![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.
"The base of the monument is 167 m (550 ft) in diameter and perfectly round"
Going by the pictures on here, the base of the monument certainly isn't 'perfectly round'. Perhaps this needs to be ammended. - Bill 11/05/07 (UK) 09.40am
Could you compare it to the Pyramids of Gizeh? Which is bigger?
I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! -- PopUpPirate 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
These are NOT positive crop marks: they are two crop circles made in a field which has since been harvested. Positive crop marks are caused by underground features (ditches, walls etc); crop circles are caused above ground by drunken young farmers or Army types on secret night-time missions, or crazed hippies. Take your pick. 81.157.196.251 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Moses Cotsworth is given pride of place in this section, but his theory isn't referenced. I'm guessing this came from his 1904 book The Rational Almanac: tracing the evolution of modern almanacs from ancient ideas of time, and suggesting improvements ... 180 illustrations explaining the mystery of the Pyramids, etc but this isn't a mainstream work. Cotsworth was a railway accounts clerk who sought to make his work easier by having the year "in all Nations" divided into months of equal length to avoid his having to work late balancing "the ever-changing differences between monthly totals for Income and Expenditure". [1] Can anyone provide more, or perhaps we should expand the section so that it doesn't rely so heavily on Cotsworth? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In the section on scientific theories, there's suddenly mention of a step just below the summit which, as as an invisible editing note points out, hasn't been mentioned at all prior to this. As this step appears to be pretty integral to Devereux' theory (and possibly others), the article would definitely benefit greatly from information about this step being woven into the description of the hill: probably in paragraph two of the " Structure" section. I don't have any source material to attempt a description of the step or I'd add this info myself ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There are many crop circles around Silbury hill and Avebury. You may see at least three here: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=51.416231&lon=-1.8545008&z=15&l=1&m=b
And there are many in database:
http://www.x-cosmos.it/cropcircles/
I think it worth mentioning.
-- Varnav ( talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Varnav ( talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This recent WP:AGF removed " Fachtna McAvoy" as possible vandalism. It is however true (albeit possibly WP:COI, as McAvoy himself seems to have posted the entry) and verifiable from English Heritage's web page. I would restore the deletion, but would welcome views on subject's notability first. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi - just to say that there was a redundancy dispute (my claim for unfair dismissal against English Heritage) but legal proceedings were concluded in Dec 2010. Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello - I would like to point out that I am not 'demanding' anything and also that a properly neutral stance and consistent approach would see the replacement of 'Rob Harding' with 'English Heritage' - retaining the reference to the statement of roles and responsibilities provided on the English Heritage website. Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It has of course been noted above (and I entirely agree) that the article needs to be updated in any case to include information contained in the book 'The Story of Silbury Hill' by David Field and Jim Leary which was published last year by English Heritage. For information the management/direction of the archaeological element of the Silbury Hill Conservation Project was only divided between a site/excavation manager (Jim Leary) and a Project Manager after I had been dismissed from and thereafter excluded from Silbury itself in June 2007.fachtna Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Teapotgeorge, this is blatant self promotion and a clear conflict of interest. I don't believe that any consensus exists to keep the name in the article - which as currently written implies that this individual was the sole excavator. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 10:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit was rightly reverted, citing completely valid concerns over WP:COI. However parts of the external site, which do not deal with the personal circumstances of the contributor, contain useful material. Would it be in order if another, disinterested editor restored the more closely targeted link? Views? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello - the objectivity and neutrality of the contributors to wikipedia is very impressive but I think that the above comment is a little unfair. I am not 'trying to have my say' and do not do so on the website. The majority of the website content simply reproduces the documentation which I submitted to English Heritage setting out my concerns about the way I had been treated and the documentation in which English Heritage delivered its response. Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has added Leary & Field—thanks—but if the book is as significant as Jamesinderbyshire suggests should there be some changes to the article, referenced to their findings? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 08:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Professor Nicholas Thomas, Director of Cambridge University's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and professor of historical anthropology. [5]. Dougweller ( talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The lede gives the height as 39.3m; the body gives it as 40m. These are from different sources, both apparently good and very close in time. Over to experts. Wikiain ( talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the comparison of the size of the Roman village to a multiple of football pitches as a football pitch is neither standardised or an internationally recognised unit of measurement. The Reuters article referenced doesn't give a size for the village. If anyone has a source for the size of the village in hectares or square metres, please add it. -- Graham Phillips 110 ( talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a real stretch equating Silbury with that pyramid. There is probably a Mesoamerican pyramid that is a better comparison. 99.229.34.174 ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.
"The base of the monument is 167 m (550 ft) in diameter and perfectly round"
Going by the pictures on here, the base of the monument certainly isn't 'perfectly round'. Perhaps this needs to be ammended. - Bill 11/05/07 (UK) 09.40am
Could you compare it to the Pyramids of Gizeh? Which is bigger?
I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! -- PopUpPirate 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
These are NOT positive crop marks: they are two crop circles made in a field which has since been harvested. Positive crop marks are caused by underground features (ditches, walls etc); crop circles are caused above ground by drunken young farmers or Army types on secret night-time missions, or crazed hippies. Take your pick. 81.157.196.251 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Moses Cotsworth is given pride of place in this section, but his theory isn't referenced. I'm guessing this came from his 1904 book The Rational Almanac: tracing the evolution of modern almanacs from ancient ideas of time, and suggesting improvements ... 180 illustrations explaining the mystery of the Pyramids, etc but this isn't a mainstream work. Cotsworth was a railway accounts clerk who sought to make his work easier by having the year "in all Nations" divided into months of equal length to avoid his having to work late balancing "the ever-changing differences between monthly totals for Income and Expenditure". [1] Can anyone provide more, or perhaps we should expand the section so that it doesn't rely so heavily on Cotsworth? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In the section on scientific theories, there's suddenly mention of a step just below the summit which, as as an invisible editing note points out, hasn't been mentioned at all prior to this. As this step appears to be pretty integral to Devereux' theory (and possibly others), the article would definitely benefit greatly from information about this step being woven into the description of the hill: probably in paragraph two of the " Structure" section. I don't have any source material to attempt a description of the step or I'd add this info myself ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There are many crop circles around Silbury hill and Avebury. You may see at least three here: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=51.416231&lon=-1.8545008&z=15&l=1&m=b
And there are many in database:
http://www.x-cosmos.it/cropcircles/
I think it worth mentioning.
-- Varnav ( talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Varnav ( talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This recent WP:AGF removed " Fachtna McAvoy" as possible vandalism. It is however true (albeit possibly WP:COI, as McAvoy himself seems to have posted the entry) and verifiable from English Heritage's web page. I would restore the deletion, but would welcome views on subject's notability first. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi - just to say that there was a redundancy dispute (my claim for unfair dismissal against English Heritage) but legal proceedings were concluded in Dec 2010. Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello - I would like to point out that I am not 'demanding' anything and also that a properly neutral stance and consistent approach would see the replacement of 'Rob Harding' with 'English Heritage' - retaining the reference to the statement of roles and responsibilities provided on the English Heritage website. Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It has of course been noted above (and I entirely agree) that the article needs to be updated in any case to include information contained in the book 'The Story of Silbury Hill' by David Field and Jim Leary which was published last year by English Heritage. For information the management/direction of the archaeological element of the Silbury Hill Conservation Project was only divided between a site/excavation manager (Jim Leary) and a Project Manager after I had been dismissed from and thereafter excluded from Silbury itself in June 2007.fachtna Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Teapotgeorge, this is blatant self promotion and a clear conflict of interest. I don't believe that any consensus exists to keep the name in the article - which as currently written implies that this individual was the sole excavator. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 10:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit was rightly reverted, citing completely valid concerns over WP:COI. However parts of the external site, which do not deal with the personal circumstances of the contributor, contain useful material. Would it be in order if another, disinterested editor restored the more closely targeted link? Views? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello - the objectivity and neutrality of the contributors to wikipedia is very impressive but I think that the above comment is a little unfair. I am not 'trying to have my say' and do not do so on the website. The majority of the website content simply reproduces the documentation which I submitted to English Heritage setting out my concerns about the way I had been treated and the documentation in which English Heritage delivered its response. Fachtna mcavoy ( talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has added Leary & Field—thanks—but if the book is as significant as Jamesinderbyshire suggests should there be some changes to the article, referenced to their findings? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 08:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Professor Nicholas Thomas, Director of Cambridge University's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and professor of historical anthropology. [5]. Dougweller ( talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The lede gives the height as 39.3m; the body gives it as 40m. These are from different sources, both apparently good and very close in time. Over to experts. Wikiain ( talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the comparison of the size of the Roman village to a multiple of football pitches as a football pitch is neither standardised or an internationally recognised unit of measurement. The Reuters article referenced doesn't give a size for the village. If anyone has a source for the size of the village in hectares or square metres, please add it. -- Graham Phillips 110 ( talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a real stretch equating Silbury with that pyramid. There is probably a Mesoamerican pyramid that is a better comparison. 99.229.34.174 ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)