This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rock balancing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Let's agree that:
1) "Famous rock balancers" at least means people who are famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry about them which is not a vanity posting.
2) Putative information about "famous rock balancers" which is beyond a simple description of who they are is placed in their Wikipedia entry, not in the Rock Balancing article.
3) Substantive edits should be discussed here first, and are subject to immediate removal if they are not.
66.81.65.198 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's also agree that:
4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown.
5) The appropriate place for an image credit is on the image page, not on the Wiki entry.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.81.65.5 (
talk) 05:07, 14 August 2007
So do you just eyeball a rock, up end it and jiggle it until it balances? A practical explanation of the mechanics involved would be very helpful. Thanks! AndyHuston 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please consider adding a tutorial, or at least a link to one. Thank you.
Soltera (
talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's really a joke. Why Tibetan Buddhism instead of Zen, or even Hawaii music? -- Mongol ( talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Anyone on earth can balance a rock... it's amazing seeing people of any race, any religions, any age, any color... the rock treats you all the same..." ~Travis Ruskus, author of The Rock Balancer's Guide: Discover the Mindful Art of Balance (2019). One of the exercises guides the reader to "find your mantra" (Ruskus, pg. 46) which is something Wikipedia says any religion/spirituality can do. Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The image from Goring does not appear to be genuine. The scene of the Thames meandering towards the Goring Gap in the predominantly chalk Chilterns, is bathed in typical soft, slightly silvery, English light, a chalk zone. The over-sharp edges of the red sandstones (from Somerset or Nottingham at best) are blasted by the pin-sharp red light more associated with Monument Valley, USA. Not to mention the amateurish emplacement on the soft drab grey Thames valley rock at the base. The poster needs to provide evidence that it was real, i.e. shots from other angles. Autodidactyl ( talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but this is absolutely genuine! This image has been on this page for many years and nobody else has had an issue with it. What Autodidactyl is calling the meandering Thames, is actually a white poppy field, you can not see the Thames in this photo. Also the rocks are all from my cousin's garden, so there are a variety of native and non-native rocks. What Autodidactyl is calling a soft drab grey rock at the base is actually a wooden gate post. Please cross reference the image on my flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockbalancer/page11/. Hopefully, this will be enough evidence for you Autodidactyl. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.54 ( talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Autodidactyl, you asked for other images from other angles. I am not going to post these on the rock balancing entry, per the requirements stated earlier in the discussion "4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." Therefore, I will once again send you to my flickr site to see some of the same rocks balanced from a slightly different angle. If you are still unsure of my the image's authenticity please ask some of the other editors. Daliel knows my work, from his oversight of Bill Dan's Rock-on-rock-on webstie. Please check this statement for authenticity by going here: http://www.rock-on-rock-on.com/others-more-than-ever.html. Rockbalancer 13:15, 19 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer ( talk • contribs)
Avhell-hi and welcome to the on-line rock balancing community. I really like the rock balancing image you posted but there are a few protocols you didn't follow, and that is why I deleted it. Please read the agreed upon protocols listed above and then add to this page. Per point four listed above, "Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." The rock balance shown at the Petrified Forest already shows a point balance. Also note point three. Although, you only added an image, it did make a big difference in the formatting of the page, any substantive edits need to be agreed upon in the discussion section first. Thanks for understanding and hope to see more of your work.-- Rockbalancer ( talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the last three "famous" balancers should be removed? I at least think a wikipedia page needs to be available to be linked to for a famous balancer. I mean I know "famous rock balancers" is a bit of an oxymoron, but lets at least nip this in the bud before everyone starts listing themselves as famous. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Andy G. article implies that he's the 'father of modern rock-balancing'. Which would be good to know for some casual browser reading about rock-balancing on this page.
Also, it would be of interest to know that balanced rocks are a historical (ie: prior to ~1910) means of marking trails, and larger instances of more rocks doing more balancing could be looked at as an elaboration of simple trail marking.
~ender 2011-09-25 22:20:PM MST — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.165.53.38 (
talk)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
how to edit a page, or use the
sandbox to try out your editing skills.
New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to
log in (although there are
many reasons why you might want to).
Diego (
talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are some fanatics removing the "Opposition to Rock-Balancing" section?
Can they stand no criticism from nature lovers who want to be free of another building-driven and obsessed cult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.119.62 ( talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the latest change I have removed the sentence that was not verified for two reasons: it was unverified and rather confrontational in tone. I have also removed the redundant statement that the practice is not supported as per the note. I will add that the reference cited makes no mention of rock balancing although their guidelines do make it clear activities like rock balancing would be frowned upon if one were an adherent to the principles of Leave No Trace. I do hope this doesn't devolve into any more of an edit war than it already is and leads to this page being protected. It would be much more preferable if the IP discussed the issue here so that concensus could be achieved. Frankly, I think the one sentence covers the issue clearly and if readers need more info the reference is there. Saffron Blaze ( talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The images i saw on the article are great, but i found the text inadequate in ways that i think i've alleviated. I was also tempted to note three separate disciplines, but decided to construe what i contemplated as WP:OR. Perhaps the aficianados will be inspired to comment, or expand the article in this dimension:
Anyway, i started to write
and realized i have neither the experience nor the passion that probably the topic deserves.
So
kudos to the artisans and artists, and i hope that amounts to encouragement to "edit on, Garth!"
--
Jerzy•
t 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Very cool, even if that is snow, not surging water, around it. Have we any info on that, and how long the rock has been documented as surviving?
--
Jerzy•
t 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As rock piles are now becoming ubiquitous on public lands, more sources are available that condemn the practice as a defacement of the natural landscape. The article should be updated to reflect this changing perspective. Potential sources:
Some of those may be duplicates, and not all are necessarily reliable. Geogene ( talk) 05:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's a helpful webpage with more info about why to be careful about not messing with cairns at the National Parks -- https://www.nps.gov/articles/rockcairns.htm Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 01:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Arllaw yesterday i expanded on the meditative aspect of rock balancing, as I am a long time practitioner and that's how i apply it. I cited my gallery :a huge gallery of rock piles, on subject as opposed to inserting images on the page (keeping the edit moderate) and it further expands on the subject of rock balancing as meditation if someone was even more curious, but it was on subject for rock balancing as I thought maybe actual proof I was a practitioner would be validation and qualify my opinion...As that was my first or second time editing a post (although I did share a lot of Mexican landmark photos years ago) maybe you could qualify for me how it was spam or did you assume new account=spam? Am I correct in assuming you could give me a little more guidance, as I must have missed something reading up on editing posts. Thanks up front. I thought I was well within the guidelines of wiki and this was actually my trial run after reading up on how to. Maybe that's why this page seems so devoid of content? or is it mostly views opposed to the practice?...Its not like I listed myself as a famous artist at the bottom so I'm confused. Are you implying its not a meditative practice and if so could you qualify that statement Ryan Clark 1969 ( talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I read the reflection with the gallery... very thought-provoking and inspiring! :D Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's up to the moderators of your page, but I'll post it here so at least those of us interested in talking about rock balancing can take a look, and you can think about maybe adding something like this to the official page itself. (I'm just listing them alphabetically, not playing any favorites with notability levels here). I've only read 2 of them, but they all sound interesting! Has anyone read any of these? Do you know of any other ones? Should they hyperlink to a webpage? Should they have brief bios + summaries? Let's talk about that! :-)
Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 00:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
If someone does rock balancing in their own backyard, rock balancing is not vandalism... this wiki page should be reviewed and edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyBorneIce ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Defining the activity as "a form of vandalism" does seem inappropriate for the first sentence definition, particularly when it sounds like rock balancing is never actually done with ill-intent. Even the graffiti article - where people often do set out to deliberately cause damage - doesn't open "Graffiti is a form of vandalism in which..." -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to reduce this article to "a form of vandalism" and to cut all the content about what rock balancing is, and the fact that there are international contests. The Smithsonian Magazine, Guardian newspaper, BBC website and Denver Post articles are not "poor sources", User:Geogene, and I didn't remove any content, I just moved the word "vandalism" to slightly later in the lead. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Artist Michael Grab describes the process of stacking rocks as requiring a minimum of three points of contact for each rock, which form a "natural tripod". The fact that all rocks are covered with various indentations mean that such contact points can be found through experimentation. He talks of sensing the vibrations or "clicks" as two rocks move against each other as a way to locate these points, which must be in places where the rock's centre of mass lies between three of them. Grab says he finds it "pretty remarkable" how stable the structures are, believing that in the absence of wind or other interference they could stay standing for months at a time.
Authorities at Petroglyph National Monument said Friday that visitors committed extensive vandalism by collecting rocks and stacking them in the form of cairns.) I suggested neutrally describing it as a "practice" in my edit. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Should this article define rock balancing as a type of vandalism, or as a recreational/artistic activity which has drawn that criticism? Should it include any content about people's reasons for balancing rocks, methods of doing so where the process isn't obvious, notable artists who have done so, and the international contests held for it? Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.And you and Lord Bellamy need substantial coverage in reliable sources if you want a less critical article. These are fairly basic concepts here for editing Wikipedia....the NPOV policy states,
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.There are more and better sources that are critical of the practice, so this means you'll get a negative article. Geogene ( talk) 12:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Here at WP we don't label every typo or error vandalism...If a motorist swerves off the road and knocks over a headstone, is it vandalism? Depends on the intent, doesn't it?.
There is essentially nothing here about the activity itself on this page, only complaints about it. Why is that?because personal websites and churnalism aren't quality sources. I understand from
Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors?is your recognizing that I'm right about sourcing, and so you're attacking the messenger instead. Geogene ( talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Despite claims that it is an artistic, harmless and relaxing pursuit, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) says that it is unwanted and illegal....This week residents of Skye took matters into their own hands by toppling more than 100 stone stacks erected by visitors to the island.[5]. The Hakai Magazine piece refers to "visual pollution" caused by stone pilers, and quotes an environmentalist who refers to it as a "plague". And some of this coverage (Denver Post [6], Vice [7]) looks like churnalism, or an excuse to post image galleries. And if this is really a sport, where are the reliable, independent sources that substantially cover the trappings of sports, things like the prizes, who the officials are, who the champions and main contenders are? Who placed second in 2019? Geogene ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)Geogene ( talk) 21:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the framing of rock stacking as vandalism. However it needs to be clarified that there are other reasons for creating rock stacks, which presumably are not the subject of criticism. (Particularly where they are used as waymarks
Trail_blazing#Cairns and
Trail_blazing#Trail_ducks.)
Kauri0.o (
talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
How do we feel about using these sources to expand the article?
The subjects of the BBC and Vice interviews may not be notable people so their articles don't have much weight (and certainly shouldn't be used to make any big claims about depression), but they seem usable as reliable sources describing the process, as well as the fact that rock-balancing art events, festivals and competitions exist. Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There’s quite a bit of Zen or Buddhist overtones. Impermanence is a huge Zen philosophy.as presenting his opinion, as well as his aim being
to make it look as impossible as possible, the fact that a single balancing can take minutes or hours, and that he believes that
If there’s no wind, they would last for months(which gives an angle on why building them in national parks and near trail markers is a bad idea).
People ask if it's glued, if there's steel rods, a lot of people really don't understand that it's just balanced.is useful there, and an earlier version of this article also used to use that point as an opener, that they're balanced with no glue or wires or tricks.
the bigger the top rock, the more impossible the structure will lookseems an interesting point about aesthetics. There are also some good structural points in there about balancing on three points of contact, and splashing the rocks with water at the end to check how stable they are. Also definitely worth quoting that he knocks all of his sculptures over after photographing them, I think. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This article now spends the same amount of time on churnalistic trivial coverage of rock-stacking artists as it does scientific opposition to rock stacking in wilderness areas. Plus, the opposition is contained in a criticism section at the end. Just because some people stack rocks for instagram doesn't mean their opinions on it should be in the article, this goes against Wikipedia:Academic_bias. And if this art, where is the commentary on it by academic art experts? All of the claims to it being an artistic pursuit are from web-based news. If it's a Buddhist practice, then where are sources from scholars on Buddhism? As far as I can tell, the only scholarly commentary about it are from conservationists. Geogene ( talk) 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm with Belbury here. The positive sources are perfectly reliable, and that thing you linked is an essay, not policy. Loki ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
that thing you linked to is an essay, not policySo? Geogene ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rock balancing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Let's agree that:
1) "Famous rock balancers" at least means people who are famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry about them which is not a vanity posting.
2) Putative information about "famous rock balancers" which is beyond a simple description of who they are is placed in their Wikipedia entry, not in the Rock Balancing article.
3) Substantive edits should be discussed here first, and are subject to immediate removal if they are not.
66.81.65.198 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's also agree that:
4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown.
5) The appropriate place for an image credit is on the image page, not on the Wiki entry.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.81.65.5 (
talk) 05:07, 14 August 2007
So do you just eyeball a rock, up end it and jiggle it until it balances? A practical explanation of the mechanics involved would be very helpful. Thanks! AndyHuston 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please consider adding a tutorial, or at least a link to one. Thank you.
Soltera (
talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's really a joke. Why Tibetan Buddhism instead of Zen, or even Hawaii music? -- Mongol ( talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Anyone on earth can balance a rock... it's amazing seeing people of any race, any religions, any age, any color... the rock treats you all the same..." ~Travis Ruskus, author of The Rock Balancer's Guide: Discover the Mindful Art of Balance (2019). One of the exercises guides the reader to "find your mantra" (Ruskus, pg. 46) which is something Wikipedia says any religion/spirituality can do. Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The image from Goring does not appear to be genuine. The scene of the Thames meandering towards the Goring Gap in the predominantly chalk Chilterns, is bathed in typical soft, slightly silvery, English light, a chalk zone. The over-sharp edges of the red sandstones (from Somerset or Nottingham at best) are blasted by the pin-sharp red light more associated with Monument Valley, USA. Not to mention the amateurish emplacement on the soft drab grey Thames valley rock at the base. The poster needs to provide evidence that it was real, i.e. shots from other angles. Autodidactyl ( talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but this is absolutely genuine! This image has been on this page for many years and nobody else has had an issue with it. What Autodidactyl is calling the meandering Thames, is actually a white poppy field, you can not see the Thames in this photo. Also the rocks are all from my cousin's garden, so there are a variety of native and non-native rocks. What Autodidactyl is calling a soft drab grey rock at the base is actually a wooden gate post. Please cross reference the image on my flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockbalancer/page11/. Hopefully, this will be enough evidence for you Autodidactyl. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.54 ( talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Autodidactyl, you asked for other images from other angles. I am not going to post these on the rock balancing entry, per the requirements stated earlier in the discussion "4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." Therefore, I will once again send you to my flickr site to see some of the same rocks balanced from a slightly different angle. If you are still unsure of my the image's authenticity please ask some of the other editors. Daliel knows my work, from his oversight of Bill Dan's Rock-on-rock-on webstie. Please check this statement for authenticity by going here: http://www.rock-on-rock-on.com/others-more-than-ever.html. Rockbalancer 13:15, 19 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer ( talk • contribs)
Avhell-hi and welcome to the on-line rock balancing community. I really like the rock balancing image you posted but there are a few protocols you didn't follow, and that is why I deleted it. Please read the agreed upon protocols listed above and then add to this page. Per point four listed above, "Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." The rock balance shown at the Petrified Forest already shows a point balance. Also note point three. Although, you only added an image, it did make a big difference in the formatting of the page, any substantive edits need to be agreed upon in the discussion section first. Thanks for understanding and hope to see more of your work.-- Rockbalancer ( talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the last three "famous" balancers should be removed? I at least think a wikipedia page needs to be available to be linked to for a famous balancer. I mean I know "famous rock balancers" is a bit of an oxymoron, but lets at least nip this in the bud before everyone starts listing themselves as famous. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Andy G. article implies that he's the 'father of modern rock-balancing'. Which would be good to know for some casual browser reading about rock-balancing on this page.
Also, it would be of interest to know that balanced rocks are a historical (ie: prior to ~1910) means of marking trails, and larger instances of more rocks doing more balancing could be looked at as an elaboration of simple trail marking.
~ender 2011-09-25 22:20:PM MST — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.165.53.38 (
talk)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
how to edit a page, or use the
sandbox to try out your editing skills.
New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to
log in (although there are
many reasons why you might want to).
Diego (
talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are some fanatics removing the "Opposition to Rock-Balancing" section?
Can they stand no criticism from nature lovers who want to be free of another building-driven and obsessed cult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.119.62 ( talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the latest change I have removed the sentence that was not verified for two reasons: it was unverified and rather confrontational in tone. I have also removed the redundant statement that the practice is not supported as per the note. I will add that the reference cited makes no mention of rock balancing although their guidelines do make it clear activities like rock balancing would be frowned upon if one were an adherent to the principles of Leave No Trace. I do hope this doesn't devolve into any more of an edit war than it already is and leads to this page being protected. It would be much more preferable if the IP discussed the issue here so that concensus could be achieved. Frankly, I think the one sentence covers the issue clearly and if readers need more info the reference is there. Saffron Blaze ( talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The images i saw on the article are great, but i found the text inadequate in ways that i think i've alleviated. I was also tempted to note three separate disciplines, but decided to construe what i contemplated as WP:OR. Perhaps the aficianados will be inspired to comment, or expand the article in this dimension:
Anyway, i started to write
and realized i have neither the experience nor the passion that probably the topic deserves.
So
kudos to the artisans and artists, and i hope that amounts to encouragement to "edit on, Garth!"
--
Jerzy•
t 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Very cool, even if that is snow, not surging water, around it. Have we any info on that, and how long the rock has been documented as surviving?
--
Jerzy•
t 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As rock piles are now becoming ubiquitous on public lands, more sources are available that condemn the practice as a defacement of the natural landscape. The article should be updated to reflect this changing perspective. Potential sources:
Some of those may be duplicates, and not all are necessarily reliable. Geogene ( talk) 05:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's a helpful webpage with more info about why to be careful about not messing with cairns at the National Parks -- https://www.nps.gov/articles/rockcairns.htm Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 01:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Arllaw yesterday i expanded on the meditative aspect of rock balancing, as I am a long time practitioner and that's how i apply it. I cited my gallery :a huge gallery of rock piles, on subject as opposed to inserting images on the page (keeping the edit moderate) and it further expands on the subject of rock balancing as meditation if someone was even more curious, but it was on subject for rock balancing as I thought maybe actual proof I was a practitioner would be validation and qualify my opinion...As that was my first or second time editing a post (although I did share a lot of Mexican landmark photos years ago) maybe you could qualify for me how it was spam or did you assume new account=spam? Am I correct in assuming you could give me a little more guidance, as I must have missed something reading up on editing posts. Thanks up front. I thought I was well within the guidelines of wiki and this was actually my trial run after reading up on how to. Maybe that's why this page seems so devoid of content? or is it mostly views opposed to the practice?...Its not like I listed myself as a famous artist at the bottom so I'm confused. Are you implying its not a meditative practice and if so could you qualify that statement Ryan Clark 1969 ( talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I read the reflection with the gallery... very thought-provoking and inspiring! :D Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's up to the moderators of your page, but I'll post it here so at least those of us interested in talking about rock balancing can take a look, and you can think about maybe adding something like this to the official page itself. (I'm just listing them alphabetically, not playing any favorites with notability levels here). I've only read 2 of them, but they all sound interesting! Has anyone read any of these? Do you know of any other ones? Should they hyperlink to a webpage? Should they have brief bios + summaries? Let's talk about that! :-)
Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 ( talk) 00:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
If someone does rock balancing in their own backyard, rock balancing is not vandalism... this wiki page should be reviewed and edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyBorneIce ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Defining the activity as "a form of vandalism" does seem inappropriate for the first sentence definition, particularly when it sounds like rock balancing is never actually done with ill-intent. Even the graffiti article - where people often do set out to deliberately cause damage - doesn't open "Graffiti is a form of vandalism in which..." -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to reduce this article to "a form of vandalism" and to cut all the content about what rock balancing is, and the fact that there are international contests. The Smithsonian Magazine, Guardian newspaper, BBC website and Denver Post articles are not "poor sources", User:Geogene, and I didn't remove any content, I just moved the word "vandalism" to slightly later in the lead. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Artist Michael Grab describes the process of stacking rocks as requiring a minimum of three points of contact for each rock, which form a "natural tripod". The fact that all rocks are covered with various indentations mean that such contact points can be found through experimentation. He talks of sensing the vibrations or "clicks" as two rocks move against each other as a way to locate these points, which must be in places where the rock's centre of mass lies between three of them. Grab says he finds it "pretty remarkable" how stable the structures are, believing that in the absence of wind or other interference they could stay standing for months at a time.
Authorities at Petroglyph National Monument said Friday that visitors committed extensive vandalism by collecting rocks and stacking them in the form of cairns.) I suggested neutrally describing it as a "practice" in my edit. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Should this article define rock balancing as a type of vandalism, or as a recreational/artistic activity which has drawn that criticism? Should it include any content about people's reasons for balancing rocks, methods of doing so where the process isn't obvious, notable artists who have done so, and the international contests held for it? Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.And you and Lord Bellamy need substantial coverage in reliable sources if you want a less critical article. These are fairly basic concepts here for editing Wikipedia....the NPOV policy states,
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.There are more and better sources that are critical of the practice, so this means you'll get a negative article. Geogene ( talk) 12:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Here at WP we don't label every typo or error vandalism...If a motorist swerves off the road and knocks over a headstone, is it vandalism? Depends on the intent, doesn't it?.
There is essentially nothing here about the activity itself on this page, only complaints about it. Why is that?because personal websites and churnalism aren't quality sources. I understand from
Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors?is your recognizing that I'm right about sourcing, and so you're attacking the messenger instead. Geogene ( talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Despite claims that it is an artistic, harmless and relaxing pursuit, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) says that it is unwanted and illegal....This week residents of Skye took matters into their own hands by toppling more than 100 stone stacks erected by visitors to the island.[5]. The Hakai Magazine piece refers to "visual pollution" caused by stone pilers, and quotes an environmentalist who refers to it as a "plague". And some of this coverage (Denver Post [6], Vice [7]) looks like churnalism, or an excuse to post image galleries. And if this is really a sport, where are the reliable, independent sources that substantially cover the trappings of sports, things like the prizes, who the officials are, who the champions and main contenders are? Who placed second in 2019? Geogene ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)Geogene ( talk) 21:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the framing of rock stacking as vandalism. However it needs to be clarified that there are other reasons for creating rock stacks, which presumably are not the subject of criticism. (Particularly where they are used as waymarks
Trail_blazing#Cairns and
Trail_blazing#Trail_ducks.)
Kauri0.o (
talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
How do we feel about using these sources to expand the article?
The subjects of the BBC and Vice interviews may not be notable people so their articles don't have much weight (and certainly shouldn't be used to make any big claims about depression), but they seem usable as reliable sources describing the process, as well as the fact that rock-balancing art events, festivals and competitions exist. Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There’s quite a bit of Zen or Buddhist overtones. Impermanence is a huge Zen philosophy.as presenting his opinion, as well as his aim being
to make it look as impossible as possible, the fact that a single balancing can take minutes or hours, and that he believes that
If there’s no wind, they would last for months(which gives an angle on why building them in national parks and near trail markers is a bad idea).
People ask if it's glued, if there's steel rods, a lot of people really don't understand that it's just balanced.is useful there, and an earlier version of this article also used to use that point as an opener, that they're balanced with no glue or wires or tricks.
the bigger the top rock, the more impossible the structure will lookseems an interesting point about aesthetics. There are also some good structural points in there about balancing on three points of contact, and splashing the rocks with water at the end to check how stable they are. Also definitely worth quoting that he knocks all of his sculptures over after photographing them, I think. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This article now spends the same amount of time on churnalistic trivial coverage of rock-stacking artists as it does scientific opposition to rock stacking in wilderness areas. Plus, the opposition is contained in a criticism section at the end. Just because some people stack rocks for instagram doesn't mean their opinions on it should be in the article, this goes against Wikipedia:Academic_bias. And if this art, where is the commentary on it by academic art experts? All of the claims to it being an artistic pursuit are from web-based news. If it's a Buddhist practice, then where are sources from scholars on Buddhism? As far as I can tell, the only scholarly commentary about it are from conservationists. Geogene ( talk) 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm with Belbury here. The positive sources are perfectly reliable, and that thing you linked is an essay, not policy. Loki ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
that thing you linked to is an essay, not policySo? Geogene ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)