be able to use this pic to find the right spot. And @Jade Ten: could be right, it might be a backpack. But I'd enjoy hearing a few more opinions. He's also right about the EXIF data - people can put in anything they want if they know about it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The prominent handprint on the left side of the monolith in the photo (side facing northwest) is noticeably absent in this other tourist photo taken November 24. It looks like the handprint was made by one of the tourists who came looking for the monolith. —Jade Ten (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - seems like a backpack to me as well - a bit greenish - an early type of Kelty pack was greenish if I recall correctly - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, this photo also from November 24 shows that the backpack-like object was not there yet (on the far right side of the photo). The backpack in the cropped picture looks like it's partially behind a rock, and there's a shoe or something put on top of the rock. —Jade Ten (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Good eyes, @Smallbones: - at first I thought it was a backpack, however after importing it into Photoshop, adjusting the contrast and brightness, I'm pretty sure it is the handle one of these suction devices for moving plate glass, large tile or other heavy smooth large objects like this: [3] - or it could be a portable electromagnet like this one:[4]. They come in various sizes depending on the use & weight carried. It seems to be poking up from inside a backpack. Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

for the record - my interpretation of the pic has changed over time. The first time I saw it briefly (then lost it!) I thought it was somebody sleeping with his shoe soles facing the camera. when I found it again I saw what I thought was a shoe might just be a rock, but thought that there must be some fabric (clothing? coveralls?) covering a rock with the yellow oval possibly being the bottom view of a hard hat, But after asking all of you, I think I see the straps of the backpack, And a yellow handle is more likely than the bottom rim of a hard hat. The bottom right corner of the backpack still interests me (I originally thought it was the other shoe), but now it looks like something rectangular inside the backpack is pushing it out. Still interesting, but it doesn't really help date the photo. Thanks for all the help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how the monolith could be placed into a triangular hole so cleanly. At first I thought that someone on the ground cut the hole with a rock saw, and the monolith airlifted by helicopter. What less expensive, more low-tech DIY methods might there be? If a truck hauled it away (a strong possibility based on the eyewitnesses), then it could have been brought to the site by 4WD truck. How then, could something that size and weight be lifted into the hole from the truck without fancy rigging? Three people, a rock saw and three cheap utility suction cups (for moving plate glass) or portable electromagnets (used by welders) could easily do it quickly and cleanly. These devices have yellow utility handles (similar to what I "see" sticking up from the backpack). That got me thinking about the who the creators of the monolith might be. I then remembered that I've seen monolith type structures at Burning Man. Here are some photos I found on the internet: date unknown[5], 1998[6], 2003,[7], 2011[8], date unknown[9]. Just musing about morphological similarities and tangentialities...it's a fun diversion. Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like something the aliens left behind when they were beaming down the sculpture. Natureium (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mysterious nature

This article is underplaying the mysterious nature of this topic simply calling "unknown person(s)". It reads like a police report. The mysteriousness is the single most important aspect of its notability and why it received worldwide interest, why so it is getting so much press. The article should reflect this mysteriousness. Anything less the article is not correctly reflecting the sources or the nature of the topic. Also, it was indeed "covertly" taken. It was actually in a "labyrinthine" location. These words quickly and pithily inform the reader. The "labyrinthine" location was replaced with "remote site", but remote is not accurate; if you look at Google Maps there is a road close by - what made it dangerous was not its physical remoteness but the labyrinthine nature of the rocks without becoming lost. -- GreenC 13:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed "labyrinthine" because it is the sort of English language word that might confuse some readers. It is ok to point out that the exact location is very hard to reach on foot. The fact that the monolith was discovered by a helicopter pilot shows that it was unlikely to be spotted by a person out for a walk. I'm not sure if labyrinthine is the best description of a slot canyon but the satellite photos show how risky and difficult it is to reach this area on foot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• The monolith was around 1 mile from Lock Hart Road.[10] The walk to the location would be difficult to say the least.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, 1 mile from a road is nothing when saying "remote" in the context of the American southwest, you could walk to it in 15-20 minutes if you knew the way. What made it dangerous is the maze-like nature of the rocks and paths, thus labyrinthine which by definition means maze-like. I don't see what the confusion would be. -- GreenC 14:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think some of the languages in the lede is a bit too colourful for WP (i.e. mystery, labyrinthine etc.), I think it should be plainer language imho. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The topic is notable because of its mysterious nature. Wikipedia can be well written, it does not require "plain" language rather descriptive language. If the words were inaccurate, fine, but they are precise descriptions. The problem is not the words, but the reality of the topic which is inherently dramatic. Downplaying is a NPOV problem. -- GreenC 15:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoever installed the monolith deliberately chose an area that was well nigh impossible to spot from any recognized road or footpath. The 1 mile distance from Lock Hart Road is short as the crow flies, but would be difficult and dangerous on foot, which is why the authorities discouraged people from visiting it. Unless the secondary sources use the word "labyrinthine", I don't think it is the best way of describing the location.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The location is not remote it is nearby a road. Yet the sources say it was easy to get lost in. A look at the map confirms it is a maze-like area of rocks where it would be easy to get turned around and lost. -- GreenC 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Any variation of the words mystery and remote should be in the lede, as they are used in the headlines of at least eight reliable sources. I'm undecided on the word labyrinthine. WP:NPOV deals with controversies outside of Wikipedia involving multiple points of view documented by reliable sources. It should not be invoked lightly. —Jade Ten (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

NYT now explicitly says what we have been saying all along: the mysterious origin of the monolith is central to its notability.[11]

The monolith is not super duper mysterious. It could have been built by anyone with decent metalworking skills. The only mystery is why someone would do it. It may have been done as a prank to see how long it would take to discover it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Andy Lewis section

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.

---

An editor keeps inserting some spam on a bogus link between Andy Lewis and the object. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content

On December 1, a video was posted on YouTube titled "We REMOVED the Utah monolith". It shows a group of about four people hauling away remains of the Utah monolith in a wheelbarrow.

References

Arbitrary break

Currently Consensus Is

Include	Neutral	Exclude
@Octoberwoodland:		@109.255.90.188:
@NicolaArangino:
@Drbogdan:
@StewieK:

Although this video might be arguably considered to be spamming, I would keep it in the article in the more "objective" version provided by user StewieK, since it has been rather covered by some local newspapers e.g. The Salt Lake Tribune https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/12/01/moabs-mr-slackline-claims/.--NicolaArangino (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is just self-promotion as spam - somebody has restored the content which is just a youtube link to Andy Lewis's promotional videos (and nothing else), and left me a notice for edit warring? Something odd going on here, with a self-promotional artist using the event (and Wikipedia) for their own promo, imho? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of the editors you disagree with. If your position is valid then other editors will chime in here and support your views. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know about other editors but I know about me: just a few hours ago I flagged a sentence in the article concerning the video as inconclusive and thus that needed more sourcing, and indeed an user has made an, in my opinion, improvement that would deserve to be kept in the article, also considering the coverage that this video has had in local media (and, btw, I haven't seen yet any evidences that support this allegations of spam you've been referring to). Since I always want to compromise, I may suggest to remove any references to the author of the video so that this presumed yet not sourced self-promotion wouldn't be a problem and would be solved in any case, by just stating that "a video depicting/showing [...] was published on YouTube on [...]". I also wanted to clarify that in no case would I promote any contents on Wikipedia, since it would go against my ethics and morals.--NicolaArangino (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of Andy Lewis from the article but retained the content and link to the video. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be the best and most objective version so far... Thank you all for your help and support to Wikipedian community.--NicolaArangino (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry — wasn't aware that the inclusion of the name was so controversial since it is objectively mentioned in news articles. I agree that the current version which omits the name but retains citations to articles which mention it are ideal. Thanks. [[ StewieK ]] 22:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The video is without question authentic. It is also notable and belongs in the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the editor who said that removing badly sourced spam was edit warring on my talk page? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So far, two editors favor inclusion. Allow other editors to comment here with their thoughts. Your opinion that the content is "spam" is your opinion, but may not be everyone else's opinion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. - Based on related video and news - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

• I would support inclusion of Andy Lewis and friends confession based on multiple lines of evidence. We don't say he did it, rather he admits to doing it, posted video not seen anywhere else on his YouTube account, that he has a history of stunts and run-ins with the law in the desert area, and gave a rationale for doing it. Supported by multiple reliable sources already in the article, probably more by now are available. This is not spam. In any case, the authorities are obviously now investigating him and within days we should have an official statement. -- GreenC 15:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Since removal of the monolith may have been a crime (theft of private property), we may be barred from mentioning it as per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Although the local Sheriff's office initially declined to investigate the matter, they did state that removal of the monolith was potentially criminal. As per WP:BLPCRIME we do not mention a person by name unless they have been convicted. I read the article and Lewis does not specifically admit to removing the object, though he alludes to it. I do not think we have sources which adhere to WP:BLP at this point. If the investigation implicates Lewis and he is convicted of the offense of removing the monolith, then we can revisit the issue at that time. As it stands, we do not have reliable sources that attest that Lewis removed the monolith. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the NYT? "On Tuesday, Andy L. Lewis, a professional sportsman in nearby Moab, Utah, took credit for the sculpture’s removal with his group, posting a video on his Facebook page. His friend, Sylvan Christensen, who said he had taken part in the dismantling of the sculpture, sent a statement to The New York Times on Tuesday evening.." When someone publicly says they did something to the NYT we are not restricted from repeating their statements or what the NYT says. That doesn't mean we say they did it rather we say what that sources says, "According to the NYT.. According to Andy Lewis.." -- GreenC 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I read the previous sources, I have not read the NYT article yet, but I will and I believe you that it says that. As per WP:BLPCRIME, we do not state a person has committed a crime unless they have been convicted. That being said, if Lewis has admitted to removing the monolith, and he has not been charged with committing a crime, then we could make mention of it, but we must follow WP:BLP with regard to any mention of him in the article. If he is convicted or pleads guilty to committing a crime, then it can be mentioned. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just had the time to read the NYT article and, as User GreenC has already outlined, it clearly states that Andy L. Lewis publicly announced that he had been involed in the theft of the monolith. As a result, I also reckon that this may constitute enough evidence for the statement in the Wikipedia article to be updated, for example by stating that "Although criminal investigations are still being carried out [...] [or similar], Andy L. Lewis publicy stated, in his Facebook page, that he and his group of unknown individuals is responsible for the theft of the monolith [or similar, according to provided evidences from NYT]".--NicolaArangino (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC) P.S.: This is the NYT article I was referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/arts/design/utah-monolith-removed-instagram.html . --NicolaArangino (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just read the NYT article and I concur with the proposal to add his name to the article section on the removal of the monolith. The video of the removal has the faces blurred out so clearly it is not a source we can quote to implicate and identify Lewis, however, the NYT article is a reliable source. At this point, it does not appear the proposed content runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME as there are no pending criminal charges at this time and Lewis has publicly admitted to removing the monolith. Just make certain that we do not accuse Lewis of committing a crime in the proposed mention. Saying he removed the monolith is probably ok, so long as we do not allude that he engaged in any criminal conduct. WP:BLP applies to any mention of Lewis in the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Facebook

This article has been shared on the Wikipedia Facebook page. Well done everyone! Cnbrb (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change title of article to "Utah monolith mystery"

The original monolith has been gone for a while now, meanwhile several identical structures have been found around the world. It remains a mystery. That's a perfectly acceptable scientific term. StellaRover27 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a formal move request. "Utah monolith" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Also, see Talk:Utah_monolith#Mysterious_nature. The sculpture was a few pieces of metal riveted together by humans, so it is not a huge mystery.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose proposed title is less accurate and concise. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the title that has been proposed is less objective and not suitable for the subject (I don't really reckon a title containing the word "mistery" would ever be appropriate for an encyclopedia article)--NicolaArangino (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a formal request please don't make it so by voting. -- GreenC 22:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

And hey @Octoberwoodland and NicolaArangino: didn't mean you can't leave an opinion, just the voting part of it with the bold oppose or support gives the appearance of a move request when it actually is not, see procedure at WP:RFM. -- GreenC 22:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep definitely I know it is our right to express our own opinion, and indeed I did and it is still legible despite the crossed out font. I didn't know I couldn't use the bold oppose or support formatting, thank you for pointing it out.--NicolaArangino (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

With the copy-cat monoliths it is becoming more of a cultural moment/phenomenon/movement with the Utah being only the first. It may make sense to rename at some point and restructure the article to be about the global monolith movement. But it's too early and more sources will be needed. -- GreenC 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. PipeCucalon (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the Utah monolith this year's viral art moment? on CNN is a good article which looks at the broader context of people producing copycat works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Good find eg. Utah monolith art movement or something -- but still too early to consider rename need more sources to establish existence of a movement and hopefully a common name for it. -- GreenC 15:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Instagram/Twitter/Facebook blockquotes

I feel like the lengthy cut and pasted Instagram/Twitter/Facebook blockquotes are not good style. They take up a lot of space/weight. Typically we summarize main points and link to the original source. And not sure about copyvio as social media posts are copyright the poster, fair use may be exceeded. Another possibility is extract key passages and quote those with ellipses. Another possibility is move them into a notes section, but there is still the length and copyvio concern. -- GreenC 14:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: and others: FWIW - please note that the blockquotes are directly cited from WP:RS, and only indirectly (afaik) from the original social media platforms - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Per WP:QUOTEFARM I've summarised the Instagram quote to (what I think are) Christensen's main points about respecting the environment, and visitors causing damage through lack of parking and toilet facilities. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN art moment

This was added then removed then readded.[12] Happy to discuss it here. This is a long piece and significant statement from CNN that establishes a couple things: it is an art piece and even if not it "is now". That it is part of a trend or movement. That it is notable - calling it "biggest art story" is highly subjective indeed has no objective basis, it is an opinion that can never be settled, but we report opinions with appropriate qualifiers (in quotes, according to CNN), it is not our prediction but a statement to the effect this has become a notable story in the art world. -- GreenC 15:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a strong article, this just seemed an odd and mildly evasive sentence to choose to quote directly. Not only is it presumably avoiding overcommitting to saying "this was biggest art story of 2020" when the year hasn't quite ended yet, it also reads like the author didn't even want to say "biggest art story so far this year" in case they'd forgotten a bigger story. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Well the quote is a good measure of notability which the lead section is meant to highlight. I mean, not much more is going to happen in another few weeks that is new. Most year-end pronouncements of "best of" type things happen throughout November and December when there is retrospection of the current year vs. in the next year when everyone is focused on the new year. The wording they chose is expressing an opinion. -- GreenC 16:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Name of the page

Doesn't the fact that it's made of worked metal excludes that it could be called a "monolith" (= sigle stone)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.59.171 (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what all the sources are calling it, correctly or not. Schazjmd (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because "all the sources are calling it" shouldn't necessarily mean wikipedia needs to use it or perpetuate the incorrect use of 'monolith'. --Viktorhauk (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME - we call it what people know it best by. The title is simply a placeholder to help users find the page. -- GreenC 16:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should blame Arthur C. Clarke. He popularized the word "monolith" for this type of structure regardless of whether it is actually made of stone, λίθος lithos = stone in Greek. The media coverage has used the simliarity with the monolith in 2001 as the main analogy, not caring about the fact that none of these structures is made of stone.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-free image

Recreation of the alien monolith scene from the film 2001.

The article contains a non-free image from the film 2001. There is a free replacement [right] that mimics the same scene from the film in miniature diorama. According to WP:FREER a non-free image should not be used if a free version can replace it: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?". Since the "effect" is to visually show what the monolith looked in the film as a comparison with the Utah monolith, the diorama does this more than adequately without resorting to copyright content. Also the image contains no free-use rationale for this article. Also according to WP:NFCCE it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. Note these policies have legal consequences. -- GreenC 00:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral Not an actual image of the Alien Monolith, a fake copy. The current image has been uploaded to wikipedia for about 10 years. That being said, I fail to see why it's objectionable. The image you propose is fake and not the genuine Alien Monolith, which is what that section of the article is talking about. I don't think your proposed image adequately illustrates the actual 2001 Alien Monolith as there are no proto-humans worshiping it. The actual 2001 image illustrates the monolith causing the proto-humans to develop the ability to use tools and weapons after touching the monolith and being exposed to it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The words proto-human or ape or tools appear nowhere in the article, the use of copyright content to portray this aspect is not justifiable. The image has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, but only in the article about the film. The image says it is a "recreation", there is no mistaking it is a recreation. -- GreenC 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The Image is referring to the movie and a specific scene "The Dawn of Man". You can watch the video clip on youtube if you are unfamiliar with the movie. I am actually neutral at this point, but I think the previous image is a better example. The original monolith is a rectangle with the dimensions of 1:4:9 (which mirrors the law of organic growth as explained in the movie and its sequel, 2010) and was not triangular like the Utah monolith and it's copies. Your image displays the monolith is ambiguous terms, and this is not evident from your fake image. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This article does not discuss "dimensions of 1:4:9". It says very little about the 2001 monolith. At best we just need to show what it looked like and the free version "has the same effect", per policy. -- GreenC 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Then do not quote the scene as "Dawn of Man" for your fake image. It's not an image of the movie whatsoever. No problem, I'll go fix it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW this is not a formal voting consensus discussion, it has not been advertised anywhere, does not have any rules on process, nor is there anyone to close it out. I posted here in the hopes of having a discussion about the issues involved. If we need to have a vote, that will done at WP:FFD. -- GreenC 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible Artist ID, follow-up?

A video posted to the youtube channel I did a thing shows the channel owners and members of Aunty Donna erecting a similar "monolith" in the Doongalla Forest park outside Melbourne VIC. The video is a promotion for Aunty Donna's Big Ol' House of Fun, and the group takes credit for the Utah "monolith" as well as a similar installation in Romania.

Timestamp 1:30 shows the group retrieving an assembled "monolith" from what appears to be a sheet metal shop, along with the commentary "And by build a monolith we mean pay someone who knows what they're doing to build one for us".

At timestamp 20:08 locations of other purported "monoliths" in Vietnam, Bangladesh or Myanmar, and several Pacific Islands are shown. I could not find any reliable source confirming whether such installations had been found in these locations.

I could not find any further verification that this group is in fact behind these installations or if they are using sightings of similar metal "monoliths" as self-promotion. GenericHumanoid (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have checked on Google Earth Pro and further corroborated the claims of 'Reddit user Tim Slane' regarding the date of it's appearance. The sattelite imagery showing the Monolith is dated 10/21/2016. It therefore unclear how or why they would have created the first monolith that far back in the past. Additionally, the map at the end showing the unverified Monoliths leaves out the Monoliths in Texas and Nevada. The video was uploaded on the 8th, which is the same date the Belgium and Spanish Monoliths were recorded, and a quick Google search suggests more are still being observed. Therefore, this video utterly confirms that this is a copycat phenomenom much like the 2016 clown sightings. -- netverk (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Split Proposal List of 2020 monoliths article

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.

---

This is rapidly running into WP:TOPIC and length problems, as it is too long compared to the main topic which is the monolith in Utah. The similar monoliths should be split into a new article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the similar monoliths don't necessarily belong in the article. They should be split, or alternately, removed from the article about the Utah Monolith. Based on the rate that copycat artists or placing them, there could be hundreds in another month. I would vote that the Utah Monolith article only contain content about the original monolith, and not the numerous copies. They could be relegated to their own article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and been bold and split out the content into a new article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2020 (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.

Fake Images

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.

---

Many of the images claiming to be of monoliths in other locations may in fact be fakes. Editors need to scrutinize more carefully a lot of these claimed sightings and follow WP:V and make certain they can be verified as genuine. Several of the stories referenced rely on a single postings to a social media account. I realize it's hard to verify some of these images and claimed sightings. The Columbia monolith was an obvious fake (the video which pans the object "floats" over a steep ravine. There are no shadows cast by the object even though the sky is sunny. If the panning video was genuine and being recorded by a drone camera, then the operator of the drone would appear as the video pans the object -- FAKE!) and I suspect that many mentions in social media also may not be genuine. Also, inserting fake images to refer to the subject matter of the article are just compounding the issue. Comments? Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Colombia

As per WP:BRD I challenge this inclusion as potentially a fake video/photos and request better WP:V. Let's discuss it before putting it back into the article. The video which pans the object "floats" over a steep ravine. There are no shadows cast by the object like other monolith photos. If the panning video was genuine and being recorded by a drone camera, then the operator of the drone would appear as the video pans the object. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

On December 5, 2020, a gold-colored monolith structure was discovered in the municipality of Chía, Colombia. It drew comparisons to the Utah and other monoliths.

References

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.

New monoliths

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.

---

The circus grows up: new silver monoliths have just been discovered in Las Vegas and Colorado.--Zarateman (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevada

Moved content from main article. Current text is poorly written and poorly sourced. Needs to be reworked and notability established. The Nevada monolith appears to be in a shopping mall and placed there for commercial purposes, and is not located in a remote natural location. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

December 4, 2020, a 10-foot monolith is standing under the Fremont Street Experience canopy in downtown Las Vegas. “It showed up early this morning but we don’t have any other details right now,” said Cassandra Down, with Kirvin Doak Communications. Friday’s sighting is the latest chapter in a strange saga involving obelisk structures, dubbed “monoliths,” around the country. The saga has become an international sensation.

References

Although I have managed to find some more articles that make reference to the "new monolith" in Las Vegas (e.g. https://www.ktnv.com/now-trending/monolith-appears-in-downtown-las-vegas-on-fremont-street), I don't really know whether it deserves, at least for now, to be mentioned in the article. Indeed it really sounds like a commercial thing and, despite the mall spokesperson saying that he knows nothing about it, I reckon there is still little or no evidence and coverage whatsoever to make a statement and a mention in the article. If somebody agreed to mention it nonetheless, I would write something like "A new monolith from a still unknown origin was positioned by unknown parties [under the Fremont Street Experience/a] canopy in Las Vegas.". We might also mention the new monolith without stating, at least for now, where it is situated in order that any presumed commercial aim is thoroughly avoided, but citing, at the same time, the above-mentioned source.--NicolaArangino (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be all the other ones new monoliths consider just like a copy cat of the Utah one, or is this some kind of global (“art”) collective. Actually to build one of those monoliths like the golden one in Colombia, is not cheap. Why should someone spend its money building something like that just for fun. I really think that some could be copycats but other ones are real part of something big PipeCucalon (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2020 (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.

Matty Mo claims

I took the following out of the article as it felt like some self-promotion by an artist group (that specializes in self-promotion). The references and very poor in my view and I don't think their claims are support by any good sources?

On December 4, 2020, the artist collective The Most Famous Artist, headed by artist Matty Mo, posted information on its Instagram account suggesting that it was the source for these monoliths. They offer monoliths for sale, under the label "Monoliths as a service", for $45,000, alluding to the use of the term As a service in the context of cloud computing.

I will leave it to others to decide? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose inclusion of this content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: There needs to be very good evidence about who installed the monolith, and it cannot be based solely on the word of people who may be self-promoting. Only a contemporary video or photos showing the installation of the monolith in 2016 would establish beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible for placing it in the slot canyon; nobody has been able to provide this so far. The Instagram source is classic WP:SPS and provides no clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per ianmacm. No Fair Witness. My understanding is that the monolith, simply as metalwork, was rather clumsily executed. I wouldn't claim it myself, and Matty Mo is a notorious self-promoter; nothing he says can be taken at face value anyway. Carlstak (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 47

Footnote 47 on page Utah monolith leads to the instagram log in page. What page is it supposed to link to? -- Bardnet (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pretty rubbish cite. It should be more specific, but the use of Instagram as a cite would usually have WP:SPS problems anyway. This should be removed unless someone can explain clearly what it is trying to say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's presumably meant to be the "Lewis released a pre-recorded video on Instagram" video mentioned in the paragraph, which is linked from the cited news source. I've fixed the link. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)