![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a geological diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
The following external links were deleted from the article, under rule Wikipedia:ELNO:
I propose to restore them under rule Wikipedia:ELMAYBE, item 4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Take for example site #1. While one may question their interpretation of the structure, the site contains a lot of factual information (including many photos of the structure) which is useful and, as far as I can tell, as accurate as one can get. Likewise, Robert Schoch's page (site #3) is a report by one of the few geologists who have studied the structure firsthand. One may not agree with his opinions either (which, by the way, are mostly opposite to those of sites #1 and #2); but, if his report is not source worth citing, then which one is?
When asked for "Yonaguni monument", Google will give a long list of sites, most of them being random hey-look-at-this-cool-stuff scraps casually copied from other casual sites. The links above are are some of the "best" ones I could find in terms of being either close to the primary sources, or fairly extensive, or (at least) carefully edited and organized. Methinks that the benefits that readers may get out of those links far outweight their cost. If no one objects, I will put them back. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi I normally wouldn't like to use these sites however due to lack of attention from mainstream academics I think it would be better to present the best information available and include a disclaimer. There have been some compaints about censorship at wikipedia most of which don't hold up after a close look but when we have a subject that is almost completely ignored by most of the academic community one way or another the fringe groups are going to get the attention of the public. This shouldn't be left to them the mainsteam acidemics should take a closer look and either confirm or debunk this. This is a solid structure that has lasted thousands of years we should be able to confirm the hard facts. As for it being a source already that isn't the most organized way to site external links. I see no problem with providing a external link to the main page. This way with the disclaimer wikipedia wouldn't be endorsing the sites or censoring them they would be inviting the public to draw their own conclusions. Also if people go directly to the fringe sites on their own they will never read the disclaimer and some may not doubt the fringe ideas. Also I changed the size of the monument the sources sited didn't mention the size and my source did but it was different. good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since no one has objected to my proposal I have put the external links back with a disclaimer. If any one disagrees with the wording of the disclaimer and would prefer a different that would be fine but I think the links should remain with some kind of disclaimer. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The only page you did leave is the one with the least amount of information. some of these pictures have been confimed by other sources but are not available online. As I implied before the only thing this acomplishes is to neglect the issue and censor the best information available about the subject. This actualy gives more credibility to the fringe beliefs (some of which are backed up by people with Phd degrees) once it is ignored since they are the only ones addressing this subject and the readers will no longer even read a disclaimer. I don't agree with all the conclusions they may have come up with either but I think the subject should be addressed in the most effective way possible which doesn't involve ignoring the issue. However I'm not going to push it. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings to all Yonaguni Monument readers and contributors. Speaking of the topic of external links, I was just surprised not to see any link to Wikipedia pages like Japan, Japanese History, Prehistory of Japan and the like. Furthermore, a link to Wikipedia Yonaguni Monument page is, I feel, definitely needed in those Wikipedia pages relating to "Japan". This is of course a geopolitical categorization, and therefore "Japan". Not being a prehistory specialist, I do not have any claims as to who built the monument. But as I have forgotten its name, and couldn't find the island on the map of Japan, I searched through the Japan-related pages of Wikipedia and could not find any link to the "japanese underwater monument", the phrase a later took to a search engine to see the name by which the place is called. Many thanks if this rings true to your ears. OnderOtcu ( talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) OnderOtcu ( talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I also see a problem in removing these external links especially because the underwater pictures being still one of the major sources and proof of a lot of details within the article. The problem I see lies in external links to a specific picture (regarding a certain fact) not being allowed directly within the text. Only references are allowed which then have to follow special rules. These rules were established for good reasons (like for example: only references of valid sources are allowed) but I think that especially written sources were in mind making these rules, cause the written word can easily be manipulated or wrongly cited. But in my opinion photos of certain monuments/structures/formations should be allowed as references regardless the web-source to proof a certain fact that is mentioned in the article (especially when these facts are marked with "citatation needed" and thus are threatened to be removed) if a topic is not covered enough with scientifically research (as mentioned by others before). Is this already theory finding or (more likely) original research? --
Weapon X (
talk,
contribs)
02:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Natural formation? hahaha. There is nothing similar above sea. this is a place submerged 8.000 years ago or more. Ancient carving and quarries spotted in the region. Misterious ancient drawings near theplace. The best pic and info links prohibited. Could be wikipedia be more closed minded?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Actualy most scientists put an earlier date of 10,000 BCE according to the article, the exception seems to be a result of carbon dating of marine life 6,000 year old which put a minimum date of 4,000 BCE but doesn't rule out a older date. So the Japanese scientists aren't diputing the older date Zacherystaylor ( talk) 14:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many sites that atract Pseudo archaeology interest but that doesn't make the site Pseudo archaeology just the Pseudo archaeologist Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The manner in which this section is written implies that Robert Schoch from Boston actually thinks it's an entirely natural structure. However the article on Schoch is quite different in tone, as it states:
He is also known for his research on the Yonaguni underwater "monuments," where he has dived on several occasions, beginning in 1997; his analysis of the formations is that it is a natural site modified by man to suit their needs. He has said that "We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."
This is a completely different conclusion to the statements on this page. Which article is therefore correct? Or in the tag I used, which one is not a POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.57 ( talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems caveat has again been removed? Halbared ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone point it out on google maps? Or at least give a description. The only directions given are to the Island, but nothing about which side of the island, how far out etc. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if I sound new, this is my first time using a Talk page. I am the user who added a few who? and citation needed tags, as well as tagged the article as having weasel words and needing further references last night. I did so under an IP as I was not logged in. I wanted to stop by this page and say that there is quite a few more instances of weasel words and lack of references, but I was hesitant to mark up the page further with even more in-text and article tags. Through reading over the article again it seems like there is a fair amount of original research within, but I don't feel I can make that call on my own, as I am still fairly new to editing on wikipedia. If anyone else who is more experienced would be open to going over the edits I did, and adding more of their own (either fixing the errors I tagged, or by further tagging of errors for others) it would be much appreciated. Lgnlint ( talk) 5:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is that there is no rubble at the bottom of the structure, so must have been removed in the distant past. Every natural structure like this has massive rubble around it, this site has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.146.130 ( talk) 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that "structure" can mean something built by people, I've replaced the word with "features" or "formations" depending upon the context. [1] Per NPOV and FRINGE, I don't think we should be suggesting the formations have been built. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello
I found an image which shows the debated structures a bit better and thought that it could perhaps be inserted into the article: https://jpninfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/real-yonaguni-monument-750.jpg
Thank you. Okama-San ( talk) 14:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The right quotation from the book is: "The Yonaguni Underwater Pyramid and associated structures found below water off southern Yonaguni continue above, where I have examined them extensively". Therefore Dr. Nunn doesn't seem to have ever examined underwater part personally. I would also assert that underwater photos of the site publicly available at the date when his book was written, and he might have used, were not of a good quality.
I have also compared my personal impressions and photos of the underwater site with a single image of the above-the-water site that was in the book. These are pretty much different.
Therefore I must assert that this article does not have any reliable source from any scientist who have ever visited (SCUBA dived) the site underwater who would claim that the structure is naturally formed without any human intervention. The wording should be edited accordingly. Melkov ( talk) 10:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
what's wrong with undermining a source that fails trivial fact-checking like thatYour personal belief that it undermines the source is the problem. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
1.Is there a rule that a request to take down a RS can not be an original research?
2.Do you insist that a trivial statement like: "Distance between points A and B is N km, link to map" is an original research not allowed on Wikipedia?
3.What's wrong with undermining a source that fails trivial fact-checking?- Melkov ( talk) 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to outline the book's content related to Yonaguni Monument for those who do not have quick access to the book itself. Nunn gives an overview of Kimura and Schoch opinions (we have these in our Wikipedia article), then proceeds with his own field research, then gives the conclusion we all know. The field research, in turn, is described in just two sentences, which I will quote here once again: "The Yonaguni Underwater Pyramid and associated structures found below water off southern Yonaguni continue above, where I have examined them extensively, and there seems no reason to suppose that they are artificial (Figure 7.2d)" and under Figure 7.2d: "The slate forming the Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures has been fashioned solely by natural processes". Figure 7.2d itself is a photo that is indeed (I verified that, anyone can, too) taken at Sanninudai.
Secondly I would like to outline the history of the passage about Nunn's opinion in our Wikipedia article. It was initially added by User:Doug Weller almost 8 and a half years ago. It already contained the misinterpretation that lead the reader into thinking that Nunn made an extensive study both onshore and below the water at Yonaguni Monument. Next one is the change by User:Goustien one year later who added info about "continuing into Sanninudai" to the article. This is what basically survived until last week (7 March 2019)
What is bad with having, for many years, a statement that inflates the value of Nunn's research? Dozens, maybe hundreds of tertiary content sites (including Q&A sites like Quora) copied or based their reports blindly on our Wikipedia article. That would lead many scientists to believe that the matter was already thoroughly investigated by some professor (Nunn) and the case is closed. They are discouraged to do any field research at the site of Yonaguni Monument that would support Natural generation hypothesis. This in turn brings the situation that the only thorough research that supports Natural generation we have at hands is of Schoch.
Meanwhile, sources that support Artificial generation continue to emerge, because, like I have mentioned, it is enough to dive at the site to make you believe that Yonaguni Monument is at least not completely natural.
This is the illustration of the way that trying to maintain the POV balance and neutrality by referring a relatively poor research and trying to inflate its value actually backslashes against the endangered POV you are trying to protect in the long term.
Finally let's turn to the "Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures" stuff. This is a mistaken statement in the book itself, that can be disproved by looking at the map. It further diminishes the value of Nunn's research. Leaving this matter unattended is as bad as previously having the value of the research inflated.
Explicitly stating (provided that map-supported statement is not an Original Research) that Nunn's research was taken in a wrong place would encourage the editors to find new better sources (if any) and the scientists to make some new research, which would improve the POV balance in the long term.
Conversely, trying to protect a source with low-quality information from being challenged will bring more harm in the long term. - Melkov ( talk) 00:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not definitively a monument, it is an example of Submarine Topography. So I suggest a rename to Yonaguni Island Submarine Topography Slatersteven ( talk) 14:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to find out who among the subscribers or accidental visitors of this talk page have actually been at the site that the article describes. Sorry for being slightly impudent, but I believe that an article about a tourist spot should mostly look as an article about a tourist spot, and to achieve that the people who have actually been there are best editors. Dive, Glass Boat or Snorkel, please. Melkov ( talk) 18:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that adding a statement that "Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument while providing a link to online (Google) maps" would be original research so should not be done.
Can I add a statement that Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument while providing a link to online (Google) maps? Melkov ( talk) 06:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Some people in the discussion above insist that it would be a WP:OR. This is the proposed link to use Google Maps here as a RS: https://goo.gl/maps/iqnxuu7kfv12
Any recommendations on how to link to g.maps in a better way are also welcome. Basically two problems: Sanninudai is only labeled in Japanese, サンニヌ台, which might limit the number of people who will understand the map just by looking at it; and inability to embed "measure distance" feature into the map URL so I resorted to using Route feature.
The state of Main Features section in its present form is somewhat frustrating because if a person diving at Y.M. would read this article before (or even after) the dive, they would have a hard time identifying the stuff they see on site with "Main Features" here.
Of course the edit that deleted commonly known names of the features is half-responsible for the trouble, but there's another problem: half of the features listed are just not there at Yonaguni Monument. On the other hand, at least one important feature, "Arch gate", is missing. The reference map would probably be this: [2], also this: [3] (図3). These schemes are also available in books of Prof. Kimura. I will try to find something useful in English later. Melkov ( talk) 06:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
To illustrate "Main features" we still don't have free images of these objects:
Too much weight is being given to FRINGE viewpoints. Restructuring and proper emphasis is needed. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
There might be even a problem with determining what's fringe hereHowso?
I made some rough, initial edits to get us moving in the right direction. Looking at the sources and their quality, it appears Kimura's claims are purely FRINGE in nature, and pseudoarchaeological per the Feagans article discussed above. If there are any reliable sources demonstrating otherwise, please point them out. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The first and primary claim made about the Yonaguni Formation, that it is an artificial, megalithic construction, is not upheld. Not if you’re a rational person who cares about evidence.
You will need to read this article. Does it follow from the article that claims of prof. Kimura are fringe theories or pseudoscience? Detailed discussion is above.
I suggest add this page to a pseudoscepticism page. Even Dougweller here dont denies he is hiding the truth. Why no clear pic of a NON rock formation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.205.239.98 ( talk) 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This section contains no statements by actual Archaeologists, should we rename the section? Quandoomni ( talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The major roadblock that that I have with working on this article is accessing papers. I have citations and a geologist friend willing to translate Japanese to English. The problem is obtaining actual copies of the papers that go with the citations. I and others cannot find their text online and they are for practical purposes impossible to get by interlibrary loan. If someone could suggest how to get copies, it would be helpful. Specifically, I am at this time looking for someone with access to volume 22, no. 2, of 月刊地球. Paul H. ( talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
A monument is a structure erected to commemorate a notable person or event.
The Yonaguni Monument is not a monument, but a natural formation. Any objections to adding "so-called" to the lead sentence? [6] Hypnôs ( talk) 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Normally I just edit an article with missing information and just write it normally, but I see that over the years there's been a lot of debate over these issues so I'm opening a discussion.
First of all, although I think it was an honest mistake of an edit that accidentally dropped a paragraph out, and thus not a debate, I'm bringing it up here that Professor Masaaki Kimura original observations and impressions about the artifacts origin has been scrapped from the article completely. At first it is mentioned that Prof. Masaaki Kimura was sent to examine the artifacts, then there is a paragraph about its history, then we move straight to colleges opinions on its origin, some directly contradicting Prof. Kimura, yet at no point is mentioned what did he make of it all. Only by their responses to him, and later his reassessment report, we can learn what he published at first when the site was discovered. I believe it must be mentioned, and it probably was and mistakenly deleted. If there's such a previous paragraph I'd love to be redirect to it so it can be restored, or I can draft a new one.
Secondly, and most importantly, the headline under which Prof. Masaaki Kimura reassessment report is written. I think it is extremely disrespectful to put Prof. Kimura sayings under "Pseudoarcheology". Prof. Kimura is at least as respected and professional as his colleagues, and he does not fit under such insulting terms, as if he is a rouge YouTuber making false claim. In legal terms, as wild his claims may sound, the natural formation theory is as circumstantial as Prof. Kimura theory. So I would like the community approval to tone down the condescending approach to Prof. Kimura throughout the paragraph, as if his claims have any less proof as the counter argument of natural formation, and show this esteemed professor the respect he deserves. עידו כ.ש. ( talk) 02:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a geological diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
The following external links were deleted from the article, under rule Wikipedia:ELNO:
I propose to restore them under rule Wikipedia:ELMAYBE, item 4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Take for example site #1. While one may question their interpretation of the structure, the site contains a lot of factual information (including many photos of the structure) which is useful and, as far as I can tell, as accurate as one can get. Likewise, Robert Schoch's page (site #3) is a report by one of the few geologists who have studied the structure firsthand. One may not agree with his opinions either (which, by the way, are mostly opposite to those of sites #1 and #2); but, if his report is not source worth citing, then which one is?
When asked for "Yonaguni monument", Google will give a long list of sites, most of them being random hey-look-at-this-cool-stuff scraps casually copied from other casual sites. The links above are are some of the "best" ones I could find in terms of being either close to the primary sources, or fairly extensive, or (at least) carefully edited and organized. Methinks that the benefits that readers may get out of those links far outweight their cost. If no one objects, I will put them back. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi I normally wouldn't like to use these sites however due to lack of attention from mainstream academics I think it would be better to present the best information available and include a disclaimer. There have been some compaints about censorship at wikipedia most of which don't hold up after a close look but when we have a subject that is almost completely ignored by most of the academic community one way or another the fringe groups are going to get the attention of the public. This shouldn't be left to them the mainsteam acidemics should take a closer look and either confirm or debunk this. This is a solid structure that has lasted thousands of years we should be able to confirm the hard facts. As for it being a source already that isn't the most organized way to site external links. I see no problem with providing a external link to the main page. This way with the disclaimer wikipedia wouldn't be endorsing the sites or censoring them they would be inviting the public to draw their own conclusions. Also if people go directly to the fringe sites on their own they will never read the disclaimer and some may not doubt the fringe ideas. Also I changed the size of the monument the sources sited didn't mention the size and my source did but it was different. good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since no one has objected to my proposal I have put the external links back with a disclaimer. If any one disagrees with the wording of the disclaimer and would prefer a different that would be fine but I think the links should remain with some kind of disclaimer. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The only page you did leave is the one with the least amount of information. some of these pictures have been confimed by other sources but are not available online. As I implied before the only thing this acomplishes is to neglect the issue and censor the best information available about the subject. This actualy gives more credibility to the fringe beliefs (some of which are backed up by people with Phd degrees) once it is ignored since they are the only ones addressing this subject and the readers will no longer even read a disclaimer. I don't agree with all the conclusions they may have come up with either but I think the subject should be addressed in the most effective way possible which doesn't involve ignoring the issue. However I'm not going to push it. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings to all Yonaguni Monument readers and contributors. Speaking of the topic of external links, I was just surprised not to see any link to Wikipedia pages like Japan, Japanese History, Prehistory of Japan and the like. Furthermore, a link to Wikipedia Yonaguni Monument page is, I feel, definitely needed in those Wikipedia pages relating to "Japan". This is of course a geopolitical categorization, and therefore "Japan". Not being a prehistory specialist, I do not have any claims as to who built the monument. But as I have forgotten its name, and couldn't find the island on the map of Japan, I searched through the Japan-related pages of Wikipedia and could not find any link to the "japanese underwater monument", the phrase a later took to a search engine to see the name by which the place is called. Many thanks if this rings true to your ears. OnderOtcu ( talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) OnderOtcu ( talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I also see a problem in removing these external links especially because the underwater pictures being still one of the major sources and proof of a lot of details within the article. The problem I see lies in external links to a specific picture (regarding a certain fact) not being allowed directly within the text. Only references are allowed which then have to follow special rules. These rules were established for good reasons (like for example: only references of valid sources are allowed) but I think that especially written sources were in mind making these rules, cause the written word can easily be manipulated or wrongly cited. But in my opinion photos of certain monuments/structures/formations should be allowed as references regardless the web-source to proof a certain fact that is mentioned in the article (especially when these facts are marked with "citatation needed" and thus are threatened to be removed) if a topic is not covered enough with scientifically research (as mentioned by others before). Is this already theory finding or (more likely) original research? --
Weapon X (
talk,
contribs)
02:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Natural formation? hahaha. There is nothing similar above sea. this is a place submerged 8.000 years ago or more. Ancient carving and quarries spotted in the region. Misterious ancient drawings near theplace. The best pic and info links prohibited. Could be wikipedia be more closed minded?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Actualy most scientists put an earlier date of 10,000 BCE according to the article, the exception seems to be a result of carbon dating of marine life 6,000 year old which put a minimum date of 4,000 BCE but doesn't rule out a older date. So the Japanese scientists aren't diputing the older date Zacherystaylor ( talk) 14:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many sites that atract Pseudo archaeology interest but that doesn't make the site Pseudo archaeology just the Pseudo archaeologist Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The manner in which this section is written implies that Robert Schoch from Boston actually thinks it's an entirely natural structure. However the article on Schoch is quite different in tone, as it states:
He is also known for his research on the Yonaguni underwater "monuments," where he has dived on several occasions, beginning in 1997; his analysis of the formations is that it is a natural site modified by man to suit their needs. He has said that "We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."
This is a completely different conclusion to the statements on this page. Which article is therefore correct? Or in the tag I used, which one is not a POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.57 ( talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems caveat has again been removed? Halbared ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone point it out on google maps? Or at least give a description. The only directions given are to the Island, but nothing about which side of the island, how far out etc. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if I sound new, this is my first time using a Talk page. I am the user who added a few who? and citation needed tags, as well as tagged the article as having weasel words and needing further references last night. I did so under an IP as I was not logged in. I wanted to stop by this page and say that there is quite a few more instances of weasel words and lack of references, but I was hesitant to mark up the page further with even more in-text and article tags. Through reading over the article again it seems like there is a fair amount of original research within, but I don't feel I can make that call on my own, as I am still fairly new to editing on wikipedia. If anyone else who is more experienced would be open to going over the edits I did, and adding more of their own (either fixing the errors I tagged, or by further tagging of errors for others) it would be much appreciated. Lgnlint ( talk) 5:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is that there is no rubble at the bottom of the structure, so must have been removed in the distant past. Every natural structure like this has massive rubble around it, this site has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.146.130 ( talk) 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that "structure" can mean something built by people, I've replaced the word with "features" or "formations" depending upon the context. [1] Per NPOV and FRINGE, I don't think we should be suggesting the formations have been built. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello
I found an image which shows the debated structures a bit better and thought that it could perhaps be inserted into the article: https://jpninfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/real-yonaguni-monument-750.jpg
Thank you. Okama-San ( talk) 14:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The right quotation from the book is: "The Yonaguni Underwater Pyramid and associated structures found below water off southern Yonaguni continue above, where I have examined them extensively". Therefore Dr. Nunn doesn't seem to have ever examined underwater part personally. I would also assert that underwater photos of the site publicly available at the date when his book was written, and he might have used, were not of a good quality.
I have also compared my personal impressions and photos of the underwater site with a single image of the above-the-water site that was in the book. These are pretty much different.
Therefore I must assert that this article does not have any reliable source from any scientist who have ever visited (SCUBA dived) the site underwater who would claim that the structure is naturally formed without any human intervention. The wording should be edited accordingly. Melkov ( talk) 10:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
what's wrong with undermining a source that fails trivial fact-checking like thatYour personal belief that it undermines the source is the problem. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
1.Is there a rule that a request to take down a RS can not be an original research?
2.Do you insist that a trivial statement like: "Distance between points A and B is N km, link to map" is an original research not allowed on Wikipedia?
3.What's wrong with undermining a source that fails trivial fact-checking?- Melkov ( talk) 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to outline the book's content related to Yonaguni Monument for those who do not have quick access to the book itself. Nunn gives an overview of Kimura and Schoch opinions (we have these in our Wikipedia article), then proceeds with his own field research, then gives the conclusion we all know. The field research, in turn, is described in just two sentences, which I will quote here once again: "The Yonaguni Underwater Pyramid and associated structures found below water off southern Yonaguni continue above, where I have examined them extensively, and there seems no reason to suppose that they are artificial (Figure 7.2d)" and under Figure 7.2d: "The slate forming the Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures has been fashioned solely by natural processes". Figure 7.2d itself is a photo that is indeed (I verified that, anyone can, too) taken at Sanninudai.
Secondly I would like to outline the history of the passage about Nunn's opinion in our Wikipedia article. It was initially added by User:Doug Weller almost 8 and a half years ago. It already contained the misinterpretation that lead the reader into thinking that Nunn made an extensive study both onshore and below the water at Yonaguni Monument. Next one is the change by User:Goustien one year later who added info about "continuing into Sanninudai" to the article. This is what basically survived until last week (7 March 2019)
What is bad with having, for many years, a statement that inflates the value of Nunn's research? Dozens, maybe hundreds of tertiary content sites (including Q&A sites like Quora) copied or based their reports blindly on our Wikipedia article. That would lead many scientists to believe that the matter was already thoroughly investigated by some professor (Nunn) and the case is closed. They are discouraged to do any field research at the site of Yonaguni Monument that would support Natural generation hypothesis. This in turn brings the situation that the only thorough research that supports Natural generation we have at hands is of Schoch.
Meanwhile, sources that support Artificial generation continue to emerge, because, like I have mentioned, it is enough to dive at the site to make you believe that Yonaguni Monument is at least not completely natural.
This is the illustration of the way that trying to maintain the POV balance and neutrality by referring a relatively poor research and trying to inflate its value actually backslashes against the endangered POV you are trying to protect in the long term.
Finally let's turn to the "Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures" stuff. This is a mistaken statement in the book itself, that can be disproved by looking at the map. It further diminishes the value of Nunn's research. Leaving this matter unattended is as bad as previously having the value of the research inflated.
Explicitly stating (provided that map-supported statement is not an Original Research) that Nunn's research was taken in a wrong place would encourage the editors to find new better sources (if any) and the scientists to make some new research, which would improve the POV balance in the long term.
Conversely, trying to protect a source with low-quality information from being challenged will bring more harm in the long term. - Melkov ( talk) 00:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not definitively a monument, it is an example of Submarine Topography. So I suggest a rename to Yonaguni Island Submarine Topography Slatersteven ( talk) 14:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to find out who among the subscribers or accidental visitors of this talk page have actually been at the site that the article describes. Sorry for being slightly impudent, but I believe that an article about a tourist spot should mostly look as an article about a tourist spot, and to achieve that the people who have actually been there are best editors. Dive, Glass Boat or Snorkel, please. Melkov ( talk) 18:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that adding a statement that "Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument while providing a link to online (Google) maps" would be original research so should not be done.
Can I add a statement that Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument while providing a link to online (Google) maps? Melkov ( talk) 06:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Some people in the discussion above insist that it would be a WP:OR. This is the proposed link to use Google Maps here as a RS: https://goo.gl/maps/iqnxuu7kfv12
Any recommendations on how to link to g.maps in a better way are also welcome. Basically two problems: Sanninudai is only labeled in Japanese, サンニヌ台, which might limit the number of people who will understand the map just by looking at it; and inability to embed "measure distance" feature into the map URL so I resorted to using Route feature.
The state of Main Features section in its present form is somewhat frustrating because if a person diving at Y.M. would read this article before (or even after) the dive, they would have a hard time identifying the stuff they see on site with "Main Features" here.
Of course the edit that deleted commonly known names of the features is half-responsible for the trouble, but there's another problem: half of the features listed are just not there at Yonaguni Monument. On the other hand, at least one important feature, "Arch gate", is missing. The reference map would probably be this: [2], also this: [3] (図3). These schemes are also available in books of Prof. Kimura. I will try to find something useful in English later. Melkov ( talk) 06:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
To illustrate "Main features" we still don't have free images of these objects:
Too much weight is being given to FRINGE viewpoints. Restructuring and proper emphasis is needed. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
There might be even a problem with determining what's fringe hereHowso?
I made some rough, initial edits to get us moving in the right direction. Looking at the sources and their quality, it appears Kimura's claims are purely FRINGE in nature, and pseudoarchaeological per the Feagans article discussed above. If there are any reliable sources demonstrating otherwise, please point them out. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The first and primary claim made about the Yonaguni Formation, that it is an artificial, megalithic construction, is not upheld. Not if you’re a rational person who cares about evidence.
You will need to read this article. Does it follow from the article that claims of prof. Kimura are fringe theories or pseudoscience? Detailed discussion is above.
I suggest add this page to a pseudoscepticism page. Even Dougweller here dont denies he is hiding the truth. Why no clear pic of a NON rock formation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.205.239.98 ( talk) 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This section contains no statements by actual Archaeologists, should we rename the section? Quandoomni ( talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The major roadblock that that I have with working on this article is accessing papers. I have citations and a geologist friend willing to translate Japanese to English. The problem is obtaining actual copies of the papers that go with the citations. I and others cannot find their text online and they are for practical purposes impossible to get by interlibrary loan. If someone could suggest how to get copies, it would be helpful. Specifically, I am at this time looking for someone with access to volume 22, no. 2, of 月刊地球. Paul H. ( talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
A monument is a structure erected to commemorate a notable person or event.
The Yonaguni Monument is not a monument, but a natural formation. Any objections to adding "so-called" to the lead sentence? [6] Hypnôs ( talk) 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Normally I just edit an article with missing information and just write it normally, but I see that over the years there's been a lot of debate over these issues so I'm opening a discussion.
First of all, although I think it was an honest mistake of an edit that accidentally dropped a paragraph out, and thus not a debate, I'm bringing it up here that Professor Masaaki Kimura original observations and impressions about the artifacts origin has been scrapped from the article completely. At first it is mentioned that Prof. Masaaki Kimura was sent to examine the artifacts, then there is a paragraph about its history, then we move straight to colleges opinions on its origin, some directly contradicting Prof. Kimura, yet at no point is mentioned what did he make of it all. Only by their responses to him, and later his reassessment report, we can learn what he published at first when the site was discovered. I believe it must be mentioned, and it probably was and mistakenly deleted. If there's such a previous paragraph I'd love to be redirect to it so it can be restored, or I can draft a new one.
Secondly, and most importantly, the headline under which Prof. Masaaki Kimura reassessment report is written. I think it is extremely disrespectful to put Prof. Kimura sayings under "Pseudoarcheology". Prof. Kimura is at least as respected and professional as his colleagues, and he does not fit under such insulting terms, as if he is a rouge YouTuber making false claim. In legal terms, as wild his claims may sound, the natural formation theory is as circumstantial as Prof. Kimura theory. So I would like the community approval to tone down the condescending approach to Prof. Kimura throughout the paragraph, as if his claims have any less proof as the counter argument of natural formation, and show this esteemed professor the respect he deserves. עידו כ.ש. ( talk) 02:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)