![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Note: This is a list of possible additional references. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [1] 10 Aug 2006
Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" [2] Sep 2006
John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine [3] 22 September 2006 (article available [4] here -- Ronz ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)
Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims" [5] -- Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument [6] -- Ronz 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"Pyramid No More: Sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell report from Bosnia", Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006. [7] -- Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 [8] -- Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (article available here -- Ronz ( talk) 17:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 [9] -- Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 [10] -- Ronz 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"An open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina" [11] 14 Mar 2007 (Haven't found other copies of this letter as yet) -- Ronz 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Come see the pyramids ... in Bosnia?", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2007 [12] -- Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [13].
"It is not possible that those are pyramids," says Mark Rose, of the Archaeological Institute of America, who organized a petition asking Unesco, the United Nations' education-and-science agency, not to send a proposed expedition to the site. "Every major media outlet that initially covered this story got it wrong. It's clearly crackpot stuff, but apparently nobody bothered to check the story."
But as pyramid mania has grown, spread by credulous accounts, those who have expressed skepticism have been savaged in the Bosnian news media, deluged with hate mail, even labeled traitors to their nation. Many observers now see the debate in stark terms: Will a pseudoscientific project, even one that serves to restore Bosnia's wounded pride and dignity, win out over peer-reviewed archaeological research?
Unesco does not intend to send a mission to Visoko, says Mechtild Rossler, of the organization's World Heritage Center, in Paris.
-- Ronz 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters" Independent Online, May 21 2007. [14] -- Ronz 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding" Javno.com, 11 June 2007. [15] -- Ronz 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Bosnia Pledges Renewed State Support for Study of 'Pyramids' Whose Existence Is Doubted by Scholars" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 July 16 2007. [16] -- Ronz 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"Egyptian Geologist: Bosnian 'Pyramid' Likely Man-Made" Fox News, 17 May 2006. [17] (Looks like the typical rehashed press release from that time) -- Ronz ( talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Mystery of Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids" Smithsonian. December 2009. [18] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Pyramid" Discover Magazine. 22 Oct 2008. [19] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The Egyptians and Semir Osmanagic’s Theatre of the Absurd - Science against deception a translation of Blagoje Govedarica. Berlin. 25 Mar 2009. Published in Oslobodjenje. 4 Apr 2009. - Might need to be reviewed against WP:RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
LoL, why on earth was my editing erased? Are the names appearing on the list of the attending people of the first ICBP not relevant? Is the information irrelevant? Or is someone (I'm prepared to bet on my kidney it's Ranz!) just not fond of positive news on the pyramids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, am I going to get an answer or is someone just going to erase my question as well? LoL, this is getting childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
LoL, I've put it up again, let us see for how long this vital and very imporant information shall remain intact. Ninhursag - Ki ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source for what? You need proof this meeting happened and those people where there? Ok, pics and videos? Can be done. What on earth would be a more reliable source than that? Do I need to personally make videos of those people attending, interviews in which they clearly testify they were there? Many of the mentioned stuff in the article comes from totally unreliable sources btw or they're just conradictory (Like no scientist has ever been to the site and Osmanagic lied about yet, still there somehow seams to be a lot of scientific investigation indicating there is no pyramid. I didn't know archeology was a fortuneteller job). The ICBP is not just the organisation of Osmanagic since the president of the ICBP is a name very well known in the business, but of course he probably hoaxed the attendence of all those so important people present at the ICBP. I think the list of the names is very important and relevant, it clearly makes sides with a bunch of very imporant and famous names in the business. But of course, the videos and pictures are just a hoax, there was no meeting, it were aliens probably, or the same crew that hoaxed the first landing on the moon. Jesus, talk about paranoyed. Ninhursag - Ki ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because a person gathers a group of like-minded people together in a meeting to give talks does not mean it is a valid scientific conference. For example, the Creation Science Fellowship and the Institute for Creation Research jointly sponsored International Conference on Creationism. Like the ICBP, they gathered togethered at an event called a "conference", gave what they promoted as "talks", and even published proceedings from their "conference". However, just because they did all of this failed to validate what they did as being credible, "scientific conference" in any form or fashion. 70.177.42.4 ( talk) 04:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Under Expert interpretations we have Professor Dr. Sejfudin Vrabac quoted as saying:
Shouldn't that be clastic sediments? Pterre ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that should be clastic. Paul H. ( talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, reference 17 says "classic": "klasičnih sedimenata", but the original by Vrabac, reference 18 ( http://irna.lautre.net/IMG/pdf/Output.pdf page 6), has "clastic": "klastičnih sedimenata". I felt that also "classic" makes sense: "just normal, well known", so I checked. Hooray for WP good references. -- 46.115.23.8 ( talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i587682_n11005744381777069141.jpg"
Believe it or not, this is Pyramid Of The Moon.And I believe this add a brand new light to this article, don't you agree?. This picture was taken by my friend, so there is no violation of copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not our job to judge anything. This is Wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral.But this photo must be added because it's much better than previous ones.-- Truthseeker1412 ( talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Modern science identifies Illyrians from 1000 BC [1] and after making claims prior to that made by Osmanagić of Illyrians (12,000 BC to 500 BC) unrealistic.
Without access to the reference, it's hard to make sense of what this might have been intended to mean. Looks like a criticism of the dating. Given that we have references on the same topic specific to the Bosnian pyramid claims, I don't think additional information is needed sourced by a general reference. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
How come this is categorized under "Pseudoarchaeology" but other archaeological forgeries and hoaxes are not? Hoaxes and frauds are hoaxes and frauds, and sure aren't real archaeology, so wouldn't they all be "pseudo" archaeology? If not, why not? mike4ty4 ( talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we rename the article to include the word "hoax" as this seems to be the overwhelming consensus in the archaeological community? BrendanFrye ( talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess it is more than interesting that 'pseudoarcheologist' after his reports on pyramids in Bosnia is admitted to Archeological Society in Alexandria and become a member of Russian Academy of natural Sciences. Something is wrong here. Or there is some truth in what he is claiming or those two societies aren't prominent societies. Answer yourself to that question. Borchica ( talk) 07:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't confuse Russian Academy of Natural Sciences with Russian Academy of Sciences. The latter one is the real one (similar to the US National Academy or Royal Society in Britain or French Academy etc). The former is a self-proclaimed alternative and while it included (from googling it seems to be defunct) some genuine scientists (perhaps majority), it's more like the New York Academy of Sciences - anyone can acquire membership if they have minimal qualifications (bona fide or not) and willing to pay a small sum. It's like internet PhD. Firebug2 ( talk) 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
On visiting the page I tested what the lede said re "scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there." - I checked and read each of the sources (excepting the last, which is behind a paywall), none of the sources describe any scientific investigations at all, one does state that he was 'equipment all ready to do measurements of pyramids' but then doesn't actually say he measured anything. So what exactly are these "scientific investigation" then, based on the given sources, that have now been reverted three times to a false claim (it might be true but the sources provided certainly do not say such things). I re-wrote the line to say who and when had visited the site, leaving the original conclusion as that is a fair summary 'there aren't any man-made pyramids there', thinking it an all round improvement on the clearly incorrect summary of sources given. If editors of the page want it read that way they had better go find better sources that actually say that, I'll certainly have no objection to reliable sources being provided, the current ones don't cut the mustard however. 163.1.147.64 ( talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted it. This is not just about investigations that occurred in response to the foundation's pr campaign. The geology and archeology of the area has been well-researched prior. I think it would be best to document this better in the article, but the lede is accurate. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You say first that it's proper to describe the scientific research and conclusion as "scientific investigations" and it seems to be a matter of semantics. When the sources do not mention any investigations other that attending the site and viewing it, it is a misrepresentation of of the data provided by the sources to say there has been some, that is hardly "semantics", it's utter non-adherence to the source content.
My edit changed this to "In 2006 Anthony Harding, anniversary chair in archaeology at Exeter University and president of the European Association of Archaeologists as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell visited the site and state". That does not misrepresent the sources but it may not be what you think ought to be said, and if that is the case find better sources.
Secondly you state H&S investigated the claims and the site. They did visit, they do have expert knowledge, they looked and they stated what they thought. The current version is open to the question "How did H&S investigate the claims? - please show the steps the investigations took, other than visiting the site and looking at the excavations".
Thirdly, you mention the Bosnian scientists, which I pointed out above has a section that is shot to pieces and bear no resemblance to the sources whatsoever, the archeologists may well have done what's described in the text of the article, but it is not shown by the sources provided.
If there are better sources for any geo. and archeo. previous, they would need to be pertinent (as in having a statement in the sources about how this prohibits the pyramids - otherwise OR must be occurring somewhere in the chain) "Scientific investigations" does not seem to be a good summary as it is plainly open to (currently valid) criticism of not being verifiable.
The fact that O is a <insert favourite abusive label here> and may not be fighting fair is irrelevant to the text of the article as is any 'duty to observe' its non-perpetuation, but if this view is in multiple reliable sources, that viewpoint would be for inclusion in the article.
When in comes to erring on any side of the line, sticking to the facts per the sources (as my revision left it) is better than statements that have a hard time being clearly shown in reliable sources. 86.3.142.2 ( talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Addendum The closest I can suggest to how the text reads at the moment (that one can get out the sources) is "Various scientists, such as Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell, have visited the excavation sites and concluded that there is no pyramid there." Is it possible to live with that until better is possible? 86.3.142.2 ( talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The author of this Wikipedia entry systematically ignores the fact that Anthony Harding in referenced article in "British archeology" (reference 3) claims that there haven't been any scientific investigation at this site. "On our way down, Predrag Novakovic (EAA secretary), Sylvie Kvetinová (administrator) and I called in at the hill of Visocica, on the edge of the town of Visoko, and looked at the excavation trenches that had been opened. We did this solely in order to avoid the charge, already laid at our door, that we had condemned the project without seeing it for ourselves." "We would all agree that the taking of such samples would need to be done by trained personnel, who could vouch for the true stratigraphical context and ensure that the sample was not contaminated at any stage prior to its reaching the lab. Do we, as trained archaeologists, agree to take part in such work? Without the presence of an experienced person one would be very suspicious of any result that emerged; but those who agree to take part in any of the Visoko work quickly seem to find themselves billed as supporters of the project. Several websites record how some archaeologists unwittingly found themselves enlisted without their knowledge and certainly, had they known, against their wishes." Later on, Harding mentioned various researches which support his belief that Visocica hill is not a pyramid. However, he concludes this section: "This does not absolutely exclude that they could have existed: but a manned landing on the (non-) planet Pluto in the next 20 years is more likely."
For the sake of truth, this Wikipedia article was submitted to peer review in 2007, and one reviewer insisted twice that the article is "too optimistic about the pyramids" and proposed word "hoax" as more appropriate than "controversial" simply on the grounds that scientific community is against the idea (without ever properly examining it!). The author at first replied that he didn't understand what reviewer wanted to say, and in the end agreed on everything, concluding that the article should be rewritten, since it "gives too much weight to Osmanagic and his foundation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.149.5 ( talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No disrespect, but I see no point in continuing this discussion. Choose another method of dispute resolution if you'd like to continue. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Talking about scientific investigations of the site and the general conclusion, what about to mention also the Nabil Swelim's report: "The Pyramid Hills: Visočica and Plješevica Hrašde, Observations, and Analyses, 30 August to 12 September, Sarajevo, 2007"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.147.254 ( talk) 01:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, we need more and better references into the scientific evidence concerning the hill. I think we have everything we need in current references, it's just a matter of citing the research directly. I'll start going through everything, listing what I find. Anyone care to help? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the "pyramids" are actually hills that have been worked, or pyramids -- what about the tunnels. There are lots and lots of videos of massive networks of tunnels that branch, connect, and run all through there -- without any evidence that they were used for mining. See a single example here (and yes, the supporting timbers are clearly recent). What is up with the tunnels? Why were they cut? What was their purpose? There is all this heat and noise about whether or not those are pyramids while meanwhile the whole tunnel thing is kind of ignored -- yet that is very interesting in and of itself.
Yes, they may be natural formations that were shaped by the peoples of the past -- plenty of that all over Europe. And yes, the discoverer appears to be rather a nut. And yes, the archaeology work there appears to be of poor quality. The tunnels, though, are interesting. SunSw0rd ( talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is reported a breakthrough : http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/UNDERGROUND-LABYRINTH-RAVNE-BREAKTHROUGH-FINALLY.html
Mayor of town of Visoko came first day to visit us. He was delighted. Local TV followed. Next day we had a state TV. Major Serbian TV showed up, as well…
We’re looking for exciting winter here in the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids.
One of the more noteworthy aspects of this nonsense has been the amount of misrepresentation made by those arguing there are pyramids here. At the start, a number of people's names were used by Osmanagic, claiming that they were participating when in fact they had nothing to do with the project. Lamiya El Hadidy (a specialist in the conservation of artefacts) however did indeed take part, but she never endorsed the idea of pyramids. These hills a lot of archaeology (less now as some has been destroyed by these excavations, and she confirmed that a vertical wall was manmade. This is a small rectangular structure on Pljesevica, not a pyramid. But her statement has been turned into an endorsement of the pyramid claim. If you see this page [21] which is the official site, you'll see that there they are simply stating that she said the structure is manmade. Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted recent blanking and change of perspective [23] and [24] that removed reliable sources, and added an unreliable blog as the only new source to justify the changes. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I was extremely surprised to come here and the very 1st line says: "The term Bosnian pyramids has been used for a cluster of natural geological formations" This is a one sided statement. The origin of these structures is under great scientific debate, and the evidence is certainly pointing to them being manmade and not geoligical formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.164 ( talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess somebody is actually struggling very hard the truth not to be revealed. Anyway it is a battle just against time. I wonder how can one after reading Swelim's article post this. 'Swelim released a report in 2010 in which he makes it clear that he considers it to be a geological and not a man-made pyramid. He still refers to the hill as a pyramid on the basis that it has the appearance of a pyramid. [27]' It is far from what Swelim wrote and claimed. He is saying that pyramid is manmade. He wrote a 50 page expertize on that. So if I posted something which is in favor of pyramids it would be deleted as it was before no matter what kind of evidence would I quote? No matter how hard somebody is trying to shut down the project they will not succeed in my opinion. In fact I do not care much but I see every two or three months something new is discovered and some new evidence is found. The interpretation of most of scientific research in this article in Wikipedia is also very strange and Swelim will be more than happy when he sees this misinterpretation of his words. So my question is: Who stands behind this conspiracy theory? Borchica ( talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)B
It might be obvious English is not my mother tongue but I bet everybody (including you) perfectly understood what I was trying to say. In fact this discussion is so bizarre. And here is Swelim's 50 page report
http://nabilswelim.com/downloads/Pyr_Hills.pdf.pdf from 2007. In which he concludes: “Arguments in favor or in disfavor have no effect on the fact that the pyramid concept and the properties are there for everyone to see”. In 2011 - four years later and after thousands of hours of excavations a 5-year old kid can tell those structures are man made after visiting the archeological site. There are so many scientific proofs about artificiality of pyramid hills but Dr. Osmanagich doesn't care much about negative publicity as he knows what he is doing and that his work leads to a phenomenal discovery which will be acknowledged worldwide sooner or later.
Borchica (
talk)
21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict while I was deleting the copyvio text, I was posting: Deleted text as copyvio, but it can be read here: [25] or downloaded from various sites such as [26] Dougweller ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The best source of information I know of for this is Irna's blog, and she has an article on his current team, see [27]. -- Dougweller ( talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
We used to have an article on him, but it was deleted 3 years back as inadequately cited to secondary sources. It's hard to say how notable his opinion might be; but according to his page at Buffalo edu., updated 2008, he's a professor of Geography and Anthropology, not an archaeologist. See here. I'm sure Dr Zubrow's opinion on the Bosnian Pyramids was offered in good faith, but he doesn't claim to be an archaeologist, so why should his opinion on the archaeology of the pyramids be included in this encyclopedia entry? Haploidavey ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
We now have a link pointing to his professional archaeological background. Thanks. Haploidavey ( talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Dr Zubrow teaches archeology at the Universities in Buffalo, Toronto and Cambridge. And that link proves that. See here What is disputable? Or you want to see his diploma scanned? This whole discussion is becoming ridiculous. Where are diplomas of all other 'scientists' which opinions are published? Osmanagich is crucified like Galileo Galilee was. Thank God it is just in writing. I don't see a neutral approach here. It is far far from that. And people who hold notable positions use their strength to defend their opinion which is based on 'historical' books from which they learned. And we all know history our fathers learned is not the same one we learn. And I can hardly wait to see the day whatthe ones who are so eagerly defending the nonpyramid theory will say when the pyramid is unearthed. Probably that Osmanagich built it himself during the night. And I really wonder who is behind those people trying to hide the truth as long as possible and what are his intentions. Borchica ( talk) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand the term secondary source and faculty biography as well as polartec page are secondary source and not close to Dr Zubrow so I am putting his statement back backed up with both links now. Borchica ( talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Then all the claims and statements quoted are also a primary source, aren't they? What makes an interview with Dr. Zubrow a primary source and an accusation that Osmanagich's team was reshaping the 700 ft hill a secondary source? Borchica ( talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've taken the recent deletions to WP:RSN. So far as I can see they meet our criteria although we could make it clear what the Smithsonian magazine article is quoting Schoch. Dougweller ( talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ronz your POV doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia regulations. You are strictly struggling to hide the truth and to promote the fairy tale about the hoax. Anyone and I repeat anyone with a sane mind who visits the site can see clearly on their own that the structure is artificial. I am not entering further debates about other discoveries here. And all the scientists that have been there and deny the existence of evidence are perfectly aware what this discovery brings when it is proven. But like I said the truth is always revealed at the end and no matter how hard you try Ronz to win this personal vendetta against true history you are going to lose at the end. I am just wondering why. Are you paid for it or what? And I read today almost whole discussion from the beginning and I realized that from very beginning of this article facts in favor of pyramid existence have been attacked severely and always erased. It is interesting that Swelim's report was not published until he said that these are pyramidal hills. Before that it was disputed and sourced as primary or unreliable and so on. At once it is rellevant. of course - it is contra and not pro. There is a saying that the smart one always back off first. And it always happened that neutral Wikipedia aspect was bulldozed by negative judgments and opinions. If we take a look those are just that. Personal opinions of (here you are correct) of some prominent scientists. But some of them even haven't been there. What makes Zubrow's (archeologist, anthropologist) personal opinion less relevant of personal opinion of Nick Hawton (journalist)? So I suggest allow also positive reliable sources to be published and don't make fool of yourself as this is what you are eventually doing by not allowing pro opinions to be published. I am not a wikipedia freak as you are but I bet there is somebody who can take a look at what you are doing and who is neutral and who is above you and who will delete your account and ban you from wikipedia for being one-sided and biased. Take care, Borchica ( talk) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
References 15-19 which are supposed to cite and back up Vrabac and his team claims are dead links and/or links pointing to some institution main page but there is absolutely NO evidence those claims are real so I suggest them to be removed. Borchica ( talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also references 13, 20and 22 don't exist. So now I am asking one more question. Is it justified to put sth without references which goes against Osmanagich's theory and not ANY referenced proof and/or evidence which supports this theory. It sems like people are deleting their claims because they don't want to be publicly attacked for their claims and because they don't have any evidence to support tjheir claims beside their personal judgment. It is undeniable that there is less and less people and statements that try to stop Osmanagich and on the other site more and more proofs and evidences and scientists that favor his work. So I am askin the editors when the first true referenced sentence which supports Bosnian pyramids theory will be published on the main page. Borchica ( talk) 12:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I put citation needed where were dead links... Borchica ( talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
So what we do with references with dead links? It is ultra stupid to keep them there. They should be deleted or replaced with lčive ones. Isn't it so? Borchica ( talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that everything it is written by somebody who gives poitive statement on pyramids no matter whether it can be validated or not is reversed or deleted. Even Swelim who is definetely rooting for pyramids is misquoted and persons doing wrong interpretations on purpose can be prosecuted as we all know....I will request arbitration committee to intervene here if necessary. Borchica ( talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Izmo Guglich Affair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
No such user (
talk)
12:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I brought this up at WP:RSN and my interpretation was that we could use it. This is a WP:FRINGE article so we must use "In-text attribution", but that's been done. Dougweller ( talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole story is just like a small global warming story. No matter how absurd both parties sound, one has the power to silence the other one and it uses it. Climategate shown, that it is not hard to buy scientists not only of one field, but most of the scientists around the globe. Global warming is still not marked as a hoax in wikipedia, which is unbelievable in the light of the discussion above. And I remember some of the battles that happened around it here. So, as long as money is involved, mirroring scientific journals is just mirroring scientific journals - nothing plausible, nothing real. If half of the foundation claims prove half true, it really would rewrite not only the history books but first of all the tourism map of europe. So there is no big reason to call opinion of scientist a scientific research if there is no specific discussion of specific claims in any of the opposing texts I came across.
Thus I think, the article should be put in much more neutral way, as those hills are clearly shaped as pyramids, the triangle positioning, their orientation and layers of blocks with 90 degrees between all sides is a bit too much to be just natural coincidence. Maybe those really were rebuilt from hills just a few thousands or even hundreds years ago. Note that the great pyramid of Giza is also just a hill in it's internal core that was rebuilt to look like a pyramid. Silver Nugget ( talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
See [29] and another paper, " http://cambridge.academia.edu/TeraPruitt/Papers/118276/Contextualising_Alternative_Archaeology_Socio-Politics_and_Approaches" "Contextualising Alternative Archaeology: Socio-Politics and Approaches", in T. Pruitt and D. Yates (eds.), Invention and Reinvention: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1. Looks like a lot of useful stuff for the article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Scientist,(dying Science's superstitious people) trying to Smeared out the FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 ( talk) 03:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
===> Hoax ?? In fact, They're founding a lot of Prehistoric proves there. And the ancient script, which dated back 30,000 ago. and found similar to other civilizations. FACT IS FACT,use power of hand to quiet people exactly a Hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 November 2011
Regarding [30] the edit-warring over the unexplained replacement of links: -- Ronz ( talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that these aren't pyramids, I don't believe we should use the Foundations' names for the hills other than when specifically mentioning someone's viewpoint who claims they are pyramids (e.g. Osmanagić's, the Foundations', and possibly Swelim's). -- Ronz ( talk) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be cautious what images we present and how we present them, given that many have been chosen to misrepresent the geology. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
With respect to images in this article, I have been looking for images of the alleged / so-called "Bosnian pyramids" to use in a couple of articles. As a result, I have have been examining the copyright status of the pictures in the articles, specifically in the gallery, and found that their copyright status appears to open to question and unverified. They are so lacking in in any clear documentation as to their copyright status, there are none that I can use. This certainly raises questions as to whether they meet Wikipedia standard for copyright permission. What is needed are people to contribute to Wikimedia are pictures with clear documentation of who created them and clear permission for their use in Wikipedia. If I am wrong, which I might be as I am not a copyright lawyer, please correct me Paul H. ( talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Bad Archaeology (badarchaeology.net and badarchaeology.com) is currently used as a source in multiple articles, as well as pointed out as a valuable source within articles. The blog hasn't been used as a source. What do others think about using it? -- Ronz ( talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:MoonPyramid.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pm s1 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Note: This is a list of possible additional references. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [1] 10 Aug 2006
Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" [2] Sep 2006
John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine [3] 22 September 2006 (article available [4] here -- Ronz ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)
Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims" [5] -- Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument [6] -- Ronz 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"Pyramid No More: Sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell report from Bosnia", Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006. [7] -- Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 [8] -- Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (article available here -- Ronz ( talk) 17:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 [9] -- Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 [10] -- Ronz 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"An open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina" [11] 14 Mar 2007 (Haven't found other copies of this letter as yet) -- Ronz 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Come see the pyramids ... in Bosnia?", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2007 [12] -- Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [13].
"It is not possible that those are pyramids," says Mark Rose, of the Archaeological Institute of America, who organized a petition asking Unesco, the United Nations' education-and-science agency, not to send a proposed expedition to the site. "Every major media outlet that initially covered this story got it wrong. It's clearly crackpot stuff, but apparently nobody bothered to check the story."
But as pyramid mania has grown, spread by credulous accounts, those who have expressed skepticism have been savaged in the Bosnian news media, deluged with hate mail, even labeled traitors to their nation. Many observers now see the debate in stark terms: Will a pseudoscientific project, even one that serves to restore Bosnia's wounded pride and dignity, win out over peer-reviewed archaeological research?
Unesco does not intend to send a mission to Visoko, says Mechtild Rossler, of the organization's World Heritage Center, in Paris.
-- Ronz 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters" Independent Online, May 21 2007. [14] -- Ronz 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding" Javno.com, 11 June 2007. [15] -- Ronz 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Bosnia Pledges Renewed State Support for Study of 'Pyramids' Whose Existence Is Doubted by Scholars" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 July 16 2007. [16] -- Ronz 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"Egyptian Geologist: Bosnian 'Pyramid' Likely Man-Made" Fox News, 17 May 2006. [17] (Looks like the typical rehashed press release from that time) -- Ronz ( talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Mystery of Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids" Smithsonian. December 2009. [18] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Pyramid" Discover Magazine. 22 Oct 2008. [19] -- Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The Egyptians and Semir Osmanagic’s Theatre of the Absurd - Science against deception a translation of Blagoje Govedarica. Berlin. 25 Mar 2009. Published in Oslobodjenje. 4 Apr 2009. - Might need to be reviewed against WP:RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
LoL, why on earth was my editing erased? Are the names appearing on the list of the attending people of the first ICBP not relevant? Is the information irrelevant? Or is someone (I'm prepared to bet on my kidney it's Ranz!) just not fond of positive news on the pyramids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, am I going to get an answer or is someone just going to erase my question as well? LoL, this is getting childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
LoL, I've put it up again, let us see for how long this vital and very imporant information shall remain intact. Ninhursag - Ki ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source for what? You need proof this meeting happened and those people where there? Ok, pics and videos? Can be done. What on earth would be a more reliable source than that? Do I need to personally make videos of those people attending, interviews in which they clearly testify they were there? Many of the mentioned stuff in the article comes from totally unreliable sources btw or they're just conradictory (Like no scientist has ever been to the site and Osmanagic lied about yet, still there somehow seams to be a lot of scientific investigation indicating there is no pyramid. I didn't know archeology was a fortuneteller job). The ICBP is not just the organisation of Osmanagic since the president of the ICBP is a name very well known in the business, but of course he probably hoaxed the attendence of all those so important people present at the ICBP. I think the list of the names is very important and relevant, it clearly makes sides with a bunch of very imporant and famous names in the business. But of course, the videos and pictures are just a hoax, there was no meeting, it were aliens probably, or the same crew that hoaxed the first landing on the moon. Jesus, talk about paranoyed. Ninhursag - Ki ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because a person gathers a group of like-minded people together in a meeting to give talks does not mean it is a valid scientific conference. For example, the Creation Science Fellowship and the Institute for Creation Research jointly sponsored International Conference on Creationism. Like the ICBP, they gathered togethered at an event called a "conference", gave what they promoted as "talks", and even published proceedings from their "conference". However, just because they did all of this failed to validate what they did as being credible, "scientific conference" in any form or fashion. 70.177.42.4 ( talk) 04:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Under Expert interpretations we have Professor Dr. Sejfudin Vrabac quoted as saying:
Shouldn't that be clastic sediments? Pterre ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that should be clastic. Paul H. ( talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, reference 17 says "classic": "klasičnih sedimenata", but the original by Vrabac, reference 18 ( http://irna.lautre.net/IMG/pdf/Output.pdf page 6), has "clastic": "klastičnih sedimenata". I felt that also "classic" makes sense: "just normal, well known", so I checked. Hooray for WP good references. -- 46.115.23.8 ( talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i587682_n11005744381777069141.jpg"
Believe it or not, this is Pyramid Of The Moon.And I believe this add a brand new light to this article, don't you agree?. This picture was taken by my friend, so there is no violation of copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not our job to judge anything. This is Wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral.But this photo must be added because it's much better than previous ones.-- Truthseeker1412 ( talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Modern science identifies Illyrians from 1000 BC [1] and after making claims prior to that made by Osmanagić of Illyrians (12,000 BC to 500 BC) unrealistic.
Without access to the reference, it's hard to make sense of what this might have been intended to mean. Looks like a criticism of the dating. Given that we have references on the same topic specific to the Bosnian pyramid claims, I don't think additional information is needed sourced by a general reference. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
How come this is categorized under "Pseudoarchaeology" but other archaeological forgeries and hoaxes are not? Hoaxes and frauds are hoaxes and frauds, and sure aren't real archaeology, so wouldn't they all be "pseudo" archaeology? If not, why not? mike4ty4 ( talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we rename the article to include the word "hoax" as this seems to be the overwhelming consensus in the archaeological community? BrendanFrye ( talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess it is more than interesting that 'pseudoarcheologist' after his reports on pyramids in Bosnia is admitted to Archeological Society in Alexandria and become a member of Russian Academy of natural Sciences. Something is wrong here. Or there is some truth in what he is claiming or those two societies aren't prominent societies. Answer yourself to that question. Borchica ( talk) 07:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't confuse Russian Academy of Natural Sciences with Russian Academy of Sciences. The latter one is the real one (similar to the US National Academy or Royal Society in Britain or French Academy etc). The former is a self-proclaimed alternative and while it included (from googling it seems to be defunct) some genuine scientists (perhaps majority), it's more like the New York Academy of Sciences - anyone can acquire membership if they have minimal qualifications (bona fide or not) and willing to pay a small sum. It's like internet PhD. Firebug2 ( talk) 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
On visiting the page I tested what the lede said re "scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there." - I checked and read each of the sources (excepting the last, which is behind a paywall), none of the sources describe any scientific investigations at all, one does state that he was 'equipment all ready to do measurements of pyramids' but then doesn't actually say he measured anything. So what exactly are these "scientific investigation" then, based on the given sources, that have now been reverted three times to a false claim (it might be true but the sources provided certainly do not say such things). I re-wrote the line to say who and when had visited the site, leaving the original conclusion as that is a fair summary 'there aren't any man-made pyramids there', thinking it an all round improvement on the clearly incorrect summary of sources given. If editors of the page want it read that way they had better go find better sources that actually say that, I'll certainly have no objection to reliable sources being provided, the current ones don't cut the mustard however. 163.1.147.64 ( talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted it. This is not just about investigations that occurred in response to the foundation's pr campaign. The geology and archeology of the area has been well-researched prior. I think it would be best to document this better in the article, but the lede is accurate. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You say first that it's proper to describe the scientific research and conclusion as "scientific investigations" and it seems to be a matter of semantics. When the sources do not mention any investigations other that attending the site and viewing it, it is a misrepresentation of of the data provided by the sources to say there has been some, that is hardly "semantics", it's utter non-adherence to the source content.
My edit changed this to "In 2006 Anthony Harding, anniversary chair in archaeology at Exeter University and president of the European Association of Archaeologists as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell visited the site and state". That does not misrepresent the sources but it may not be what you think ought to be said, and if that is the case find better sources.
Secondly you state H&S investigated the claims and the site. They did visit, they do have expert knowledge, they looked and they stated what they thought. The current version is open to the question "How did H&S investigate the claims? - please show the steps the investigations took, other than visiting the site and looking at the excavations".
Thirdly, you mention the Bosnian scientists, which I pointed out above has a section that is shot to pieces and bear no resemblance to the sources whatsoever, the archeologists may well have done what's described in the text of the article, but it is not shown by the sources provided.
If there are better sources for any geo. and archeo. previous, they would need to be pertinent (as in having a statement in the sources about how this prohibits the pyramids - otherwise OR must be occurring somewhere in the chain) "Scientific investigations" does not seem to be a good summary as it is plainly open to (currently valid) criticism of not being verifiable.
The fact that O is a <insert favourite abusive label here> and may not be fighting fair is irrelevant to the text of the article as is any 'duty to observe' its non-perpetuation, but if this view is in multiple reliable sources, that viewpoint would be for inclusion in the article.
When in comes to erring on any side of the line, sticking to the facts per the sources (as my revision left it) is better than statements that have a hard time being clearly shown in reliable sources. 86.3.142.2 ( talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Addendum The closest I can suggest to how the text reads at the moment (that one can get out the sources) is "Various scientists, such as Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell, have visited the excavation sites and concluded that there is no pyramid there." Is it possible to live with that until better is possible? 86.3.142.2 ( talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The author of this Wikipedia entry systematically ignores the fact that Anthony Harding in referenced article in "British archeology" (reference 3) claims that there haven't been any scientific investigation at this site. "On our way down, Predrag Novakovic (EAA secretary), Sylvie Kvetinová (administrator) and I called in at the hill of Visocica, on the edge of the town of Visoko, and looked at the excavation trenches that had been opened. We did this solely in order to avoid the charge, already laid at our door, that we had condemned the project without seeing it for ourselves." "We would all agree that the taking of such samples would need to be done by trained personnel, who could vouch for the true stratigraphical context and ensure that the sample was not contaminated at any stage prior to its reaching the lab. Do we, as trained archaeologists, agree to take part in such work? Without the presence of an experienced person one would be very suspicious of any result that emerged; but those who agree to take part in any of the Visoko work quickly seem to find themselves billed as supporters of the project. Several websites record how some archaeologists unwittingly found themselves enlisted without their knowledge and certainly, had they known, against their wishes." Later on, Harding mentioned various researches which support his belief that Visocica hill is not a pyramid. However, he concludes this section: "This does not absolutely exclude that they could have existed: but a manned landing on the (non-) planet Pluto in the next 20 years is more likely."
For the sake of truth, this Wikipedia article was submitted to peer review in 2007, and one reviewer insisted twice that the article is "too optimistic about the pyramids" and proposed word "hoax" as more appropriate than "controversial" simply on the grounds that scientific community is against the idea (without ever properly examining it!). The author at first replied that he didn't understand what reviewer wanted to say, and in the end agreed on everything, concluding that the article should be rewritten, since it "gives too much weight to Osmanagic and his foundation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.149.5 ( talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No disrespect, but I see no point in continuing this discussion. Choose another method of dispute resolution if you'd like to continue. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Talking about scientific investigations of the site and the general conclusion, what about to mention also the Nabil Swelim's report: "The Pyramid Hills: Visočica and Plješevica Hrašde, Observations, and Analyses, 30 August to 12 September, Sarajevo, 2007"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.147.254 ( talk) 01:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, we need more and better references into the scientific evidence concerning the hill. I think we have everything we need in current references, it's just a matter of citing the research directly. I'll start going through everything, listing what I find. Anyone care to help? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the "pyramids" are actually hills that have been worked, or pyramids -- what about the tunnels. There are lots and lots of videos of massive networks of tunnels that branch, connect, and run all through there -- without any evidence that they were used for mining. See a single example here (and yes, the supporting timbers are clearly recent). What is up with the tunnels? Why were they cut? What was their purpose? There is all this heat and noise about whether or not those are pyramids while meanwhile the whole tunnel thing is kind of ignored -- yet that is very interesting in and of itself.
Yes, they may be natural formations that were shaped by the peoples of the past -- plenty of that all over Europe. And yes, the discoverer appears to be rather a nut. And yes, the archaeology work there appears to be of poor quality. The tunnels, though, are interesting. SunSw0rd ( talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is reported a breakthrough : http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/UNDERGROUND-LABYRINTH-RAVNE-BREAKTHROUGH-FINALLY.html
Mayor of town of Visoko came first day to visit us. He was delighted. Local TV followed. Next day we had a state TV. Major Serbian TV showed up, as well…
We’re looking for exciting winter here in the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids.
One of the more noteworthy aspects of this nonsense has been the amount of misrepresentation made by those arguing there are pyramids here. At the start, a number of people's names were used by Osmanagic, claiming that they were participating when in fact they had nothing to do with the project. Lamiya El Hadidy (a specialist in the conservation of artefacts) however did indeed take part, but she never endorsed the idea of pyramids. These hills a lot of archaeology (less now as some has been destroyed by these excavations, and she confirmed that a vertical wall was manmade. This is a small rectangular structure on Pljesevica, not a pyramid. But her statement has been turned into an endorsement of the pyramid claim. If you see this page [21] which is the official site, you'll see that there they are simply stating that she said the structure is manmade. Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted recent blanking and change of perspective [23] and [24] that removed reliable sources, and added an unreliable blog as the only new source to justify the changes. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I was extremely surprised to come here and the very 1st line says: "The term Bosnian pyramids has been used for a cluster of natural geological formations" This is a one sided statement. The origin of these structures is under great scientific debate, and the evidence is certainly pointing to them being manmade and not geoligical formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.164 ( talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess somebody is actually struggling very hard the truth not to be revealed. Anyway it is a battle just against time. I wonder how can one after reading Swelim's article post this. 'Swelim released a report in 2010 in which he makes it clear that he considers it to be a geological and not a man-made pyramid. He still refers to the hill as a pyramid on the basis that it has the appearance of a pyramid. [27]' It is far from what Swelim wrote and claimed. He is saying that pyramid is manmade. He wrote a 50 page expertize on that. So if I posted something which is in favor of pyramids it would be deleted as it was before no matter what kind of evidence would I quote? No matter how hard somebody is trying to shut down the project they will not succeed in my opinion. In fact I do not care much but I see every two or three months something new is discovered and some new evidence is found. The interpretation of most of scientific research in this article in Wikipedia is also very strange and Swelim will be more than happy when he sees this misinterpretation of his words. So my question is: Who stands behind this conspiracy theory? Borchica ( talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)B
It might be obvious English is not my mother tongue but I bet everybody (including you) perfectly understood what I was trying to say. In fact this discussion is so bizarre. And here is Swelim's 50 page report
http://nabilswelim.com/downloads/Pyr_Hills.pdf.pdf from 2007. In which he concludes: “Arguments in favor or in disfavor have no effect on the fact that the pyramid concept and the properties are there for everyone to see”. In 2011 - four years later and after thousands of hours of excavations a 5-year old kid can tell those structures are man made after visiting the archeological site. There are so many scientific proofs about artificiality of pyramid hills but Dr. Osmanagich doesn't care much about negative publicity as he knows what he is doing and that his work leads to a phenomenal discovery which will be acknowledged worldwide sooner or later.
Borchica (
talk)
21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict while I was deleting the copyvio text, I was posting: Deleted text as copyvio, but it can be read here: [25] or downloaded from various sites such as [26] Dougweller ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The best source of information I know of for this is Irna's blog, and she has an article on his current team, see [27]. -- Dougweller ( talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
We used to have an article on him, but it was deleted 3 years back as inadequately cited to secondary sources. It's hard to say how notable his opinion might be; but according to his page at Buffalo edu., updated 2008, he's a professor of Geography and Anthropology, not an archaeologist. See here. I'm sure Dr Zubrow's opinion on the Bosnian Pyramids was offered in good faith, but he doesn't claim to be an archaeologist, so why should his opinion on the archaeology of the pyramids be included in this encyclopedia entry? Haploidavey ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
We now have a link pointing to his professional archaeological background. Thanks. Haploidavey ( talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Dr Zubrow teaches archeology at the Universities in Buffalo, Toronto and Cambridge. And that link proves that. See here What is disputable? Or you want to see his diploma scanned? This whole discussion is becoming ridiculous. Where are diplomas of all other 'scientists' which opinions are published? Osmanagich is crucified like Galileo Galilee was. Thank God it is just in writing. I don't see a neutral approach here. It is far far from that. And people who hold notable positions use their strength to defend their opinion which is based on 'historical' books from which they learned. And we all know history our fathers learned is not the same one we learn. And I can hardly wait to see the day whatthe ones who are so eagerly defending the nonpyramid theory will say when the pyramid is unearthed. Probably that Osmanagich built it himself during the night. And I really wonder who is behind those people trying to hide the truth as long as possible and what are his intentions. Borchica ( talk) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand the term secondary source and faculty biography as well as polartec page are secondary source and not close to Dr Zubrow so I am putting his statement back backed up with both links now. Borchica ( talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Then all the claims and statements quoted are also a primary source, aren't they? What makes an interview with Dr. Zubrow a primary source and an accusation that Osmanagich's team was reshaping the 700 ft hill a secondary source? Borchica ( talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've taken the recent deletions to WP:RSN. So far as I can see they meet our criteria although we could make it clear what the Smithsonian magazine article is quoting Schoch. Dougweller ( talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ronz your POV doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia regulations. You are strictly struggling to hide the truth and to promote the fairy tale about the hoax. Anyone and I repeat anyone with a sane mind who visits the site can see clearly on their own that the structure is artificial. I am not entering further debates about other discoveries here. And all the scientists that have been there and deny the existence of evidence are perfectly aware what this discovery brings when it is proven. But like I said the truth is always revealed at the end and no matter how hard you try Ronz to win this personal vendetta against true history you are going to lose at the end. I am just wondering why. Are you paid for it or what? And I read today almost whole discussion from the beginning and I realized that from very beginning of this article facts in favor of pyramid existence have been attacked severely and always erased. It is interesting that Swelim's report was not published until he said that these are pyramidal hills. Before that it was disputed and sourced as primary or unreliable and so on. At once it is rellevant. of course - it is contra and not pro. There is a saying that the smart one always back off first. And it always happened that neutral Wikipedia aspect was bulldozed by negative judgments and opinions. If we take a look those are just that. Personal opinions of (here you are correct) of some prominent scientists. But some of them even haven't been there. What makes Zubrow's (archeologist, anthropologist) personal opinion less relevant of personal opinion of Nick Hawton (journalist)? So I suggest allow also positive reliable sources to be published and don't make fool of yourself as this is what you are eventually doing by not allowing pro opinions to be published. I am not a wikipedia freak as you are but I bet there is somebody who can take a look at what you are doing and who is neutral and who is above you and who will delete your account and ban you from wikipedia for being one-sided and biased. Take care, Borchica ( talk) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
References 15-19 which are supposed to cite and back up Vrabac and his team claims are dead links and/or links pointing to some institution main page but there is absolutely NO evidence those claims are real so I suggest them to be removed. Borchica ( talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also references 13, 20and 22 don't exist. So now I am asking one more question. Is it justified to put sth without references which goes against Osmanagich's theory and not ANY referenced proof and/or evidence which supports this theory. It sems like people are deleting their claims because they don't want to be publicly attacked for their claims and because they don't have any evidence to support tjheir claims beside their personal judgment. It is undeniable that there is less and less people and statements that try to stop Osmanagich and on the other site more and more proofs and evidences and scientists that favor his work. So I am askin the editors when the first true referenced sentence which supports Bosnian pyramids theory will be published on the main page. Borchica ( talk) 12:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I put citation needed where were dead links... Borchica ( talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
So what we do with references with dead links? It is ultra stupid to keep them there. They should be deleted or replaced with lčive ones. Isn't it so? Borchica ( talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that everything it is written by somebody who gives poitive statement on pyramids no matter whether it can be validated or not is reversed or deleted. Even Swelim who is definetely rooting for pyramids is misquoted and persons doing wrong interpretations on purpose can be prosecuted as we all know....I will request arbitration committee to intervene here if necessary. Borchica ( talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Izmo Guglich Affair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
No such user (
talk)
12:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I brought this up at WP:RSN and my interpretation was that we could use it. This is a WP:FRINGE article so we must use "In-text attribution", but that's been done. Dougweller ( talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole story is just like a small global warming story. No matter how absurd both parties sound, one has the power to silence the other one and it uses it. Climategate shown, that it is not hard to buy scientists not only of one field, but most of the scientists around the globe. Global warming is still not marked as a hoax in wikipedia, which is unbelievable in the light of the discussion above. And I remember some of the battles that happened around it here. So, as long as money is involved, mirroring scientific journals is just mirroring scientific journals - nothing plausible, nothing real. If half of the foundation claims prove half true, it really would rewrite not only the history books but first of all the tourism map of europe. So there is no big reason to call opinion of scientist a scientific research if there is no specific discussion of specific claims in any of the opposing texts I came across.
Thus I think, the article should be put in much more neutral way, as those hills are clearly shaped as pyramids, the triangle positioning, their orientation and layers of blocks with 90 degrees between all sides is a bit too much to be just natural coincidence. Maybe those really were rebuilt from hills just a few thousands or even hundreds years ago. Note that the great pyramid of Giza is also just a hill in it's internal core that was rebuilt to look like a pyramid. Silver Nugget ( talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
See [29] and another paper, " http://cambridge.academia.edu/TeraPruitt/Papers/118276/Contextualising_Alternative_Archaeology_Socio-Politics_and_Approaches" "Contextualising Alternative Archaeology: Socio-Politics and Approaches", in T. Pruitt and D. Yates (eds.), Invention and Reinvention: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1. Looks like a lot of useful stuff for the article. Dougweller ( talk) 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Scientist,(dying Science's superstitious people) trying to Smeared out the FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 ( talk) 03:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
===> Hoax ?? In fact, They're founding a lot of Prehistoric proves there. And the ancient script, which dated back 30,000 ago. and found similar to other civilizations. FACT IS FACT,use power of hand to quiet people exactly a Hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 November 2011
Regarding [30] the edit-warring over the unexplained replacement of links: -- Ronz ( talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that these aren't pyramids, I don't believe we should use the Foundations' names for the hills other than when specifically mentioning someone's viewpoint who claims they are pyramids (e.g. Osmanagić's, the Foundations', and possibly Swelim's). -- Ronz ( talk) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be cautious what images we present and how we present them, given that many have been chosen to misrepresent the geology. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
With respect to images in this article, I have been looking for images of the alleged / so-called "Bosnian pyramids" to use in a couple of articles. As a result, I have have been examining the copyright status of the pictures in the articles, specifically in the gallery, and found that their copyright status appears to open to question and unverified. They are so lacking in in any clear documentation as to their copyright status, there are none that I can use. This certainly raises questions as to whether they meet Wikipedia standard for copyright permission. What is needed are people to contribute to Wikimedia are pictures with clear documentation of who created them and clear permission for their use in Wikipedia. If I am wrong, which I might be as I am not a copyright lawyer, please correct me Paul H. ( talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Bad Archaeology (badarchaeology.net and badarchaeology.com) is currently used as a source in multiple articles, as well as pointed out as a valuable source within articles. The blog hasn't been used as a source. What do others think about using it? -- Ronz ( talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:MoonPyramid.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pm s1 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |