This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Avebury article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The construction of large monuments such as those at Avebury indicates that a stable agrarian economy had developed in Britain by around 4000–3500 BCE. The people who built them had to be secure enough to spend time on such non-essential activities." Considering that now we have Gobekli Tepe which appears to predate settlement and agriculture, can we state this with such confidence? I'm not saying this assertion is wrong, just that we can't be so sure of it being right any more. 82.71.30.178 ( talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea what's going on with the infobox image? It's calling files from Wikidata, but obviously too many, and not displaying any image at all... Simon Burchell ( talk) 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It says in the section "Henge" that: "The Avebury monument is a henge, a type of monument consisting of a large circular bank with an internal ditch. The henge is not perfectly circular and measures over 1,000 metres (1,090 yd) in circumference.[23]" End quote. Not clear whether this is the outside diameter of the bank, or the diameter of the central flat area. The large stone circle is at the edge of the central flat area. Other sources give the diameter of the Avebury stone circle as 330 m ( National Trust) or the diameter of the henge as 347.4 m (Caroline Malone, "Neolithic Britain and Ireland", p. 172), which is clearly inconsistent with a diameter for the henge of 1000 m, whichever way it is measured. Possibly there is an error introduced here as 330 m is pretty close to 1000 feet, so the original source might say 1000 feet diameter? I don't have a copy to look up. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The recent reversion contradicts the main text: "It was in the Early Modern period that Avebury was first recognised as an antiquity that warranted investigation. Around 1541, John Leland, the librarian and chaplain to King Henry VIII travelled through Wiltshire and made note of the existence of Avebury and its neighbouring prehistoric monuments." Dimadick ( talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
An IP has correctly pointed out that this article had a mixture of ‘BC’ and ‘BCE’ as era styles. Per MOS:ERA one style or the other should be used. The IP has changed BC to BCE throughout. The style chosen should be by consensus, so I am reverting this. But the style should be consistent. I prefer BC, because this is the commonly understood style, used, for instance, by the BBC in its programmes on archaeology, and by the British Museum. What are other editors’ views? Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a clear majority for BC, so unless there are further comments I will change the article to BC. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now made the change to wholly BC. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The lede and first 3 paragraphs contain zero sources, but surely someone could insert them, yes? Josh a brewer ( talk) 15:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zionnalof ( article contribs).
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved another user's comment here and created section — BillC talk 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC):
the stuff starting at the “early modern period” is basically what a bunch of nobles thought of the stones and doesn’t read as a history of the stones. This sort of “history” erases a lot. Here it is written as if the stones needed a bunch of nobles/gentry to write about them which is then presented “as history.” My suggested edit would be to call this “historiography” or be honest that this is only what a select group of privileged nobles used the stones for in constructing a narrative that supported further christian/science (and therefore white) supremacist conceptions of social order.
Help me decolonize wikipedia. We owe it to our ancestors. Kikila mai Tawhit
white supremacist conceptions of social order’. And I suggest you read WP:RGW. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, following on from 2022's pilot, I'm working on a second pilot with the National Trust (more here). This includes introducing some volunteers to Wikipedia editing. Yesterday (22 Jan) I ran a training session with some volunteers from Avebury, who are interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. I'd be grateful for your patience any future support you can give them. Though they are based at Avebury, a wide range of topic ideas came up in their enthusiasm, including RAF bases, a village near Bradford, Japanese translation, and many more. Lajmmoore ( talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I am a postdoctoral researcher for the Avebury Papers project. I work for University of York, and University of Bristol and the National Trust are key project partners. I have made some edits to the page today, and intend to make further edits. My aim is to share new research and information on Avebury as I encounter it during the Avebury Papers project. Please do be in touch if you have any queries regarding COI. Medievalfran ( talk) 13:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Avebury article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The construction of large monuments such as those at Avebury indicates that a stable agrarian economy had developed in Britain by around 4000–3500 BCE. The people who built them had to be secure enough to spend time on such non-essential activities." Considering that now we have Gobekli Tepe which appears to predate settlement and agriculture, can we state this with such confidence? I'm not saying this assertion is wrong, just that we can't be so sure of it being right any more. 82.71.30.178 ( talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea what's going on with the infobox image? It's calling files from Wikidata, but obviously too many, and not displaying any image at all... Simon Burchell ( talk) 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It says in the section "Henge" that: "The Avebury monument is a henge, a type of monument consisting of a large circular bank with an internal ditch. The henge is not perfectly circular and measures over 1,000 metres (1,090 yd) in circumference.[23]" End quote. Not clear whether this is the outside diameter of the bank, or the diameter of the central flat area. The large stone circle is at the edge of the central flat area. Other sources give the diameter of the Avebury stone circle as 330 m ( National Trust) or the diameter of the henge as 347.4 m (Caroline Malone, "Neolithic Britain and Ireland", p. 172), which is clearly inconsistent with a diameter for the henge of 1000 m, whichever way it is measured. Possibly there is an error introduced here as 330 m is pretty close to 1000 feet, so the original source might say 1000 feet diameter? I don't have a copy to look up. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The recent reversion contradicts the main text: "It was in the Early Modern period that Avebury was first recognised as an antiquity that warranted investigation. Around 1541, John Leland, the librarian and chaplain to King Henry VIII travelled through Wiltshire and made note of the existence of Avebury and its neighbouring prehistoric monuments." Dimadick ( talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
An IP has correctly pointed out that this article had a mixture of ‘BC’ and ‘BCE’ as era styles. Per MOS:ERA one style or the other should be used. The IP has changed BC to BCE throughout. The style chosen should be by consensus, so I am reverting this. But the style should be consistent. I prefer BC, because this is the commonly understood style, used, for instance, by the BBC in its programmes on archaeology, and by the British Museum. What are other editors’ views? Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a clear majority for BC, so unless there are further comments I will change the article to BC. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now made the change to wholly BC. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The lede and first 3 paragraphs contain zero sources, but surely someone could insert them, yes? Josh a brewer ( talk) 15:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zionnalof ( article contribs).
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved another user's comment here and created section — BillC talk 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC):
the stuff starting at the “early modern period” is basically what a bunch of nobles thought of the stones and doesn’t read as a history of the stones. This sort of “history” erases a lot. Here it is written as if the stones needed a bunch of nobles/gentry to write about them which is then presented “as history.” My suggested edit would be to call this “historiography” or be honest that this is only what a select group of privileged nobles used the stones for in constructing a narrative that supported further christian/science (and therefore white) supremacist conceptions of social order.
Help me decolonize wikipedia. We owe it to our ancestors. Kikila mai Tawhit
white supremacist conceptions of social order’. And I suggest you read WP:RGW. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, following on from 2022's pilot, I'm working on a second pilot with the National Trust (more here). This includes introducing some volunteers to Wikipedia editing. Yesterday (22 Jan) I ran a training session with some volunteers from Avebury, who are interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. I'd be grateful for your patience any future support you can give them. Though they are based at Avebury, a wide range of topic ideas came up in their enthusiasm, including RAF bases, a village near Bradford, Japanese translation, and many more. Lajmmoore ( talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I am a postdoctoral researcher for the Avebury Papers project. I work for University of York, and University of Bristol and the National Trust are key project partners. I have made some edits to the page today, and intend to make further edits. My aim is to share new research and information on Avebury as I encounter it during the Avebury Papers project. Please do be in touch if you have any queries regarding COI. Medievalfran ( talk) 13:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)