Talk:Rock balancing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older discussion[edit]

Let's agree that:
1) "Famous rock balancers" at least means people who are famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry about them which is not a vanity posting.
2) Putative information about "famous rock balancers" which is beyond a simple description of who they are is placed in their Wikipedia entry, not in the Rock Balancing article.
3) Substantive edits should be discussed here first, and are subject to immediate removal if they are not.
66.81.65.198 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also agree that:
4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown.
5) The appropriate place for an image credit is on the image page, not on the Wiki entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.65.5 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2007

Point 3 is incorrect - See WP:Be Bold.
Point 4 is slightly overly restrictive. Different angles and distances can be useful - we simply need to not overwhelm the small amount of text with dozens of images.
Everything else seems fine. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, IP editor, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't own the page and you don't get to make up rules for how people can edit it. I wouldn't normally respond to such old comments but people refer to these points several times below, making them appear to have a standing that they do not, in fact, have. Dricherby (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to...[edit]

So do you just eyeball a rock, up end it and jiggle it until it balances? A practical explanation of the mechanics involved would be very helpful. Thanks! AndyHuston 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliel (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please consider adding a tutorial, or at least a link to one. Thank you.Soltera (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual practice involving rock balancing and stacking[edit]

That's really a joke. Why Tibetan Buddhism instead of Zen, or even Hawaii music? --Mongol (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Section now removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone on earth can balance a rock... it's amazing seeing people of any race, any religions, any age, any color... the rock treats you all the same..." ~Travis Ruskus, author of The Rock Balancer's Guide: Discover the Mindful Art of Balance (2019). One of the exercises guides the reader to "find your mantra" (Ruskus, pg. 46) which is something Wikipedia says any religion/spirituality can do. Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Goring[edit]

The image from Goring does not appear to be genuine. The scene of the Thames meandering towards the Goring Gap in the predominantly chalk Chilterns, is bathed in typical soft, slightly silvery, English light, a chalk zone. The over-sharp edges of the red sandstones (from Somerset or Nottingham at best) are blasted by the pin-sharp red light more associated with Monument Valley, USA. Not to mention the amateurish emplacement on the soft drab grey Thames valley rock at the base. The poster needs to provide evidence that it was real, i.e. shots from other angles. Autodidactyl (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but this is absolutely genuine! This image has been on this page for many years and nobody else has had an issue with it. What Autodidactyl is calling the meandering Thames, is actually a white poppy field, you can not see the Thames in this photo. Also the rocks are all from my cousin's garden, so there are a variety of native and non-native rocks. What Autodidactyl is calling a soft drab grey rock at the base is actually a wooden gate post. Please cross reference the image on my flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockbalancer/page11/. Hopefully, this will be enough evidence for you Autodidactyl. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.54 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image on Flicker does not constitute verifiable proof of anything. Your points on the gate post and the Thames are accepted, but we cannot know your cousin's garden. As requested originally, please provide additional shot(s) from other angles. Yours sincerely. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autodidactyl, you asked for other images from other angles. I am not going to post these on the rock balancing entry, per the requirements stated earlier in the discussion "4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." Therefore, I will once again send you to my flickr site to see some of the same rocks balanced from a slightly different angle. If you are still unsure of my the image's authenticity please ask some of the other editors. Daliel knows my work, from his oversight of Bill Dan's Rock-on-rock-on webstie. Please check this statement for authenticity by going here: http://www.rock-on-rock-on.com/others-more-than-ever.html. Rockbalancer 13:15, 19 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer (talk • contribs)


Image of Point Balance[edit]

Avhell-hi and welcome to the on-line rock balancing community. I really like the rock balancing image you posted but there are a few protocols you didn't follow, and that is why I deleted it. Please read the agreed upon protocols listed above and then add to this page. Per point four listed above, "Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." The rock balance shown at the Petrified Forest already shows a point balance. Also note point three. Although, you only added an image, it did make a big difference in the formatting of the page, any substantive edits need to be agreed upon in the discussion section first. Thanks for understanding and hope to see more of your work.--Rockbalancer (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive edits do not have to be agreed upon first - see WP:Be bold and related pages. (Usually. Unless the subject is contentious or the article is protected).
Multiple illuminating images is fine. IIRC, we were previously having problems with someone adding many images of the exact same rockstack (from different angles), which was also overwhelming the small amount of prose.
I've added the image back, as it is a good closeup, and depicts a large boulder pointbalancing on a small rock. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all! I am sorry if I have broken any guidelines or etiquette with the image (or the page formatting!). I am in the process of releasing most of my images as cc-by-sa for anyone to use, and found that balance image to be a particularly interesting one. I figured there were no examples of this type of double point balancing, and was thinking perhaps it might be useful to illustrate. I'm sorry if I've disrupted anything! Avhell (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Rock Balancers[edit]

Does anyone else think the last three "famous" balancers should be removed? I at least think a wikipedia page needs to be available to be linked to for a famous balancer. I mean I know "famous rock balancers" is a bit of an oxymoron, but lets at least nip this in the bud before everyone starts listing themselves as famous. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the items could do with a single reliable-source reference. If no reference can be found (eg for the unlinked or redlinked people) then those entries should be removed. Simple :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more history?[edit]

The Andy G. article implies that he's the 'father of modern rock-balancing'. Which would be good to know for some casual browser reading about rock-balancing on this page.
Also, it would be of interest to know that balanced rocks are a historical (ie: prior to ~1910) means of marking trails, and larger instances of more rocks doing more balancing could be looked at as an elaboration of simple trail marking.
~ender 2011-09-25 22:20:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.53.38 (talk)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Diego (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks auto-bot! But, you can't source statements from other wikipedia articles (1) and I don't have sources for the other information I've learnt over the years (2), or a supposition/conclusion of my own - and since I'm not famous, and published elsewhere then it can't be included (3). So, I put it out there, in case someone else knows of sources, or feels like investigating them.
~ender 2012-01-07 17:14MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.52.42 (talk)

Trashing legitimate controversy[edit]

Why are some fanatics removing the "Opposition to Rock-Balancing" section?

Can they stand no criticism from nature lovers who want to be free of another building-driven and obsessed cult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.119.62 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply provide a verifiable reference that this critcism is held by more than yourself and I don't think you will have further issue. I am no rock balancing fanatic, and I see where this practice annoys you, but your opinion can not be the basis of an encyclopedic article. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more neutral way to approach this topic is to title the section: Appropriate settings for rock balancing (or something like that), and expand on the positive rather than the negative. Certainly there are settings that should be legally and morally avoided, such as a habitat restoration project, especially if endangered species are involved. The “knocking down . . ” statement in the current section is adversarial and should be deleted. Pinethicket (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references removed my concern over verifiability and give credence to the claim even if it is rather self-evident. There are groups that oppose everything; it just a function of whether that opposition is notable for any particular article. Are we now going to see a disclaimer like this in every outdoor recreational activity? Take en:Camping for example where no such opposition is found yet the references applied here are much more applicable to that activity than this? Would we accept a similar oppositional statement in the en:Inuksuk article? Knocking down an Inuksuk could actually put someone's life in danger as they may lose their point of reference. Well, not going to travel further down this rabbit hole as it would be unproductive. I don't know if their is such a thing as a rock balancing community and whether they have a code of ethics (for lack of a better term). With that said, your approach would be better than the one that is offered by the concerned IP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the latest change I have removed the sentence that was not verified for two reasons: it was unverified and rather confrontational in tone. I have also removed the redundant statement that the practice is not supported as per the note. I will add that the reference cited makes no mention of rock balancing although their guidelines do make it clear activities like rock balancing would be frowned upon if one were an adherent to the principles of Leave No Trace. I do hope this doesn't devolve into any more of an edit war than it already is and leads to this page being protected. It would be much more preferable if the IP discussed the issue here so that concensus could be achieved. Frankly, I think the one sentence covers the issue clearly and if readers need more info the reference is there. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sentences you removed had been vandalized to say the opposite of the source. I've restored it to its original status. Diego (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that strikes the right balance and maintains NPOV. If folks do indeed return the stones or at least scatter them then it is no different than the issue regarding fire rings, which are compatible with Leave No Trace. As such it seems clear to me Rock Balancing can be practiced in accordance with Leave No Trace ideals. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording[edit]

   The images i saw on the article are great, but i found the text inadequate in ways that i think i've alleviated. I was also tempted to note three separate disciplines, but decided to construe what i contemplated as WP:OR. Perhaps the aficianados will be inspired to comment, or expand the article in this dimension:

  1. The article is heavy with what i would call strict stacks, perhaps the most painstaking version: putting one rock on top of another, and putting the next one on top of that.
  2. As i prowled, i saw more of what i'm more familiar: to some degree tree-like, in the sense of branches and branchlets and [some limit].
  3. Arches, which surprised me from my awareness of how old the Roman arch is (even if i'm not sure whether that elaboration made first building a pile of rubble where you want a gate thru the wall into the new tech, or into the old pre-Roman tech). And of course, these are presumably mortarless arches, far more impressively skilled than right-angled, trapezoidal-element based, and/or mortar-dependent structures.

   Anyway, i started to write

(Generally the discipline thrives on each rock being balanced on only one other, yet often directly supporting than one or more resting on it (and many indirectly supporting the weight of rocks supported directly or indirectly above them....

and realized i have neither the experience nor the passion that probably the topic deserves.
   So kudos to the artisans and artists, and i hope that amounts to encouragement to "edit on, Garth!"
--Jerzy•t 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tupparo, Colombia phto[edit]

   Very cool, even if that is snow, not surging water, around it. Have we any info on that, and how long the rock has been documented as surviving?
--Jerzy•t 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is snow. I think it is moving water. I think you are referring to this image. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an obnoxious behavior[edit]

As rock piles are now becoming ubiquitous on public lands, more sources are available that condemn the practice as a defacement of the natural landscape. The article should be updated to reflect this changing perspective. Potential sources:

Some of those may be duplicates, and not all are necessarily reliable. Geogene (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a helpful webpage with more info about why to be careful about not messing with cairns at the National Parks -- https://www.nps.gov/articles/rockcairns.htm Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but isn't it a bit much for a solid three quarters of the article to be about opposition?
Not even articles about plastic pollutants reach that 94.34.145.167 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because nearly all that's been written about rock piling (which isn't much) is news coverage of notable acts of rock pile vandalism, and PSAs from wilderness preservation orgs asking hikers and tourists not to pile rocks. I've also recently deleted a couple of paragraphs about the physics of rock piling that looked a lot like filler/cruft to me, which has made the article even shorter. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rock 'balancing' is vandalism? Really?
1. Dry stone walls are probably the most permanent form of rock 'balancing'. A skill, a craft, and a business which is how many thousands of years old? Dry stone walls are here to stay.
2. Rocks are sometimes left as a memory of a person, an event, perhaps as a reminder of a memory. Who are those denying people their life choices? Why not take it further and stop the practice of leaving small rocks on the headstones of friends, family and loved ones, that is the next step if these drones have their way.
3. Rocks have been used to build cairns to prevent disturbance of burial sites. The ages old practice remains and long may it continue.
First few things that sprang to mind, horrified that this was given any credence, lunacy. You want to do something, stop the corporations from devouring the environment, stop fracking, oil drilling, deforestation, salmon spawning areas, chemical crop spraying, make them repair and enhance the damage they have done, redress their crimes, address the damage that they have caused to families as a result of corporate greed. Wonofone (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rock balancing as meditative practice[edit]

User:Arllaw yesterday i expanded on the meditative aspect of rock balancing, as I am a long time practitioner and that's how i apply it. I cited my gallery :a huge gallery of rock piles, on subject as opposed to inserting images on the page (keeping the edit moderate) and it further expands on the subject of rock balancing as meditation if someone was even more curious, but it was on subject for rock balancing as I thought maybe actual proof I was a practitioner would be validation and qualify my opinion...As that was my first or second time editing a post (although I did share a lot of Mexican landmark photos years ago) maybe you could qualify for me how it was spam or did you assume new account=spam? Am I correct in assuming you could give me a little more guidance, as I must have missed something reading up on editing posts. Thanks up front. I thought I was well within the guidelines of wiki and this was actually my trial run after reading up on how to. Maybe that's why this page seems so devoid of content? or is it mostly views opposed to the practice?...Its not like I listed myself as a famous artist at the bottom so I'm confused. Are you implying its not a meditative practice and if so could you qualify that statement Ryan Clark 1969 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reflection with the gallery... very thought-provoking and inspiring! :D Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for a "Further Reading" section[edit]

It's up to the moderators of your page, but I'll post it here so at least those of us interested in talking about rock balancing can take a look, and you can think about maybe adding something like this to the official page itself. (I'm just listing them alphabetically, not playing any favorites with notability levels here). I've only read 2 of them, but they all sound interesting! Has anyone read any of these? Do you know of any other ones? Should they hyperlink to a webpage? Should they have brief bios + summaries? Let's talk about that! :-)

Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading:[edit]

  • Carter, Joel. Rockpeople: Beyond Chester Creek. (2012)
  • Grab, Michael. Gravity - Arts of Rock Balancing. (2016)
  • Juhl, Peter. Center of Gravity: A Guide to the Practice of Rock Balancing. (2013)
  • Leavitt, Amie Jane. The Science Behind Wonders of Earth: Cave Crystals, Balancing Rocks, and Snow Donuts. (2016)
  • Marion, Jeffrey. Leave No Trace in the Outdoors. (2014)
  • Miller, Cameron. Cairn: Poems and Essays. (2020)
  • Quasha, George. Axial Stones: An Art of Precarious Balance. (2006)
  • Rokus, Patti. A Savior Is Born: Rocks Tell the Story of Christmas. (2018)
  • Ruskus, Travis. The Rock Balancer's Guide: Discover the Mindful Art of Balance. (2019)
  • Walko, Joe. Cairns: The Beauty and Power of Finding Your Way. (2019)
  • Williams, David. Cairns: Messengers in Stone. (2012)

Form of vandalism?[edit]

If someone does rock balancing in their own backyard, rock balancing is not vandalism... this wiki page should be reviewed and edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyBorneIce (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyBorneIce, if someone is balancing rocks in their backyard...why would someone write an encyclopedia article about it? The sourcing is all about rock piling in wilderness areas, and the problems it causes. Geogene (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geogene, but wikipedia is supposed to be all-encompassing and non-biased. how is the definition of rock balancing confined to vandalism in all situations... such a notion is illogical given the fact that the activity only requires a collection of rocks and a piece of land (not all land is illegal land).SunnyBorneIce (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But, it really isn't meant to be all-encompassing or un-biased. It encompasses subjects that are notable enough to have a certain amount of reliable sources already written about them, enough to mine for the information to write an article about. And it's supposed to be biased in the same way the majority of mainstream sources are. Geogene (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the activity as "a form of vandalism" does seem inappropriate for the first sentence definition, particularly when it sounds like rock balancing is never actually done with ill-intent. Even the graffiti article - where people often do set out to deliberately cause damage - doesn't open "Graffiti is a form of vandalism in which..." --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to reduce this article to "a form of vandalism" and to cut all the content about what rock balancing is, and the fact that there are international contests. The Smithsonian Magazine, Guardian newspaper, BBC website and Denver Post articles are not "poor sources", User:Geogene, and I didn't remove any content, I just moved the word "vandalism" to slightly later in the lead. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Belbury, your edits [1] mentioned low notability contests, with poor sourcing, including a personal website. Geogene (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I added stronger sources to the Process section in the next edit. All that's being sourced to Grab's personal website is that he uses the terms "click" and "natural tripod", which don't appear in the Smithsonian interview.
What do you mean by "low notability"? The Dunbar championship has a fair amount of news coverage in reliable secondary sources. The World Rock Stacking Championship in Texas less so, but there's a picture of it in the article so I thought I'd mention it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That picture in the article can always be deleted, along with the mention, since it's nothing but low quality local lifestyle journalism. As for "Dunbar championship", I just Googled the term in quotes and am not seeing any evidence of rock piling in the results. I've yet to see any evidence that rock balancing is some kind of recognized sport. But Google results do tend to substantiate that it's best known as an irritating, Instagram-fueled thing that people do in the outdoors. Geogene (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see this, [2], but it's trivial coverage. Geogene (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try googling "European Stone Stacking Championships", it's had a few news articles over the years. Not enough WP:NOTABILITY for a full article, I agree, but enough WP:VERIFIABILITY to mention that it exists, in an article about stone stacking.
What's your objection to the "Process" section - do you want a stronger source than the Denver Post, or do you think this information doesn't belong in the article?
It would be good to hear a response to why you think this article should be framed as "is a form of vandalism", when even the article about graffiti doesn't go that far. That's the reason I added the disputed-neutrality template. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing nothing but trivial coverage of "stone stacking championships". As for the process section, this is the content you're arguing for including

Artist Michael Grab describes the process of stacking rocks as requiring a minimum of three points of contact for each rock, which form a "natural tripod". The fact that all rocks are covered with various indentations mean that such contact points can be found through experimentation. He talks of sensing the vibrations or "clicks" as two rocks move against each other as a way to locate these points, which must be in places where the rock's centre of mass lies between three of them. Grab says he finds it "pretty remarkable" how stable the structures are, believing that in the absence of wind or other interference they could stay standing for months at a time.

This is not encyclopedic content, it's WP:CRUFT. As for the graffiti article, I'm not involved there, and it makes no difference to me what that article says, that's just an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which you will find on the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages page. Geogene (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very broad summary of the method used for stacking rocks is not fancruft ("important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question"), it's a basic definition. The current article makes it sound like a hobby where you just grab some rocks and stack them into a cairn. Any reader who knows that the balancing sometimes looks very precarious (I tried to add a photo of that, to replace the current flattish-rock stack, but you reverted me) will be curious about how it's possible, so we should tell them. It's a question that's already been asked near the top of this talk page.
I really can't work out your angle here. Is your stance that this article should only be about people making simple stacked cairns in national parks and how this is bad? (Your "is a form of vandalism" source only talks about cairns.) I don't understand why you're apparently content with a section about professional rock-balancing artists and photo of some artistically-stacked rocks at a competition, but you think it's "cruft" to go into any detail about the former, and "trivia" to mention the latter outside of an image caption. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "process" section seems to me the very definition of fancruft, as some guy talking about "clicking" rocks together seems like the kind of thing only of interest to rock piling hobbyists. The fact that the original version was sourced in part to a personal website helps to support that point. Even if it did have instructional value, it would fall under WP:NOTHOWTO. My stance is this: articles should follow reliable sources in coverage, and is not necessarily what a small community of hobbyists feels like is fair. Nearly all the substantial coverage of rock piling is of it as a form of wilderness vandalism. Neutrality for Wikipedia is not about some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE thing. I also think that a lot of time on this has already been wasted by anon/IP editors and newly created accounts that take offense at the whole vandalism thing....I have a feeling that grievances with this article are being fostered in some internet fora somewhere, and if this disruption doesn't stop, then the article should be locked. Geogene (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, I am not here on behalf of an aggrieved internet forum. I was reading a news article about rock balancing the other day (maybe this one), wondered if Wikipedia had anything interesting to say about the history and science of it and was disappointed that we only had a short "form of vandalism" stub. I bookmarked the article to improve it, did so today, and you reverted every change I made.
I agree that articles should follow available sources. I disagree that we should omit a sourced section about the general physics of it as "fancruft", or that the sourced existence of a long-running international competition is too trivial to mention. Perhaps an RFC would help. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the graffiti article isn't an WP:OTHERCONTENT because it's not my sole argument, it's just an example to put it into context: if Wikipedia doesn't even call one of the most potentially angrily forms of vandalism-art "a form of vandalism" in the first sentence, that might suggest we reflect on whether to do so here. My point is that rock balancing is apparently never done with ill-intent, so it's misleading to describe it as "a form of vandalism". We should 100% mention that leaving balanced rocks causes problems, and mention that in the lead, but it's not its primary feature. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases, Wikipedia should follow whatever it is that the best sources call it, instead of leaving it to editors to judge what they think it's fair to call it. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "rock balancing" seems entirely about people doing this for artistic or hobby purposes. Much of that is fluff, but a lot of it comes from strong mainstream press sources. The vandalism angle seems a significant but minority take, with your chosen cited source for it possibly just being about cairns. (Authorities at Petroglyph National Monument said Friday that visitors committed extensive vandalism by collecting rocks and stacking them in the form of cairns.) I suggested neutrally describing it as a "practice" in my edit. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mixture of self-published sources describing it as an art or meditative practice, and journalistic sources describing it as a form of vandalism. These are not equally reliable. Geogene (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You only see self-published sources? I'm seeing many mainstream press sources which take the "art or meditative" angle: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7503175/rock-balancing-michael-grab, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-61743516, https://www.vice.com/en/article/d749aj/stacking-rocks-balanced-art-master, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61401003, and even the ones that write about the vandalism (eg. https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/cairns-rock-stacking-national-parks, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/sep/13/stone-stackers-ancient-sites-historic-england-stowes-hill-cornwall) frame it as an act of artistic expression which causes damage.
That seems the obvious way to explain rock balancing: it's a thing people do, they do it thinking of it as art or a hobby, and it causes damage or problems. The current article somehow omits the middle step entirely (beyond obliquely mentioning that four "notable artists" exist and showing a photo of a "championship"), which makes no sense. The rock piles aren't appearing naturally, or accidentally, or being built to cause deliberate damage. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources you've listed, such as this one [3], look like churnalism, or, at best, an excuse to post a photo gallery. This Guardian piece [4] is journalism, but is from 2017, before a shift appeared to take place in sources against rock piling in the outdoors. However, I could agree with changing the lead from "act of vandalism" to something like "art, practice, or act of vandalism" based on this. I'm also not in favor of continuing to list rock piling artists or the Llano photo, but I have not gotten around to deleting that stuff myself. Geogene (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that it makes sense to define something as "art, practice, or act of vandalism", when (so far as sources suggest) it's never the case that it's only the third of these: nobody ever balances a pile of rocks purely because they really hate salamanders. If you're definitely against mentioning the balancing-as-art practice at all in this article and moving it away from any artistic photos of delicately-balanced rocks, I guess I'll wait for other editors to give their input, and then consider an RfC on article lead and scope, if this is turns out to be a low-traffic talk page. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're overthinking this. It doesn't matter why people balance rocks, only that sources call it vandalism. Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on first sentence and scope[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This isn't an actual RFC, and there are no actual proposals for editors to weigh in on, but after reading this discussion I've sussed out that there is consensus to not represent rock balancing solely as vandalism. It's been brought up that the article should be expanded, which is likely true, but there is also disagreement on which sources are churalism or press releases, and if publishers are too niche for the books they publish to be RS. None of that was addressed in this discussion. I'll note that currently the opening sentence doesn't describe it as vandalism, and it's been that way for a couple weeks, so maybe this was resolved without the closure that was requested. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Should this article define rock balancing as a type of vandalism, or as a recreational/artistic activity which has drawn that criticism? Should it include any content about people's reasons for balancing rocks, methods of doing so where the process isn't obvious, notable artists who have done so, and the international contests held for it? Lord Belbury (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. This page is embarrassing. The article should note the criticism; it should not consist only of the criticism. Geogene, I think you should take several deep breaths. Lord Belbury is working in good faith to improve the page. Try to be a little more collegial. Have the insight to recognize your personal feelings are getting in the way, here. Regulov (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Regulov: the only substantial coverage of this subject is critical. Lord Belbury is making arguments not based in policy, primarily their claims are 1) that the graffiti article does not mention vandalism so this one shouldn't either, and 2) that people who rock pile in the wilderness are not doing it "because they hate salamanders" so it isn't vandalism. This kind of attempt at mind reading isn't based in policy either. The only issue is to be determined here is how sources view the behavior. Geogene (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, don't dig in deeper. The current page is egregious pov-pushing. You need to prepare to be satisfied with a Criticism section, because that is how this is going to shake out. I understand your strong feelings. I agree that from a certain perspective this is just another case of selfish idiots taking what they want and blithely destroying treasures they can't even perceive. But I hardly think the page as it stands is encyclopedic. Lord Belbury has cited some sources that will suffice to establish that rock-balancing is a fad activity whose purpose, for the practitioner, is aesthetic rather than destructive. Don't stonewall. Regulov (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Regulov:. A criticism section? Well, no, you need to re-read WP:CRITS, which says, Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. And you and Lord Bellamy need substantial coverage in reliable sources if you want a less critical article. These are fairly basic concepts here for editing Wikipedia....the NPOV policy states, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. There are more and better sources that are critical of the practice, so this means you'll get a negative article. Geogene (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. But your version is so extreme, Geogene. Can't you see that? It has us claiming in wikivoice in the first sentence that the activity is a form of vandalism. Lord Belbury is correct to note that this phrasing is problematic because it implies intent. Here at WP we don't label every typo or error vandalism; the term is reserved for errors introduced without a good-faith object. If a motorist swerves off the road and knocks over a headstone, is it vandalism? Depends on the intent, doesn't it? When opponents use the word "vandalism", they are not themselves reflecting wider societal consensus, but making a rhetorical move intended to shift perception of this activity. Rock-stackers or whatever they call themselves surely don't accept that they are engaging in vandalism. They believe they aren't harming anything or anyone. So is it vandalism? Is driving a piton into a cliff vandalism? Opinions vary, right?
Your own version of the page has only one substantive content section, headed "Opposition". What is this but a "Criticism" section? There is essentially nothing here about the activity itself on this page, only complaints about it. Why is that? Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors? I understand that you want strong sources and that a lot of the edits you've reverted are pretty low-fibre, but I think you aren't letting the page improve.
I'm sorry for personalizing it, but I think the reason for this is that you, personally, strongly disapprove of the activity—for excellent reasons!—and are stonewalling improvements to this encyclopedia article because you don't want to encourage people to stack rocks. That's what I see. I am not attacking you; I just think you rode roughshod over Lord Belbury's arguments and sources above, and it looks like you've been policing this page for a while. Regulov (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR: Here at WP we don't label every typo or error vandalism...If a motorist swerves off the road and knocks over a headstone, is it vandalism? Depends on the intent, doesn't it?. There is essentially nothing here about the activity itself on this page, only complaints about it. Why is that? because personal websites and churnalism aren't quality sources. I understand from Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors? is your recognizing that I'm right about sourcing, and so you're attacking the messenger instead. Geogene (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the sources you have chosen to cite explain why people balance these rocks, to provide context to their readers: Wikipedia should do the same. One source is even headlined "Stone-stacking: cool for Instagram, cruel for the environment". If your version of the article (where you say you "have not gotten around to" deleting the list of artists and the Plano art photo) were reflecting its sources, it would say why people were balancing the rocks. Instead describing it as a rough style of cairn construction undertaken in the same spirit as slashing tyres or breaking windows is actively misinforming the reader, to the point where they could reasonably assume that Wikipedia just doesn't have an article about artistic rock balancing - and walk away without realising that the National Park warnings were also talking about that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying there, Lord Belbury? That all you're asking is we mention that people do that because of Instagram? Because that's significantly different from your prior arguments. Geogene (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just an observation about the sources that you've considered acceptable for this article, but have only quoted in part. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geogene: I'm sorry, I don't follow that at all. What is "original research" about knowing the meaning of the word "vandalism"? Do you remember the Ecce Homo fresco fiasco? Everyone on Earth agrees that that was not a case of vandalism, Geogene, because the restorer was incompetent rather than malicious. The distinction is important.
When I ask "Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors?" I am indeed acknowledging that you can cite sources. I agree that your sources are reliable. Indeed, I agree that the activity is often more destructive than practitioners realize; that it is sometimes very destructive indeed; and that it is a real problem for stewards of wild or protected lands. I will be more explicit, since the subtlety may have escaped you: you are arguing in bad faith. You have an object: namely, to ensure that WP takes the hardest possible line against an activity you are at pains to discourage. All your arguments are designed to further that project. You have your priorities the wrong way round. Admit balancing content, and then work to improve the sourcing. Stop reflexively removing anything that discusses the activity qua activity rather than the activity qua crime.
This is not an advocacy channel. The sources describing rock-balancing from the perspective of enthusiasts are, unsurprisingly, pretty fluffy. This is precisely because these people do not see the activity as an environmental catastrophe; they see only a hobby, a harmless novelty. How and where do you expect treatments of harmless novelties? In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? I'm sorry Wolf Blitzer hasn't covered rock-balancing; he hasn't covered cup stacking, either, and I wouldn't hold my breath. That doesn't mean it doesn't merit a neutral treatment at WP. Regulov (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR because you're editorializing based on your own opinions about what is or is not vandalism, rather than following sources. Geogene (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's "no original research" policy does not forbid editors from using a dictionary or from using their heads. If the sources say some people say it is vandalism, then we can say some people say it is vandalism. You have wikipedia saying, in wikivoice—that is, outside quotes, without qualification, without attribution—that it is vandalism. But every definition I can find includes language concerning intent: "deliberate", "intentional", "wilful", "malicious", "mischievous", "damage caused for the sake of causing damage", &c. I don't think we are safe to state as fact that it is vandalism. Regulov (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from the page like there should be sources about it other than the sources for it being vandalism, if people are winning awards for it. Could someone please provide those sources? Loki (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Five of the news sources already being cited by this article say that rock balancing is being done with benign or artistic intentions, and competitively:
The only other explanatory source (Rock 'Cairn' Vandalism Marks Petroglyph Park in New Mexico) was added to support the current opening sentence, and is a press release from the National Park Service which characterises cairn-building as "vandalism" (it does not use the term "rock balancing") and chooses not give any context for why people are doing it.
Some other articles and interviews:
I haven't seen a single source which explicitly describes rock-balancing as being done with ill-intent. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struck by how negative Lord Belbury's own sources are: Despite claims that it is an artistic, harmless and relaxing pursuit, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) says that it is unwanted and illegal....This week residents of Skye took matters into their own hands by toppling more than 100 stone stacks erected by visitors to the island. [5]. The Hakai Magazine piece refers to "visual pollution" caused by stone pilers, and quotes an environmentalist who refers to it as a "plague". And some of this coverage (Denver Post [6], Vice [7]) looks like churnalism, or an excuse to post image galleries. And if this is really a sport, where are the reliable, independent sources that substantially cover the trappings of sports, things like the prizes, who the officials are, who the champions and main contenders are? Who placed second in 2019? Geogene (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it has an official governing body, or a leaderboard, or carbon-fibre prosumer equipment, is beside the point. The noun we should be using is "activity". Sometimes activities emerge, organically, from the muck of human behaviour. The "contests" are unlikely to resemble college bowl games, Geogene; I think a better model is the pies and preserves at your local fair. Really more an expression of shared enthusiasm than a rigorous, highly standardized sport. And in any case not necessarily vandalism tout court. Regulov (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is pie baking something that often leads to threats of arrest? Geogene (talk)
So, while I think several of your sources are more negative towards rock-balancing than you've portrayed them as, many of them are in fact very positive towards rock-balancing and don't define it as vandalism at all. Specifically the Hakai Magazine piece, the Denver News piece, the Vice piece, the second BBC piece, and for the most part the NDTV piece. Therefore, I'm convinced we should define rock balancing as an artistic activity. Loki (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this page because the article has been quoted and turned into a meme. I was expecting to fix some vandalism, or find that someone else had recently done so, but find that while the text of the meme is not an exact match to the article, it essentially conveys what is here. This is an embarrassment. It is using Wikipedia's voice to call such stacked rocks "vandalism" when that was likely not the intent of those who stacked them. I didn't check the citations, but if they amount to RS, then it would be perfectly fine to mention that some people compare the practice to vandalism, but not as the opening sentence of the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've suspected for a while now that someone, and not necessarily a regular editor, is canvassing off-site, thank you for confirming that suspicion. Geogene (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully expect every rock balancing community in the world to have noticed that googling for "rock balancing" has, since May, returned Geogene's "Rock balancing is a form of vandalism" sentence in the summary box and first result. If anything I'm surprised that only five IPs and one new user have tried to edit it in that time. An RFC like this is certainly preferable as a neutral mechanism for outside input. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think that's my sentence. But it does seem that rock balancers are trying to distort Wikipedia's consensus processes here. Geogene (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An IP condensed "art, hobby or form of vandalism" to "form of vandalism" in April. You've reverted back to that "is a form of vandalism" seven times since, whenever anyone tried to change it to "is a form of art", "is a practice" or even "is regarded as a form of vandalism". I would say it was your sentence in the sense that you alone have been keeping it in the article all this time, and now that I've looked at the page history there are clear WP:OWNERSHIP problems in the fact that you've point-blank reverted every edit made to this article since May.
I'm not sure what you're intending to say about rock balancers "trying to distort Wikipedia's consensus processes": do you mean the IP edits to the article, or are you concerned about contributors to this RFC? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And would you like to finally propose an alternative wording to that sentence, or not? Geogene (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it to a neutral "is the practice of" when I got here, you reverted me, and I took it to the talk page above. What is your concern about rock balancers trying to distort the consensus process? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten that we've already discussed that diff, and there are several content issues with it other than the first sentence. One issue at a time. What wording for that first sentence would you prefer? You didn't even specify any alternative in this RfC. Geogene (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, like I say, I took it to the talk page above, which led to this RfC. And this RfC is a broad strokes question about the lead and scope of the article, not an attempt to negotiate a specific wording that the WP:OWNER of the article finds acceptable. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your unwillingness to propose any alternative will not allow for any progress to be made. Geogene (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rock 'balancing' is vandalism? Really?
1. Dry stone walls are probably the most permanent form of rock 'balancing'. A skill, a craft, and a business which is how many thousands of years old? Dry stone walls are here to stay.
2. Rocks are sometimes left as a memory of a person, an event, perhaps as a reminder of a memory. Who are those denying people their life choices? Why not take it further and stop the practice of leaving small rocks on the headstones of friends, family and loved ones, that is the next step if these drones have their way.
3. Rocks have been used to build cairns to prevent disturbance of burial sites. The ages old practice remains and long may it continue.
First few things that sprang to mind, horrified that this was given any credence, lunacy. You want to do something, stop the corporations from devouring the environment, stop fracking, oil drilling, deforestation, salmon spawning areas, chemical crop spraying, make them repair and enhance the damage they have done, redress their crimes, address the damage that they have caused to families as a result of corporate greed. Wonofone (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had to re-post this as the contributor before my post obviously did not like my opposition. As soon as I find out how to complain against this fascista, I will be chasing this up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonofone (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To give context, the above comment was deleted from the "As an obnoxious behavior" section by Geogene in late May citing WP:NOTFORUM. It was just now deleted again from this RfC when Wonofone reposted it here. A user questioning a specific assertion being made in the text of the article is on-topic, and is a relevant answer to the RfC question "Should this article define rock balancing as a type of vandalism". I have restored the comment in both places. --Lord Belbury (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When all the various cases and circumstances have been developed, we will see what pattern emerges and what the sources say. In the meantime, the intro should be bland and neutral per WP:NPOV.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources out there that treat all of these as the same thing, or are you proposing a WP:SYNTHESIS? And isn't that an open ended definition of rock balancing that would include that every stonemasonry structure ever built? Geogene (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BLUESKY applies to the statement "rocks balanced on each other are an example of rock balancing". Loki (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about on planets where the sky isn't blue? Still, Balancing rock is already its own article, as it should be because of established geological interest [8]. Geogene (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would help to pin down the wider WP:SCOPE of the article. Is this about the very specific (and I think standalone notable) 21st century fad of balancing rocks in artistic and often impossible-looking ways, is it about the balanced/cairn rockforms that frustrate National Parks, or is it about all possible ways in which stones can become piled up? The article was clearly focused on the former for its first 14 years on Wikipedia (here's how it looked in January 2020), but its current incarnation isn't really distinguishing the article subject from simple cairns. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the oldest revision of the article [9], and it seems it was intended to cover rock balancing as a modern hobby. I haven't seen evidence that sources treat artistic rock balancing as meaningfully different from rock balancing done in rivers and parks, and to assert here that they are different would require judging the intent of wilderness balancers in the same way that people objected to when it was called vandalism in Wiki-voice. I will grant the obvious, though, that some people who balance rocks are much better at it than others, and your average tourist isn't very good at it. Geogene (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". It is natural for us to stack the various reasons and ways this has been done in separate sections. As this seems to be a broad topic, we should expand and develop the topic in this way. For an example of a respectable source which does this, see National Geographic which explores "Why do people stack stones in the wild? ... We have been building these things for thousands of years. ... Stone piles have been built by world cultures from nomadic to agricultural to tribal. ... ". Such historical and geographical breadth and perspective is the way forward. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the cairn article already had that broader topic covered. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, a cairn is a subset of the broad topic because a cairn is a heap of several stones. But rock balancing can be done with just two (Rock on Top of Another Rock) and so is more general. And there are lots of standing stones which are just a single stone balanced on one end. There's a long tradition of erecting stones in impressive ways and, as this is a creative activity, we can't be too narrow and prescriptive about it. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear to me that the current version of the article is absurdly biased towards the "rock balancing is vandalism" side of things. As noted above, earlier versions of this article were more about the artistic/hobby aspect. Something can be artistic in one setting and still be inappropriate, or even vandalism, in other settings. Certainly this article should cover the negative aspects, but it shouldn't be the main focus of the article, and certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's reliably sourced info about rock balancing as a hobby, someone could always add it. Most of what has been there in the past was self-published sourcing. The higher the quality of sources you use, the more negative the coverage becomes. Geogene (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I see what you mean. Most of the news coverage is of the "The parks people don't want you to do this" variety. The books are more "rock balancing as art", but the publishers all seem to be niche and/or vanity presses. I went back to that January 2020 version and looked closer at the sources. Most of dubious. There's one NY Times article, but it's a passing mention, and doesn't even say what the sentence that's sourced to it says. The best source I see in that version is the NPR piece . -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lord_Belbury above gives links to several articles about rock balancing purely as a hobby or artistic pursuit, with little to no reference to "the parks people don't want you to do this". I'd particularly call attention to this Vice piece, and this piece in the Denver Post. Loki (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice and the Denver Post piece both strike me as clear examples of churnalism, or the practice many news agencies have of re-publishing press releases with their own byline on it in order to churn out as much content as possible. Even that 2013 NPR piece isn't original journalism, it's a photo gallery sourced to the balancer's own website, and a commentary on an interview the balancer gave with someone else. I'll also point out that WP:NEWSORG says that human interest reporting, which is what these sources are, is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news) Geogene (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Denver Post piece seems to be an interview. The Queenslander and US News sources that you added to emphasise the "vandalism" angle are social-media churnalism and a literal AP press release respectively. It does look like the bulk of genuine press coverage of this practice covers both the reasons why people do it and the reasons why conservation groups have concerns. If this article were to follow WP:NPOV, it would do the same. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a human interest interview that lacks any critical commentary, which puts it on the same tier as an opinion piece. Vandalism in a national park is hard news, which places it in a different tier. And WP:BESTSOURCES says, unsurprisingly, that NPOV snould be be based on the highest quality sources available when there's a POV dispute. And if a quality source says both "Scientists say rock balancing is bad" and "rock balancers say rock balancing is good", that doesn't mean that both should get equal weight per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Just because someone balances rocks in the outdoors doesn't make them qualified to give an opinion on whether they ought to be doing it or not, if experts are saying that they shouldn't be. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE is for minority views and extraordinary claims, which isn't the issue. Nobody's trying to quote a rock balancer saying that the environmental criticism is unfounded. Writing that people balance rocks because they think it's relaxing or looks nice, and probably saw it on Instagram, is not an extraordinary minority claim, it's covered in practically every source. --Lord Belbury (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puv_cHwT22Y looks like a pretty solid WP:RS. WP:RSP says "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology", which I think fits here. It's certainly WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like this New Yorker One The current tone of article seems related to National_park#Criticisms stoppinh people having access to the parks .
    I am also concerned that the references cherry pick minor points, eg the Wombat State forest artile only mentions rockstacking in passing and personal communication
    "Rock displacement.—Many species in the Liopholis genus, including L. montana, typically occur in areas where individuals can construct burrows beneath exfoliated surface rocks. These rocks, and hence the important refuge sites they constitute, can be displaced during human activates such as logging, mining, track construction and maintenance, rock-stacking, and people lifting rocks in search of reptiles (Michael et al., 2010; N. Clemann, pers. comm.). All such activities likely pose a threat to the persistence of L. montana in Wombat SF by reducing the availability of refuge sites." Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the full RfC I agree that rock stacking should be given weight as a form of art etc. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cairns for genuine purposes[edit]

I don't disagree with the framing of rock stacking as vandalism. However it needs to be clarified that there are other reasons for creating rock stacks, which presumably are not the subject of criticism. (Particularly where they are used as waymarks Trail_blazing#Cairns and Trail_blazing#Trail_ducks.) Kauri0.o (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources[edit]

How do we feel about using these sources to expand the article?

The subjects of the BBC and Vice interviews may not be notable people so their articles don't have much weight (and certainly shouldn't be used to make any big claims about depression), but they seem usable as reliable sources describing the process, as well as the fact that rock-balancing art events, festivals and competitions exist. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the specific text being sourced. But I've already pointed out the Denver Post and Wired reports are churnalism and human interest pieces, respectively. Geogene (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Denver Post article seems to be a genuine, original interview rather than a press release or second-hand quotation from Grab's website. Given that Grab seems a notable enough artist to have a Wikipedia article, quoting his take on the process would add to the article, I think. Looking for quotes, I'd maybe take There’s quite a bit of Zen or Buddhist overtones. Impermanence is a huge Zen philosophy. as presenting his opinion, as well as his aim being to make it look as impossible as possible, the fact that a single balancing can take minutes or hours, and that he believes that If there’s no wind, they would last for months (which gives an angle on why building them in national parks and near trail markers is a bad idea).
Wired's human interest video seems fine for an article about a hobby, if clearly presented in the context of an artist's statements about his work. People ask if it's glued, if there's steel rods, a lot of people really don't understand that it's just balanced. is useful there, and an earlier version of this article also used to use that point as an opener, that they're balanced with no glue or wires or tricks. the bigger the top rock, the more impossible the structure will look seems an interesting point about aesthetics. There are also some good structural points in there about balancing on three points of contact, and splashing the rocks with water at the end to check how stable they are. Also definitely worth quoting that he knocks all of his sculptures over after photographing them, I think. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Geogene (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and nearly all of that would be framed as Michael Grab talking about his own process, as a recognised expert. It would be good if some of that could be stated more universally - that the lack of glue isn't unique to Grab; that rocks standing for months might actually be more than just Grab's opinion - but we'd need stronger sources to say that in wikivoice, and I don't know if we have those yet.
Any thoughts on the other sources above? --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the BBC, Hakai Magazine, WSJ, and Times best. It's probably okay to mention no glue/wires and the thing about big stones on smaller ones looking impossible in Wikipedia voice. Geogene (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems[edit]

This article now spends the same amount of time on churnalistic trivial coverage of rock-stacking artists as it does scientific opposition to rock stacking in wilderness areas. Plus, the opposition is contained in a criticism section at the end. Just because some people stack rocks for instagram doesn't mean their opinions on it should be in the article, this goes against Wikipedia:Academic_bias. And if this art, where is the commentary on it by academic art experts? All of the claims to it being an artistic pursuit are from web-based news. If it's a Buddhist practice, then where are sources from scholars on Buddhism? As far as I can tell, the only scholarly commentary about it are from conservationists. Geogene (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article quotes three original interviews with artists who work with rocks, I don't see how these could be considered "churnalism" or WP:ROUTINE. It's unclear if the Denver Post interview was also published in print, but even if it wasn't, why would it be an issue if a news source was "web-based"?
There's no claim made that rock balancing is a Buddhist practice, just that "some compare it". Belbury (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Belbury here. The positive sources are perfectly reliable, and that thing you linked is an essay, not policy. Loki (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that thing you linked to is an essay, not policy So? Geogene (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Academic_bias_and_Rock_balancing. Geogene (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like too much weight is given to the process of a small handful of artists. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I would find the academic bias argument more compelling if this article were significantly longer and we were deciding between artists and academics. There's currently plenty of room for both, as long as we're sticking to reliable sources. That said, I think that § Process would be significantly better if it covered more general trends rather than focusing on a couple specific people. That's partly a content issue, but also partly an issue of wording and presentation.      — Freoh 20:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be possible if WP:SECONDARY sources were covering the process of rock balancing art, but as far as I know, all that's out there are WP:PRIMARY interviews with individual artists. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_balancing&oldid=1207069707"