![]() | This page 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. |
Been musing on this para for a while.
I don't really think that it adds anything to the article as there's a big section on research and restoration below. It's also a little POV (created by the heritage industry, realistically it was restored not created). The other problem is that the 'historian' isn't quite the noteworthy source you may expect when reading it - he's an archaeology student. If he was an author or archaeologist maybe, but a student interviewed for an article doesn't seem like someone who should be referenced for such a statement. Any thoughts on just deleting this section? Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
For consideration --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 12:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Jones, Dan; Freeman, Michael (October 2008),
"New Light on Stonehenge",
Smithsonian, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 36–46,
ISSN
0037-7333, retrieved 2008-10-26, (subtitle) The first dig in 44 years within the inner circle changes our view of why—and even when—the monument was built
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
editprotected}}
Please add an interwiki link for the
Macedonian version. Thank you.“ —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Тиверополник (
talk)
12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
for semi protected articles in the future. Thanks,
Amalthea
12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This article does not meet the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:
Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request for indefinite semi protection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection , seeing as every time I look at the page someone has just reverted another vandals work! On that subject does anyone know how you revert an edit as vandalism? The only option I see is to undo, but that doesn't classify it as vandalism - or is it only something admins can do? Cheers Psychostevouk ( talk) 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Put in a fresh request for semi protection. On the same note, thanks for the tips above - just noticed (8 months too late) that I never replied! Ranger Steve ( talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This talk page could do with archiving of old sections. Unless someone wants to do this manually I'll add a bot (werdnabot). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that external link comprehensively fails External Links to be avoided, specifically, points 1, 8, 11, and 13. Its just a gallery of heritage sites across the country, and isn't even Stonehenge specific. It doesn't do anything to make you feel like you're there, anymore than other images already available. Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
From Stonehenge#Function and construction:
“ | at great historical remove from the first cultures that did leave written records | ” |
What does that even mean? "at great historical remove"? It was added on February 21, 2008. TerraFrost ( talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Edgy01, but I've removed the section you added. It largely replicated info already in the article but in too much detail, and was bordering on WP:OR, especially as no sources were used. I must say I do like the photo though. If you uploaded a high res version I think it could be a featured image, although it might be better placed in the Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge or Cultural depictions of Stonehenge articles. What do you think? Ranger Steve ( talk) 07:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I visited Stonehenge via Google Maps. Very interesting. The monument is, of course, clearly visible in the aerial or satellite view as are people on the path around it. The avenue to the northeast is clearly delineated. I noticed what appears to be another avenue running off to the SSW from the monument that peters out short of the A303. Across the A303 just in from a little access road is a circular feature just visible in the tilled field. Are these things people know about? I don't see a mention of the avenue running SSW in the article. Are they ancient or modern? Has anyone done any kind of aerial survey of the area around Stonehenge? All kinds of things show up when viewed from above. -- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Stonehenge has been talked about, written about, painted, etc. for centuries, how about a section listing cultural references? I'll give one to start: Stonehenge appears in Michael Elliott's 1983 film version of King Lear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.218.49 ( talk) 04:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
CNN article says that a new stone circle named "Bluestonehenge" was unearthed which gives further credence that it was used as a cemetery. Tommy talk 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As a tangent (modern culture reference?) Stonehenge has been used as basis for a [pocket watch http://www.retrothing.com/2005/09/the_druids_pock.html] --18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(further ref Stonehenge Decoded by Gerald S Hawkins; note, others say the rings ab stonehenge rep the solar system w rangs at locations of each of 9 planets - lil corna stone jr 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
In 2009 a petition was started on the Prime Ministers website, calling for the stones to be restored to Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.212.210 ( talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't link to it because Wiki's filters don't like the word petition in the address, but if you go here, go to 'communicate' and then 'petitions' and type 'restore stonehenge' into the search bar, you'll find it. Someone obviously takes it seriously, but doesn't seem to realise that a) not all the stones came from Wales, b) those stones may not even have been in Wales in the Neolithic, c) we've no idea whether they were taken fairly or not, and d) it ain't ever gonna happen. I suspect the IP is the petition starter, seeing as when he posted this no-one else had signed up to it (5 have now - five!) and I don't know if they seriously think this is something that should be included in the article, but they should see point d above for clarification. I think it's just spam, but I didn't initially delete it in case anyone thought there was some element of seriousness to it. Ranger Steve ( talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough I didn't find that one but did find this which would make an interesting addition.
A licence for the removal of human remains at Stonehenge was granted by the Ministry of Justice in May 2008. One of the conditions of the licence was that the remains should be reinterred within two years and that in the intervening period they should be kept safely, privately and decently.
Is this referring to the cremated remains mentioned at the end of the article? Richerman ( talk) 10:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit introduces, before the attested history of the site, writings of Diodorus Siculus describing a temple to Apollo in an island in the north. 20th century (1905) writer Charles Squire confidently identifies this temple as Stonehenge. However Squire's work is usually described as "fiction", which would disqualify it as a WP:RS here. Even if acceptable, the prominence of the account within the article may not comply with WP:UNDUE. Views? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't comment on your dealings with other editors, but I don't think anyone is attacking you personally here and I can assure you I'm not. As I said, I just think this material is not best used here. The link is, as I said, oft cited and reliable sources do exist. Chippendale mentions it, and I believe Julian Richards may in one of his books. However, it is a theory - Chippendale explicitly states that too. As such I think it suits Theories about Stonehenge, so please feel free to add it there. Everything after the ref looks a bit OR though, so if you can more explicitly ref it that would be better. It might also warrant a line (and no more) on this page if we get a section on the first known references to the monument in literature or art.
Without wishing to get involved in any disputes you may have with other editors on this site, I might suggest that using terms like Nazi isn't that helpful. I like to think we're all trying to make use of literature - not burn it! Regards, Ranger Steve ( talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
With articles like Stonehenge and other ancient/mythical sites, it can be very easy to inadvertently wander into OR, especially when quite obvious links can be made, as in this case. However, whether we like it or not, someone else needs to have made this link first, so that we can 'report' it. Accordingly I've made some edits to the Theories article James. I've added some refs to give it some more weight (I can't find any mention in my Richards' books though I'm sure I've read it in one of them). However I can only ref what the articles say, and the weight of that is on whether the Temple of Apollo is Stonehenge or not. Regarding its possible calendar use, I've added fact tags in the hope you can fill them. The first tag is, I suspect, reference-able to the first citation in the preceding paragraph, but I thought you'd better confirm that as I can't be sure. The second tag is where I think we may be dipping into OR. James, you're quite right in the idea that this may suggest the Greeks thought it had a calendar use, but unless you can reference that to a reliable source, I'm afraid it shouldn't be included. I've also put the info into a new section and removed a rather harsh refimprove tag, especially given that whole sections of that article are unreferenced.
A couple of other points. 1) its Stonehenge, not Stone Henge, although many texts also make the same mistake. I have seen a lot worse as well! 2) The processional way, the Stonehenge Avenue has been known about for centuries, although recently the Stonehenge Riverside Project has uncovered another small Avenue at Durrington Walls, which suggests that the River Avon was a connection between the monuments. I'm not aware of the line in the writings, but if you add it I reckon it can be incorporated in a non OR way. 3) I agree that Wiki shouldn't be a work in progress and I wouldn't want to not add something for lack of an appropriate space... but I don't know where to add a line in this article without it looking out of place! I think this article could use a section on references in literature, somewhere to appropriately ref the caption to the Merlin picture, a bit on Monmouth, Constable, Turner, that sort of thing. I think that worded correctly this would make a good opening sentence for such a section. Ranger Steve ( talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I read in some book many many years ago that when they re-discovered Stonehenge in the 1700s, 1800s, early 1900s or whatever that many stones (or all of them) were collapsed. Then people started "restoring" the monument in what they thought was the original and correct form. How did they know if they were reconstructing and restoring the monument correctly to what it was originally? What if Stonehenge looked completely different originally and people just started stacking stones up randomly like dominoes for all we know? I'm hoping maybe someone who is knowledgeable enough in the topic could explain this. Wickland ( talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Should this be made permanent for this article? The vandalism is frequent and persistent. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i'm sorry if it is mentioned in the article, but i haven't saw the answers.
Is it known WHO and built it, and why?
are there places that look like this one?
is it known that it was built in Ireland, and not known how was it move, or is the part that it was built in Ireland is also a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.242.36 ( talk) 19:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a section explaining what the Roman's made of Stonehenge when they arrived, if anything is known of this? If not then perhaps it can be said that the Romans made no mention of stonehenge. LastDodo ( talk) 10:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. Gentlemen, this article is hard to read. Continual mentions of new terms and bombardment by Stonehenge specific-vocabulary is making it inaccessible, whereas, if I understand correctly, Wikipedia exists for the public to read. I suggest splitting up the main article into a more generic Introduction, which can answer general questions (e.g. Stonehenge was built over several hundred years by different groups of people for more details on the Phases of Stonehenge Construction see the article by the same name which goes into more depth, etc.) and a in-depth section, That's what I think after stumbling onto the article for the first time. My curiosity is piqued, but it needs to be made more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.175.233 ( talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that a lot of other pages concerning historical monuments have a popular culture section detailing the monument in modern texts/films/TV and so on. Would it be beneficial to add such a section here? ( Talk) 00:08, 05 July 2010 (UTC)
Research and scholarship has moved on since the article linked in this addition was written and it now seems of little relevance. Suggest RV, again. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 08:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on the stone circle states that a complete circle would have 30 vertical and 30 horizontal stones, but later a number of 59 total stones is given. Shouldn't the later numbers be 60 for the circle and 75 total rather than 59 and 74? I'm changing it, but the current numbers have stood for a while now, and so I'm wondering if I've missed something. Speight ( talk) 06:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Per this comment on my talk page:
Hi. Please refrain from making edits which make the article worse. Please give me your rationale for the edits you made. --John (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll explain why I've made such "poor" edits. For one, the removal of links and icons from the infobox made by John was done without any consensus, either here, at the talk page for the relevant infobox ( Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site), or at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). This has been discussed already and I'm afraid that John's edit really does appear to be along the same lines as he used at the last chat (ie. he doesn't like them). While I'm happy to have a good chat about icons in WHS infoboxes, ignoring a discussion previously had and making changes without further explanation is, I'm afraid, disruptive.
Secondly, I have reversed John's blanket removal of the word 'however' from the article (without reverting the overlinking I might add). I'm afraid I really don't understand the reasoning for removing it in the first place - perhaps he'd care to explain? There is probably a better place to have such a conversation though, given that I notice he has used his own rationale to blanket delete the word from a great many articles.
I welcome other editor's input but I won't be engaging in much discussion here. John managed to be mildly offensive last time I had any dealing with him (breaching 2 or 3 parts of wp:civility if I recall correctly). Here he's already managed to accuse me of deliberately making the article worse and describe all of the interested editor's English as 'turgid'. Charming. Ranger Steve Talk 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, with my vote for keep, that's 3-1. (Nev1 may be in favour, but I can't be sure). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that this is your perception. My perception is that I made some edits to this page in line with policy and that you in particular have been rude, first in reverting and then in your failure to respond to my concerns, instead making comments like "poor edits". Here are those concerns again, so they are fresh in your mind in case you want to answer them, instead of sharing your theories about my own motivation for wanting to improve the article.
Concern one: what does the flag add to the reader's understanding of the subject? WP:MOSFLAG recommends not using flags like this as they give undue weight to the current nation-state something is associated with. It looks particularly daft on this article, as Stonehenge predates the establishment of the UK by a few years. Why link and use a long form of the country name? WP:OVERLINK suggests not linking country names but instead using links to focus readers towards useful targets. What is there at the United Kingdom article which will enhance understanding of this topic? I am not seeing it.
Concern two: I think we all agree the writing is sub-optimal. How can it best be improved? If there are strong feelings that the many howevers are essential for the reader to understand, why do you think this is? I am assuming you do hold this view as you reverted my attempt to improve the language. -- John ( talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Stonehenge is called a 'prehistoric monument'. However it isn't prehistoric as this term refers to history before writing was invented by the Sumerians around 3500BC and stonehenge is thought to have been built around 2800BC. Although dates on wikipedia may vary from books i've read it reinforces that the invention of writing came before the building of stonehenge and the definition of prehistoric. Hope to see a change soon. Thank you, Zoe.
88.202.192.130 ( talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What does the flag add here? What do all the sloppy howevers add? Absent a compelling rationale, they need to go. -- John ( talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone explain the significance of this edit— The Pleiades in 603 BC at Kokino observatory—to this puzzled reader? Thanks. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting theory in current (March April) issue of British Archaeology: The one with archaeological evidence to support it describes how carved stone or oak ball bearings running in grooved oak tracks could have been used to move the stones. The article will probably be placed online in due course. Is it strong to enough to overcome editors' understandable reluctance to add yet another piece of speculation from a university department of archaeology?-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the cause of smooth readability, please, please could we have a comma, only one little comma, after "stone 53"? Or preferably a semicolon after 53 then delete the following "and". Or simply put a period (full-stop) after 53 and delete the "and". L0ngpar1sh ( talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Did Celtic people build stonehenge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.144.218 ( talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Stonehenge-elipse.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 July 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for this edit. I was wondering why I never noticed that link, and I found you had just now added it. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Open the Stonehenge article by describing the monument. I wanted to know how tall the stones are, and how heavy, because otherwise the question of how they were transported to the site is moot.
Lacking this basic information, the article is poor.
67.217.126.250 ( talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Is Stonehenge mentioned in any ancient Roman documents? If so, this should be mentioned. Dynzmoar ( talk) 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere is this mentioned in the article yet there were bones buried there belonging to people who came from other regions. This might suggest that slaves were taken by the people (or wound up among the people) who "ran" Stonehenge. Human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Europe, certainly in the Iron Age and it may have happened (and probably did) at Stonehenge too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.232 ( talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Although no tools were found, most people would not leave such a valuable item behind, obviously they were master craftsmen who built this, but I think there maybe other circles buried around there, and I think its much easier to build that we consider, but ingenious to consider they did it 3000 years ago before Google. To cut the rock use the rock itself, then get two nice bulls (ox) can easily pull 100ton and pull the thing all the way from Wales. They would of had to all sit down and plan this somehow, not just one person saying do this do that, hence they had to think how, i think they used what was already there from earlier, borrowed a bit and went looking for other bits, chipped away, used wood to expand and split the rock and then tied it to the back of an ox or two maybe more and dragged it over land all the way. Then fixed the rocks. Why? well the ancient carvings are a sword and an axe, to me that sounds like religious sacrifice, the axe being a very strong symbol in ancient times of religion, the sword being of sacrifice, to find them carved on the rock suggests sacrifice to me. The fact people from france and germany were found there to me suggests they got to close, the locals executed them in ritual sacrifice being outsiders. And i think the ice age helped a bit for earlier stones being deposited there, but its just a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.2.54 ( talk) 02:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Actual coordinates should be: 51 12 44 -1 51 32 -- 108.225.234.26 ( talk) 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the article has too many photographs taken at around ground level when it needs an aerial picture showing its circular shape. One I transcluded was deleted last August. File:Stonehenge_-_Wiltonia_sive_Comitatus_Wiltoniensis;_Anglice_Wilshire_(Atlas_van_Loon).jpg is the only such picture in the article, but seems to contain much artistic licence.
I couldn't find any on Commons or Wikipedia, so anyone with a plane, helicopter, balloon or kite camera willing? :)
Meanwhile, the render on the right gives a superb visualisation of its alignment and original appearance. File:Knight-Stonehenge-Perspective-eleveation-restored-q40-2323x888.jpg is not too bad, as well. cmɢʟee ☎ ✉ 17:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is closed for editing`("protected"), therefore I could not fix the problem: Mike Parker Pearson, mentioned in it as leader of the Stonehenge project, needs to be highlighted (hyperlinked) in the text as tbere is a Wikipedia article on him (plus an entry on the University of Sheffield Home Page). Also, the Bibliography should include at least one of his publications. So who would open the article for editing again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgissan ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
independent and bbc reports regarding english heritage laser scan - revealing many more early bronze age carvings of upward facing axe blades and a few downward facing daggers. probably needs to update this article too Laser_scanning_at_Stonehenge EdwardLane ( talk) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't really discussed, but Rees cyclopaedia in early 19th century has a diagram of a proposed reconstruction on a plate in the 4th volume http://archive.org/stream/cyclopaediaplates04rees#page/n277/mode/2up Crock8 ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The large leaning stone in the center, when did this fall? Does anyone know? It now lays on its side. -- 76.105.145.143 ( talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
stonehenge complex is material manifestation of mystic vision as manifested in indo europian language of vedic sanskrit in hymns of rig veda book 10.15.18 griffith's translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.80.64 ( talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this article still a C class? If so, what can be done to upgrade it to at least an A? Bailo26 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The article lacks an aerial photograph. All the ground level ones don't show the arrangement of the stones.
The one on the right is labelled "No known copyright restrictions" by SDASM themselves on its source page, so is that a good one to use? No information about when it was taken is available (the 2012 date specified is likely the date of reproduction of the original).
If satisfactory, I can spruce it up and include a crop in the article.
Thanks, cmɢʟee ୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
There are some photos making their rounds on the internet showing Stonehenge was being reconstructed in 1954, not 1958 as the Wiki article states. See: http://www.amazfacts.com/2013/01/stonehenge-construction-in-1954-108-pics.html and: http://ispank.me/214-stonehenge-construction-in-1954.html Should these unique photos be linked in the Stonehenge article, and also, what was the actual year of reconstruction? 1954 or 1958? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthProvider ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Been musing on this para for a while.
I don't really think that it adds anything to the article as there's a big section on research and restoration below. It's also a little POV (created by the heritage industry, realistically it was restored not created). The other problem is that the 'historian' isn't quite the noteworthy source you may expect when reading it - he's an archaeology student. If he was an author or archaeologist maybe, but a student interviewed for an article doesn't seem like someone who should be referenced for such a statement. Any thoughts on just deleting this section? Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
For consideration --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 12:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Jones, Dan; Freeman, Michael (October 2008),
"New Light on Stonehenge",
Smithsonian, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 36–46,
ISSN
0037-7333, retrieved 2008-10-26, (subtitle) The first dig in 44 years within the inner circle changes our view of why—and even when—the monument was built
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
editprotected}}
Please add an interwiki link for the
Macedonian version. Thank you.“ —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Тиверополник (
talk)
12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
for semi protected articles in the future. Thanks,
Amalthea
12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This article does not meet the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:
Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request for indefinite semi protection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection , seeing as every time I look at the page someone has just reverted another vandals work! On that subject does anyone know how you revert an edit as vandalism? The only option I see is to undo, but that doesn't classify it as vandalism - or is it only something admins can do? Cheers Psychostevouk ( talk) 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Put in a fresh request for semi protection. On the same note, thanks for the tips above - just noticed (8 months too late) that I never replied! Ranger Steve ( talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This talk page could do with archiving of old sections. Unless someone wants to do this manually I'll add a bot (werdnabot). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that external link comprehensively fails External Links to be avoided, specifically, points 1, 8, 11, and 13. Its just a gallery of heritage sites across the country, and isn't even Stonehenge specific. It doesn't do anything to make you feel like you're there, anymore than other images already available. Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
From Stonehenge#Function and construction:
“ | at great historical remove from the first cultures that did leave written records | ” |
What does that even mean? "at great historical remove"? It was added on February 21, 2008. TerraFrost ( talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Edgy01, but I've removed the section you added. It largely replicated info already in the article but in too much detail, and was bordering on WP:OR, especially as no sources were used. I must say I do like the photo though. If you uploaded a high res version I think it could be a featured image, although it might be better placed in the Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge or Cultural depictions of Stonehenge articles. What do you think? Ranger Steve ( talk) 07:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I visited Stonehenge via Google Maps. Very interesting. The monument is, of course, clearly visible in the aerial or satellite view as are people on the path around it. The avenue to the northeast is clearly delineated. I noticed what appears to be another avenue running off to the SSW from the monument that peters out short of the A303. Across the A303 just in from a little access road is a circular feature just visible in the tilled field. Are these things people know about? I don't see a mention of the avenue running SSW in the article. Are they ancient or modern? Has anyone done any kind of aerial survey of the area around Stonehenge? All kinds of things show up when viewed from above. -- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Since Stonehenge has been talked about, written about, painted, etc. for centuries, how about a section listing cultural references? I'll give one to start: Stonehenge appears in Michael Elliott's 1983 film version of King Lear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.218.49 ( talk) 04:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
CNN article says that a new stone circle named "Bluestonehenge" was unearthed which gives further credence that it was used as a cemetery. Tommy talk 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As a tangent (modern culture reference?) Stonehenge has been used as basis for a [pocket watch http://www.retrothing.com/2005/09/the_druids_pock.html] --18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(further ref Stonehenge Decoded by Gerald S Hawkins; note, others say the rings ab stonehenge rep the solar system w rangs at locations of each of 9 planets - lil corna stone jr 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
In 2009 a petition was started on the Prime Ministers website, calling for the stones to be restored to Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.212.210 ( talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't link to it because Wiki's filters don't like the word petition in the address, but if you go here, go to 'communicate' and then 'petitions' and type 'restore stonehenge' into the search bar, you'll find it. Someone obviously takes it seriously, but doesn't seem to realise that a) not all the stones came from Wales, b) those stones may not even have been in Wales in the Neolithic, c) we've no idea whether they were taken fairly or not, and d) it ain't ever gonna happen. I suspect the IP is the petition starter, seeing as when he posted this no-one else had signed up to it (5 have now - five!) and I don't know if they seriously think this is something that should be included in the article, but they should see point d above for clarification. I think it's just spam, but I didn't initially delete it in case anyone thought there was some element of seriousness to it. Ranger Steve ( talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough I didn't find that one but did find this which would make an interesting addition.
A licence for the removal of human remains at Stonehenge was granted by the Ministry of Justice in May 2008. One of the conditions of the licence was that the remains should be reinterred within two years and that in the intervening period they should be kept safely, privately and decently.
Is this referring to the cremated remains mentioned at the end of the article? Richerman ( talk) 10:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit introduces, before the attested history of the site, writings of Diodorus Siculus describing a temple to Apollo in an island in the north. 20th century (1905) writer Charles Squire confidently identifies this temple as Stonehenge. However Squire's work is usually described as "fiction", which would disqualify it as a WP:RS here. Even if acceptable, the prominence of the account within the article may not comply with WP:UNDUE. Views? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't comment on your dealings with other editors, but I don't think anyone is attacking you personally here and I can assure you I'm not. As I said, I just think this material is not best used here. The link is, as I said, oft cited and reliable sources do exist. Chippendale mentions it, and I believe Julian Richards may in one of his books. However, it is a theory - Chippendale explicitly states that too. As such I think it suits Theories about Stonehenge, so please feel free to add it there. Everything after the ref looks a bit OR though, so if you can more explicitly ref it that would be better. It might also warrant a line (and no more) on this page if we get a section on the first known references to the monument in literature or art.
Without wishing to get involved in any disputes you may have with other editors on this site, I might suggest that using terms like Nazi isn't that helpful. I like to think we're all trying to make use of literature - not burn it! Regards, Ranger Steve ( talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
With articles like Stonehenge and other ancient/mythical sites, it can be very easy to inadvertently wander into OR, especially when quite obvious links can be made, as in this case. However, whether we like it or not, someone else needs to have made this link first, so that we can 'report' it. Accordingly I've made some edits to the Theories article James. I've added some refs to give it some more weight (I can't find any mention in my Richards' books though I'm sure I've read it in one of them). However I can only ref what the articles say, and the weight of that is on whether the Temple of Apollo is Stonehenge or not. Regarding its possible calendar use, I've added fact tags in the hope you can fill them. The first tag is, I suspect, reference-able to the first citation in the preceding paragraph, but I thought you'd better confirm that as I can't be sure. The second tag is where I think we may be dipping into OR. James, you're quite right in the idea that this may suggest the Greeks thought it had a calendar use, but unless you can reference that to a reliable source, I'm afraid it shouldn't be included. I've also put the info into a new section and removed a rather harsh refimprove tag, especially given that whole sections of that article are unreferenced.
A couple of other points. 1) its Stonehenge, not Stone Henge, although many texts also make the same mistake. I have seen a lot worse as well! 2) The processional way, the Stonehenge Avenue has been known about for centuries, although recently the Stonehenge Riverside Project has uncovered another small Avenue at Durrington Walls, which suggests that the River Avon was a connection between the monuments. I'm not aware of the line in the writings, but if you add it I reckon it can be incorporated in a non OR way. 3) I agree that Wiki shouldn't be a work in progress and I wouldn't want to not add something for lack of an appropriate space... but I don't know where to add a line in this article without it looking out of place! I think this article could use a section on references in literature, somewhere to appropriately ref the caption to the Merlin picture, a bit on Monmouth, Constable, Turner, that sort of thing. I think that worded correctly this would make a good opening sentence for such a section. Ranger Steve ( talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I read in some book many many years ago that when they re-discovered Stonehenge in the 1700s, 1800s, early 1900s or whatever that many stones (or all of them) were collapsed. Then people started "restoring" the monument in what they thought was the original and correct form. How did they know if they were reconstructing and restoring the monument correctly to what it was originally? What if Stonehenge looked completely different originally and people just started stacking stones up randomly like dominoes for all we know? I'm hoping maybe someone who is knowledgeable enough in the topic could explain this. Wickland ( talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Should this be made permanent for this article? The vandalism is frequent and persistent. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i'm sorry if it is mentioned in the article, but i haven't saw the answers.
Is it known WHO and built it, and why?
are there places that look like this one?
is it known that it was built in Ireland, and not known how was it move, or is the part that it was built in Ireland is also a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.242.36 ( talk) 19:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a section explaining what the Roman's made of Stonehenge when they arrived, if anything is known of this? If not then perhaps it can be said that the Romans made no mention of stonehenge. LastDodo ( talk) 10:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. Gentlemen, this article is hard to read. Continual mentions of new terms and bombardment by Stonehenge specific-vocabulary is making it inaccessible, whereas, if I understand correctly, Wikipedia exists for the public to read. I suggest splitting up the main article into a more generic Introduction, which can answer general questions (e.g. Stonehenge was built over several hundred years by different groups of people for more details on the Phases of Stonehenge Construction see the article by the same name which goes into more depth, etc.) and a in-depth section, That's what I think after stumbling onto the article for the first time. My curiosity is piqued, but it needs to be made more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.175.233 ( talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that a lot of other pages concerning historical monuments have a popular culture section detailing the monument in modern texts/films/TV and so on. Would it be beneficial to add such a section here? ( Talk) 00:08, 05 July 2010 (UTC)
Research and scholarship has moved on since the article linked in this addition was written and it now seems of little relevance. Suggest RV, again. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 08:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller ( talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on the stone circle states that a complete circle would have 30 vertical and 30 horizontal stones, but later a number of 59 total stones is given. Shouldn't the later numbers be 60 for the circle and 75 total rather than 59 and 74? I'm changing it, but the current numbers have stood for a while now, and so I'm wondering if I've missed something. Speight ( talk) 06:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Per this comment on my talk page:
Hi. Please refrain from making edits which make the article worse. Please give me your rationale for the edits you made. --John (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll explain why I've made such "poor" edits. For one, the removal of links and icons from the infobox made by John was done without any consensus, either here, at the talk page for the relevant infobox ( Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site), or at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). This has been discussed already and I'm afraid that John's edit really does appear to be along the same lines as he used at the last chat (ie. he doesn't like them). While I'm happy to have a good chat about icons in WHS infoboxes, ignoring a discussion previously had and making changes without further explanation is, I'm afraid, disruptive.
Secondly, I have reversed John's blanket removal of the word 'however' from the article (without reverting the overlinking I might add). I'm afraid I really don't understand the reasoning for removing it in the first place - perhaps he'd care to explain? There is probably a better place to have such a conversation though, given that I notice he has used his own rationale to blanket delete the word from a great many articles.
I welcome other editor's input but I won't be engaging in much discussion here. John managed to be mildly offensive last time I had any dealing with him (breaching 2 or 3 parts of wp:civility if I recall correctly). Here he's already managed to accuse me of deliberately making the article worse and describe all of the interested editor's English as 'turgid'. Charming. Ranger Steve Talk 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, with my vote for keep, that's 3-1. (Nev1 may be in favour, but I can't be sure). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that this is your perception. My perception is that I made some edits to this page in line with policy and that you in particular have been rude, first in reverting and then in your failure to respond to my concerns, instead making comments like "poor edits". Here are those concerns again, so they are fresh in your mind in case you want to answer them, instead of sharing your theories about my own motivation for wanting to improve the article.
Concern one: what does the flag add to the reader's understanding of the subject? WP:MOSFLAG recommends not using flags like this as they give undue weight to the current nation-state something is associated with. It looks particularly daft on this article, as Stonehenge predates the establishment of the UK by a few years. Why link and use a long form of the country name? WP:OVERLINK suggests not linking country names but instead using links to focus readers towards useful targets. What is there at the United Kingdom article which will enhance understanding of this topic? I am not seeing it.
Concern two: I think we all agree the writing is sub-optimal. How can it best be improved? If there are strong feelings that the many howevers are essential for the reader to understand, why do you think this is? I am assuming you do hold this view as you reverted my attempt to improve the language. -- John ( talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Stonehenge is called a 'prehistoric monument'. However it isn't prehistoric as this term refers to history before writing was invented by the Sumerians around 3500BC and stonehenge is thought to have been built around 2800BC. Although dates on wikipedia may vary from books i've read it reinforces that the invention of writing came before the building of stonehenge and the definition of prehistoric. Hope to see a change soon. Thank you, Zoe.
88.202.192.130 ( talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What does the flag add here? What do all the sloppy howevers add? Absent a compelling rationale, they need to go. -- John ( talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone explain the significance of this edit— The Pleiades in 603 BC at Kokino observatory—to this puzzled reader? Thanks. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting theory in current (March April) issue of British Archaeology: The one with archaeological evidence to support it describes how carved stone or oak ball bearings running in grooved oak tracks could have been used to move the stones. The article will probably be placed online in due course. Is it strong to enough to overcome editors' understandable reluctance to add yet another piece of speculation from a university department of archaeology?-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the cause of smooth readability, please, please could we have a comma, only one little comma, after "stone 53"? Or preferably a semicolon after 53 then delete the following "and". Or simply put a period (full-stop) after 53 and delete the "and". L0ngpar1sh ( talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Did Celtic people build stonehenge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.144.218 ( talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Stonehenge-elipse.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 July 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for this edit. I was wondering why I never noticed that link, and I found you had just now added it. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Open the Stonehenge article by describing the monument. I wanted to know how tall the stones are, and how heavy, because otherwise the question of how they were transported to the site is moot.
Lacking this basic information, the article is poor.
67.217.126.250 ( talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Is Stonehenge mentioned in any ancient Roman documents? If so, this should be mentioned. Dynzmoar ( talk) 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere is this mentioned in the article yet there were bones buried there belonging to people who came from other regions. This might suggest that slaves were taken by the people (or wound up among the people) who "ran" Stonehenge. Human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Europe, certainly in the Iron Age and it may have happened (and probably did) at Stonehenge too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.232 ( talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Although no tools were found, most people would not leave such a valuable item behind, obviously they were master craftsmen who built this, but I think there maybe other circles buried around there, and I think its much easier to build that we consider, but ingenious to consider they did it 3000 years ago before Google. To cut the rock use the rock itself, then get two nice bulls (ox) can easily pull 100ton and pull the thing all the way from Wales. They would of had to all sit down and plan this somehow, not just one person saying do this do that, hence they had to think how, i think they used what was already there from earlier, borrowed a bit and went looking for other bits, chipped away, used wood to expand and split the rock and then tied it to the back of an ox or two maybe more and dragged it over land all the way. Then fixed the rocks. Why? well the ancient carvings are a sword and an axe, to me that sounds like religious sacrifice, the axe being a very strong symbol in ancient times of religion, the sword being of sacrifice, to find them carved on the rock suggests sacrifice to me. The fact people from france and germany were found there to me suggests they got to close, the locals executed them in ritual sacrifice being outsiders. And i think the ice age helped a bit for earlier stones being deposited there, but its just a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.2.54 ( talk) 02:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Actual coordinates should be: 51 12 44 -1 51 32 -- 108.225.234.26 ( talk) 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the article has too many photographs taken at around ground level when it needs an aerial picture showing its circular shape. One I transcluded was deleted last August. File:Stonehenge_-_Wiltonia_sive_Comitatus_Wiltoniensis;_Anglice_Wilshire_(Atlas_van_Loon).jpg is the only such picture in the article, but seems to contain much artistic licence.
I couldn't find any on Commons or Wikipedia, so anyone with a plane, helicopter, balloon or kite camera willing? :)
Meanwhile, the render on the right gives a superb visualisation of its alignment and original appearance. File:Knight-Stonehenge-Perspective-eleveation-restored-q40-2323x888.jpg is not too bad, as well. cmɢʟee ☎ ✉ 17:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is closed for editing`("protected"), therefore I could not fix the problem: Mike Parker Pearson, mentioned in it as leader of the Stonehenge project, needs to be highlighted (hyperlinked) in the text as tbere is a Wikipedia article on him (plus an entry on the University of Sheffield Home Page). Also, the Bibliography should include at least one of his publications. So who would open the article for editing again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgissan ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
independent and bbc reports regarding english heritage laser scan - revealing many more early bronze age carvings of upward facing axe blades and a few downward facing daggers. probably needs to update this article too Laser_scanning_at_Stonehenge EdwardLane ( talk) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't really discussed, but Rees cyclopaedia in early 19th century has a diagram of a proposed reconstruction on a plate in the 4th volume http://archive.org/stream/cyclopaediaplates04rees#page/n277/mode/2up Crock8 ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The large leaning stone in the center, when did this fall? Does anyone know? It now lays on its side. -- 76.105.145.143 ( talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
stonehenge complex is material manifestation of mystic vision as manifested in indo europian language of vedic sanskrit in hymns of rig veda book 10.15.18 griffith's translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.80.64 ( talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this article still a C class? If so, what can be done to upgrade it to at least an A? Bailo26 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The article lacks an aerial photograph. All the ground level ones don't show the arrangement of the stones.
The one on the right is labelled "No known copyright restrictions" by SDASM themselves on its source page, so is that a good one to use? No information about when it was taken is available (the 2012 date specified is likely the date of reproduction of the original).
If satisfactory, I can spruce it up and include a crop in the article.
Thanks, cmɢʟee ୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
There are some photos making their rounds on the internet showing Stonehenge was being reconstructed in 1954, not 1958 as the Wiki article states. See: http://www.amazfacts.com/2013/01/stonehenge-construction-in-1954-108-pics.html and: http://ispank.me/214-stonehenge-construction-in-1954.html Should these unique photos be linked in the Stonehenge article, and also, what was the actual year of reconstruction? 1954 or 1958? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthProvider ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)