Talk:Stonehenge/Archive 3

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

Function and construction

Before this turns into an edit war: User:Pendragon5 has attempted to add the following to the Function and Construction section:

including who was the builders of it. There are ongoing debates about who built it including the Danes, Romans, Saxons, Greeks, Atlanteans, Egyptians, Phoenicians Celts, King Aurelius Ambrosious, Merlin, and even Aliens.[1]

I see no reason to include this in this section. Apart from being poorly written these are outdated myths that are no longer included in any serious debate on this subject. Most are included in the Folklore section and/or Theories about Stonehenge where they belong. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"outdated myths that are no longer included in any serious debate on this subject." I would like to see your source for this strong statement. What serious debates are you talking about here? Who were the people in that serious debate? What proves my myths are outdated? Too much claims here.Pendragon5 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with my statement that you claimed as being poorly written. Perhaps you have a better way to state it? I would agree that the statement is mostly from myths and legends. That doesn't mean it is not relevant to the article. You claimed that most of that are included in Folklore section and/or Theories about Stonehenge. I don't really see it. It would be useful if you can point out where specifically it is included in the article. Like I said, the article does not mention at all who were the builders of it. We probably don't know who actually built it, but at least try to provide some theories about it. It is better than leaving the readers clueless about who built it. As always, it is better than nothing! While you saw no reason to include this piece of information. I see the great reason for it. The reason to include this is simple! It is my duty and the goal of Wikipedia to give readers the sum of all human's knowledges!Pendragon5 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Plus you claimed that myths are not fit into this section. Look "This multiplicity of theories, some of them very colourful, are often called the "mystery of Stonehenge". A number of myths surround the stones.", then what is this for? Why don't you delete that out also? The section does in fact mention about myths, but does not specify the details. Why not include what are the myths instead of just talking about myths? What myth is being talked about? This would leave curious readers unsatisfied just as I was when I read this article and tried to look for who built the Stonehenge.Pendragon5 (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In total support of DerbyCountyinNZ. The idea that there is "ongoing debate" about "the Danes, Romans, Saxons, Greeks, Atlanteans, Egyptians, Phoenicians Celts, King Aurelius Ambrosious, Merlin, and even Aliens" is utter tosh. These theories are prime examples of WP:FRINGE. They should certainly not be given any weight at all in a serious encyclopedia article like this, but perhaps can be mentioned briefly at Theories about Stonehenge. Within this article, the origins of Stonehenge are already discussed in the section on "Function and construction". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think it is tosh? Where is your evidence that is fringe theory? I clearly said those are myths. Wikipedia has a policy against myths? It is just 1 sentence within the article, it is not like I put an entire paragraph or section about it. Plus do you really think myths are all nonsense and not serious at all? Lastly, I'm not talking about the origin of Stonehenge. I want to know who built it, that is what the article is completely missing out! I urge you guys to add something about its builders, could be myths and theories whatever. Copy and paste an exact sentence in the article that mentions about its builders for me to see please.Pendragon5 (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You did not refer to myths, your text referred to "serious debate", which is untrue. There is no evidence that Atlanteans, Merlin and Aliens ever existed, anywhere. There is no evidence that Danes, Romans, Saxons, Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Celts, or "King Aurelius Ambrosious" [sic] played any part in constructing Stonehenge. Please read some serious works on the archaeology of the site. This article does not report "myths", or wacky "theories". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
First, stop adding "word" into what I wrote. I wrote debates, not serious debates. I agree that most myths or legends are usually false information, but I don't think briefly include myths in an article is prohibited by Wikipedia. Please point out the policy that says so. And answer my question, why in that section there is a mention of myths then why I can't add what are some myths instead of just mentioning about myths? I have asked many questions and you did not even bother to answer them.Pendragon5 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We have an article, Theories about Stonehenge, for fringe ideas such as these. And they are not myths although the Merlin story might be called a legend. Your source completely fails WP:RS. "?It's a self-published personal website and however old it is, there's no evidence Stoudt is an expert on Stonehenge. And finally,you've got 3 editors now disagreeing with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine, the validity of my source is a valid reason to reject my statement from the article. Someone should have mentioned this problem instead of pointing out other nonsense reasons. If someone has provided this reason, I would have conceded a while ago.Pendragon5 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Make that four editors who disagree with the inclusion of this nonsense. And you don't see anything wrong with "including who was the builders of it"? - try asking any twelve-year-old. Richerman (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Whoa whoa... I think you've crossed the line there. No information is nonsense by definition. The question in debate here is that my sentence may not fit into the section or the credibility of my source does not meet the WIkipedia's guideline, so stop saying it is nonsense! And, are you trying to compare me with a 12 years old kid?? I would consider it as an insult. I'm strongly doubt that there is any editor who are 12 years old here. Plus a 12 years old kid would not know about what to say about this debate nor do they care to even involve in it. Last, you seem to assume that all 12 years old kids would have the same opinions on whether or not to include who was the builder of this. That is a grossly false assumption that must be avoid in discussion within Wikipedia. If you have research from someone to back it up then please show it.Pendragon5 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok look, I would not add that sentence to the article anymore due to its source credibility. However, I would like someone to add something about who was the builder of it that from serious debates. The article is completely missing out on that. That leaves the readers an uneasy feeling like when I was reading this article, trying to find out who was the builder. Wikipedia's job is to provide readers as much information as possible unless it's the information is repetitive or unnecessary. And don't tell me the builder of this is repetitive or unnecessary, because it is not! I'm trying to improve the article here. You guys are acting like I have bad intention or something. Instead of a warmly discussion that benefit everyone (such as readers and editors), all I see is unfriendly comments or even hostile toward me. I thought Wikipedia has a policy welcoming everyone? I don't feel welcome here at all, not at all!Pendragon5 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about the source. I'm sorry that you don't feel welcome, but honestly your approach here has been confrontational, both in your continuing to try to force the material into the article and your comments above, particularly "The reason to include this is simple! It is my duty and the goal of Wikipedia to give readers the sum of all human's knowledges! That's actually not our goal. There's a short essay at Wikipedia:Purpose about our purpose. Our principles can be read at Wikipedia:Five pillars - note the emphasis on both on reliability, and the pillars article says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are." We are here to build an encyclopedia about subjects that are notable by our criteria and based on what reliable sources say about those subjects.
Now as to your question about who built Stonehenge. The basic answer is the people of Britain, at times from as far away as possible.[1] - the BBC article brings up an interesting problem. The BBC is usually considered a reliable source, but whoever wrote that really knew little about Stonehenge -- "Until now it had been thought that Stonehenge was built as an astronomical calendar or observatory" is wrong - those ideas were only two among others, and not recently taken that seriously. It's been more usually described as a place of worship or even burial. See also [2] - we don't actually have names for all the builders, so we can only say when it was built and in some cases where the people came from. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In culture

I can't find a mention of the Spinal Tap classic, nor Ylvis' song "Stonehenge" which suggests that the monument might have been a paleolithic prison or possibly a "giant granite birthday cake", and has the memorable lines:

When the kids have gone to bed, we're all alone
She gives me a smile
Then she plays with my balls
But all I think of is Stonehenge..
-- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Other possible interpretation

It seems possible to me that several monuments at and around Stonehenge and also elsewhere (even outside the British isles) can be explained by fear for wildfires. At least one function of these monuments can have been to be extremely helpful in case of a wildfire. This applies not only to "monuments" like the Stonehenge and Dorset cursrs but also to stone circles, henges, avenues, etc. In the Stonehenge area the complex of stone circles, henges and avenues to and from the river Avon can maybe (to a great extent) be explained by providing means to escape from wildfires. This does not mean they could not be used for other things as well, e.g., religious/ceremonial events when there were no wildfires and/or the chance for a wildfire was reduced. Do not forget that in certain periods during the millenia those monuments were constructed and used, the landscape altered a lot, that in case of a wildfire it may have been difficult at certain places to find one's way. Stones, ditches and banks may have been very helpful in order not to get lost during a wildfire. Even the particular form of certain henges and stone circles in which some stones are omitted or which are not completely symmetrical, may have been useful for orientation purposes during such a disaster. Do not forget also that wildfires may have been used for hunting and also for military purposes, besides deforesting and that involuntary wildfires occurred maybe very often in quite densely forested regions. Do not forget either that wildfires are not at all necessarily forest fires and are not limited to regions with trees.

VandenheedeJanGJ (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Docteur en Arts et Sciences de l'Art (Université de Paris I - Panthéon -Sorbonne)

Vandenheede, I've already said on the Dorset Cursus talk page, that I'm afraid these discussions aren't appropriate on Wikipedia talk pages, which are meant for discussion on article content. They are not a forum for debate about possible interpretations that don't exist in reliable sources. Ranger Steve Talk 11:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Locked?

I think I speak for many of us if I say how proud we are of wikipedia. But we must put further effort to make it democratic and find a way to curb not only vandalism but overzealous redactors. I understand there is a reason to lock this article but before we lock something we must put good effort to make the article decant, this one is redundant and not that great. Also let's devise a system that instead locking the articles we just appoint a redactor who greenlights the edits. It is our project, lets make it the best it can be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.22.215 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only locked to anonymous users as most of the vandalism comes from anonymous users. If you set up a username and make a few edits you can edit this article. I don't know what you mean by "redundant" though - it could certainly be better but if you look at the link to the press coverage at the top, according to Mike Pitts, "The Wikipedia article on Stonehenge is a more useful guide to the monument than paid-for commercial apps". Richerman (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

I agree with Derby that the most recent image to be put in the infobox is inferior to the one I have just reinstated. The effect on the stones and sky does not look natural and I believe that it is inappropriate for the lead.

Ezykron's image was added a month ago with no consensus for change. Let's see if we can establish a consensus here without edit warring. Ranger Steve Talk 12:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unnatural looking tone mapping is best avoided since the effect gets annoying fairly quickly. 2007 flickr is the best we have. So until WMUK manages to drag a bunch of the UK's better photographers over it it is what we will have to settle for.©Geni (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

The two images close together for analysis

Chrismrutherford (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Please Restore Phase 3

The section "Stonehenge 3 IV (2280 BC to 1930 BC)" begins "This phase saw further rearrangement of the bluestones." This is the first time the term "bluestone" appears in the article, much less any indication of prior rearrangement.

"Bluestone" is not linked, although there is a Wikipedia page for it. From that page: "The bluestones at Stonehenge were placed there during the third phase of construction at Stonehenge around 2300 BC."

That, combined with closer scrutiny of the Stonehenge article, reveals that there must at one time have been a section called "Stonehenge 3 III (2400 BC to 2280 BC)". What happened to it? Please restore it. Prignillius (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bluestone is mentioned 4 times in the article prior to the above passage, once in the lede, twice in Stonehenge 1 and once in Stonehenge 3 I. It is actually linked 3 times which contradicts WP:OVERLINKING. I've restored the Stonehenge 3 III section as I have no idea why User:Achowat reverted their restore of this (in January 2012!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Academic boosterism is bad

Please, the readership does not need to have the University of Birminghams's name plastered on the lead of an article, Stonehenge, which has nothing to do with the University of Birmingham. One might argue that this tidbit of information, unvetted by peer-review and basically the invention of a PR person, belongs in the article at all. Certainly it does not need to be in the lead. Ask; what is the evidence that the structures date to 4000 BC? None, really. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Stonehenge has nothing to do with the University of Birmingham" - wrong, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This "tidbit of information" has been widely reported in sources such as The Telegraph, The Guardian and the BBC. On what basis is the assertion made that it is "basically the invention of a PR person"? The sources all include the information that the study was undertaken by the University of Birmingham, so it is rather odd to argue so vociferously against including such information. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit by Abductive. If you want to remove the reference to the University of Birmingham you need to show evidence that this is not appropriate for the lead or the article at all. This sentence without the reference to the University of Birmingham is merely an unreferenced statement which should not be in the lead or article. I agree with PaleCloudedWhite, the information has been widely reported and until information is provided to the contrary should be included in the article. Robynthehode (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is not relevant. Wikipedia has refs to avoid inflicting text like that on the readers. Theoretically, every sentence in every article in this encyclopedia could have the name of the person or team or university that first discovered that piece of information added to the sentence. But why? Abductive (reasoning) 02:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this info from the lede as it does not meet WP:LEDE. As it is only incidental to the main points about Stonehenge how widely reported it is is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Which part of WP:LEDE do you think it fails to meet? This seems to be a notable discovery using a technique not previously employed here. And it may radically change the way Stonehenge is understood. If an academic institution makes a discovery I think it should be given the credit. I don't see it as "inflicting" anything on the reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much everything really! That "a university" (there is no reason whatsoever to identify who) discovered some other monuments in the vicinity of Stonehenge which may, or may NOT, be directly associated with Stonehenge (temporally as well s geographically) and MAY (as noted in the citation), or may not, date to 4000BC, does not fall under the scope of "a summary of its most important aspects" or "...give emphasis...to material in the lead ...which...roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Even if it were proved that the 17 new monuments were directly associated with Stonehenge they would just make the "most dense complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in England"slightly more dense. Any claim that they might change the way Stonehenge is interpreted would violate not only WP:CRYSTAL but, at present and as far as the lede is concerned, WP:WEIGHT.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
So perhaps it belongs in the lede at Recent history of Stonehenge? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Martinevans' recent revision ("as of 10:16, 14 September 2014") is a good solution to this debate ... the right place for the information. Xenxax (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

built at 19 century

http://worldtruth.tv/1954-photos-show-stonehenge-being-built/
123.203.118.107 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Great quality images for the 19th century! But no, just four years out in fact: "In 1958 the stones were restored again, when three of the standing sarsens were re-erected and set in concrete bases." So already covered in the article. Nice images, shame about the conspiracy theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Carhenge

Is this really deserving to be included in a list of "things similar to Stonehenge"?

I could understand if it was in a "Legacy" section, or in a section on "Stonehenge in art". Chaosdruid (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is similar enough to Stonehenge in the fact that it is an exact copy of it made out of cars. Football1607 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(Yes, the mysterious "petrifed caterpillar".... Apparently constructed, back in the stone age, by petrol-head druids, but so controversial, it will soon be driven underground. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

Amesbury finds -Times and Telegraph sources disagree ..by 5500 years!

I've added [3] this snippet from the Telegraph but note with alarm / despondency that the Times article- 9,500BC site find by Stonehenge may spike tunnel plans is claiming much older finds. Does anyone have access to suitable archaeology journals? Regards JRPG (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

this is probably better. The relevant paragraph is:

Radiocarbon dating of objects from the Buckingham-sponsored excavations now shows that this site was occupied between 7550-4700 BC, which means that the Blick Mead site was in continuous use for almost 3,000 years.

The 9500 in the Times story is BP not BC (not an uncommon error) while the Telegraph has a gross rounding of the more recent RC range. Typical poor journalism.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... But at the same time, a lot of the material coming from this dig is hyperbole. I'm afraid there is little in the way of archaeology journals in this instance. Ranger Steve Talk 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly thanks both for a prompt response. Hope I haven't trodden on any toes by using the source ,which is really interesting. Obviously a lot more to come from this potentially very significant additional site. JRPG (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, they're both valid sources for Wikipedia (although there's probably a fine line to be struck about coverage and weight, but I'm not looking at that in this conversation). It is an interesting site, but in my opinion (and many others I know) not as noteworthy as the press releases would claim. There are far more significant and equally ancient sites closer to Stonehenge - the car park Mesolithic post holes for instance. Ranger Steve Talk 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

The Stonehenge is a map of the universe created by the Mayans shortly after they were abducted by aliens Epicstar911 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Solstice alignment

I recently added a paragraph on the alignment of the solstice. This is a well-established, famous and important feature of the monument. Unfortunately the paragraph has been deleted a few times for spurious reasons. One claim was that these details are covered elsewhere in the article. This is simply false. Reference is made to the avenue, and to the separate site of "woodhenge", but nowhere does the article mention stonehenge itself or give any clear, dedicated exposition of the solstice connection. Another reason was that the paragraph contradicted the secondary article, Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge. Again, this is just false and incomprehensible. Nowhere does that article deny the basic fact that the stones are aligned on the solstices. It covers some minor subtleties, such as the fact the heel stone may have had a neighbour, to more accurately frame the solstice. It also mentions the evidence that the people may not have been concerned with the summer solstice sunrise, only the winter solstice sunset. However, my contribution was intentionally and explicitly neutral on the intended meaning of the monument; it only stated the fact that, in purely geographical terms, there is indeed an alignment. This fact is well-established and well cited.

So to summarise, my content is:

  • Of high importance to the main article.
  • Not covered elsewhere in the main article.
  • A neutral, non-speculative, well-established archaeological fact.
  • Cited.

Therefore I request that a thorough explanation be given in this talk page before any future summary deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denziloe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You obviously spotted a major problem with your earlier edits, as you dropped the word "accurately", which contradicted the main article. I can't speak for the other editor who reverted you. Doug Weller (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No I did not. The alignment is accurate -- it's to within a couple of degrees or better -- and the main article does not contradict this (why do you think so..?). But of course, "accurate" is a vague and subjective term, so I removed it. I also thought it could be misinterpreted as kooky, like the claims you hear about the pyramids being constructed more "accurately" than modern technology and rubbish like that. If you had a "major problem" with this one word then you should have removed the word, not the entire section. --Denziloe (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST - Stonehenge was an Astronomical Observatory and Celestial-based Calendar

This article must include the undisputable evidence of Stonehenge was an astronomical observatory and celestial-based calendar. The heel stone was erected to mark the summer solstice and the winter solstice was also marked. The 30 Y Holes & 29 Z Holes were used as day-markers within the lunar months of 29.53 days. The Sarsen Circle was designed as 30 uprights & 30 lintels to also mark the significance of the lunar cycle. The 56 Aubrey Holes measured the 18.6 year lunar nutation cycle through 19+19+18=56. The positions of the Sun & Moon on the horizon was also marked. - Hawkins, Gerald S. Stonehenge Decoded (Barnes & Noble Books, 1993 [originally 1965]).

The ancients observed the geocentric 7 Classical Planets of Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. 4 of these don't cast shadows on Earth (Venus can) and 4 of these can't be easily seen during the day (Venus can be). There are 4 phases of the moon roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each. The lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. The Big Dipper is 7 stars with 4 in its ladle. It points towards Polaris the North Star and the tip of the handle of the Little Dipper, again 7 stars with 4 in its ladle. Orion the Hunter is 7 stars with 4 marking its shoulders & feet (3 stars of Orion's Belt). The 7 Sisters of Pleiades. Mars was observed having a 47-year cycle with it returning to the same point in relation to Earth & the Sun every 47 years. This pattern of the combination of 7 & 4 was considered sacred and was the basis of sacred geometry with its precept "As above, so below". The ancient Egyptians took the standard cubit of 6 palms x 4 fingers = 24 digits and added a palm to create the royal cubit of 7 palms x 4 fingers = 28 digits. Genesis 1:1 / Bereshis 1:1 in its original Hebrew is 7 words & 28 (7x4) letters. Stonehenge for centuries has only the 'ruins' of its original design with the most connected sarsens being 7 with 4 upright stones. Through the center of this gate is seen the heel stone. - The Astronomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.106.190 (talk)

There is a link in the article to Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge where this and other theories are discussed. However, the evidence is certainly not "indisputable" as it has been questioned by Atkinson, for one. Richerman (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had just discovered that link. The evidence is as undisputable as evolution. It should be included in this article! - The Astronomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.106.190 (talk)

Even though Atkinson accepted most of the views or the Thoms before he died, if it were indisputable we wouldn't have Clive Ruggles disputing it, or the Armagh Observatory, see this leaflet.[4]"Did the equinoxes mean anything to prehistoric people? Probably not. While the limits of the Sun’s rising and setting arcs were physically tangible, there are no grounds for inherently assuming that people attributed any special significance to their midpoints, either in space or time, let alone to a modern astronomer’s definition of the equinox. Was Stonehenge a calendar? Probably not. The solstitial axis may be spatially accurate but it is not precise in time, because the shift in the Sun’s rising (or setting) position close to the solstices is small and not easy to measure. Although modern people seek to visit on the actual solstice (21 June) it is unlikely that prehistoric people knew this exact date: even the Romans had trouble determining the precise date of the solstices, which – indirectly – is why Christmas is celebrated on 25 December and not on the 21st, the actual winter solstice date." Doug Weller (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO, Blah, blah, blah, so what? It's annoying.

The surrounding circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC. The site and its surroundings were added to the UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites in 1986 in a co-listing with Avebury Henge. It is a national legally protected Scheduled Ancient Monument. Stonehenge is owned by the Crown and managed by English Heritage, while the surrounding land is owned by the National Trust.[6][7]

The fact that Stonehenge is listed by some irrelevant, tedious, bureaucratic organization is a HUGE yawner. So what? After 3000 years, one of the single-most important facts that can be said about it is that some organization no one has ever heard or, or cares about, or thinks about, or needs to know about, or wants to know about is posted into the lede at sentence #9 or so. Stupid. Like some bureaucrat for some government controlled state agency wants to know that this pissant organization exists, so they latch on to the fact that they've put the word "stonehenge" on their little list, so that everyone in the world that comes to learn about Stonehenge can see that this pissant organization has the word "Stonehenge" on their list. And Mr. Florence G. Dinkleheimer of Amalgamated Pissant Industries, LLC shook President Obama's hand when he came to town in 2010. Put that at sentence #9 in the Lede about Barrack Obama and see how long that lasts.Jonny Quick (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are irrelevant here. World Heritage Sites are regarded globally as those sites most worthy of protection, and the article text correctly highlights Stonehenge's importance. Please only contribute further here if you intend to improve the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we've all heard quite enough about your massive yawner, Jonny. But Pissant Industries sounds like a promising source of new English Heritage revenue. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stonehenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What to do about New henge at Stonehenge

It's got one sentence in this article. Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A.k.a. "Superhenge". Recent, widely reported story seems not to have made it into our article, nor been discussed & rejected. Seems to have been reported by reputable sources.

Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham University again? See Archive 3 and Recent history of Stonehenge? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Original erection and transport from Craig Rhos-y-felin - new paper from Dec 2015

It's probably worth mentioning Mike Parker Pearson et al's paper Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge, published in the December 2015 edition of Antiquity, as this provides new evidence about the stones' quarrying and transportation.

Abstract, refs and full text are available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10057091&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0003598X150017751

In a 7 Dec 2015 interview with The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/stonehenge-first-erected-in-wales-secondhand-monument) Parker Pearson notes that a 500 year gap between the bluestones being quarried at Craig Rhos-y-felin and their erection on Salisbury Plain likely indicate that "It’s more likely that the stones were first used in a local monument, somewhere near the quarries, that was then dismantled and dragged off to Wiltshire."

13hirteen (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that I've added some of the findings to the article. I hadn't realised how much of it was unreferenced. Richerman (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple obvious typos that were added recently.

2011 by the discovery the discovery of a megalithic => 2011 by the discovery of a megalithic

most likely place for the some of the stones to have been obtained => most likely place for the stones to have been obtained

The lintel stones are each around 3.2 metres (10 ft), => The lintel stones are each around 3.2 metres (10 ft) long,

2602:30B:82B7:1780:DCB3:C717:5665:A506 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't fix this. Someone should.

I've fixed them, thanks. Richerman (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It´s bizarre how the most obvious method of transport, waiting for winter, snow and ice to cover the ground, then just pushing the stone like a sleigh, remains unmentioned in those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.213.215 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Since our articles are built upon what reliable sources say, it's only bizarre if we've overlooked some obvious sources. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stonehenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: original source has been moved to a different address. Dschslava (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Radiocarbon Dating

This sentence here does not belong in the article. 'Radiocarbon dating suggests that the first bluestones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC' Sorry but since when can radiocarbon dating estimate the actions of something being raised rather than how old it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos012 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't read the source, that helps explain it. In any case, radiocarbon dating couldn't date the stones. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mesolithic postholes

I think the Mesolithic section needs attention.

Archaeologists have found four, or possibly five, large Mesolithic postholes (one may have been a natural tree throw), which date to around 8000 BC, beneath the nearby modern tourist car-park. These held pine posts around 0.75 metres (2 ft 6 in) in diameter which were erected and eventually rotted in situ. Three of the posts (and possibly four) were in an east-west alignment which may have had ritual significance...

The "nearby modern tourist car-park" is no longer there. The postholes are about 200m north-west of the monument.

The text ("date to around 8000 BC" and "in an east-west alignment") is rather vague and implies that the posts existed concurrently, whereas they were probably erected hundreds of years apart. Radiocarbon dates for Post A = 8820—7730 cal BC and Post B = 7480—6590 cal BC. English Heritage gives "between 8500 and 7000 BC."

The "east-west alignment which may have had ritual significance..." is not the primary reason archeologists link the postholes to the monument (various functions such as totem poles have been postulated); it is the seperation of the dates that is of real interest, revealing that mesolithic people returned to this site over a long period.

  • Cleal R M 1995 Stonehenge in its Landscape, 43
  • G Vatcher and F de M Vatcher, "Excavation of three post-holes in Stonehenge car park", Wiltshire Archaeological and History Magazine, 68 (1973), 57–63.
  • Parker Pearson M Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery, 135

Also...

Charcoal from the ‘Blick Mead’ camp 2.4 kilometres (1.5 mi) from Stonehenge (near the Vespasian's Camp site) has been dated to 4000 BC

This sentence sourced to the Telegraph is unnecessary and confusing - the next sentence cites a better source [5] with different dates:

Radiocarbon dating of objects from the Buckingham-sponsored excavations now shows that this site was occupied between 7550-4700 BC, which means that the Blick Mead site was in continuous use for almost 3,000 years. This is generating great interest from archaeologists who have long pondered the possibility of a ‘missing link’ between the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of activity at Stonehenge. The radiocarbon dates make this the oldest ever ‘homebase’ found in the Stonehenge area and could be one of the reasons why Stonehenge is sited where it is.

The next section, Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC), repeats itself concerning the possibility of stones being in place 500 years earlier than previously thought. The final sentence is perhaps a little ambiguous!

Strontium isotope analysis of the animal teeth showed that some had travelled from as far afield as the Scottish Highlands for the celebrations.

-- Lady Gargoyle (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge into Stonehenge

Surprised this hasn't been proposed yet:

  • Very niche subject.
  • The title uses a very obscure term, unlikely to be found.
  • Article has very few sources and needs to be condensed anyway {the lead and two sections are unsourced}.
  • Subject is what Stonehenge is mostly known for {from what I understand} so it would make sense to be in the main article.

Eaterjolly (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge was split form Stonehenge in the first place, presumably (I haven't checked) because it was felt that there was so much content that it was inappropriate to retain it all here and that it would be better placed in its own article. I don't feel that the reasons listed above are sufficient for a merge (i.e. deletion and redirect), more that the A and S article be improved. I assume that after a straw poll here you would be taking A and S to Afd, but really you could have taken it straight there. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think wholesale discarding the information would be appropriate or should receive any consensus. This time article attributes the star-calendar theory as one of the historically most predominant theories, regardless if today most academics agree that it is an implausible modern explanation of its function, it was once notable and probably a great deal of the reason why it's been labeled a wonder of the world as opposed to the city of Jericho (just as old). Probably would be appropriate due-weight in terms of notability to mention this theory in the lead and have a summary section, unfortunately in terms of sources comparing/contrasting old with new theories, perhaps there is something to be desired for. Btw, the only mention of page splitting I could find in the talk archive was Talk:Stonehenge/Archive_1#Summer_solstice_2005 and the user that did the page creation, was not involved in that discussion (though the timeframe is about right).
Personally, I think the page would be made better if it was better reference-able. I mean, logically since its betterment is sort of a community effort, better reference-ability with this article and perhaps a better title would be conducive to more active contributors who know what they are doing. Eaterjolly (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose:I don't support merging these two articles as I think this article should keep to the mainstream theories and fringe theories should be kept separate. The other articles are easily enough found from this article. I do however think that the article Theories about Stonehenge should include the archeoastronomy theories and link to that article and I could see merits in merging those two articles. On a procedural point, a merge proposal should have banners on both articles named in the proposal. Richerman (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment — I wonder what the predominance of fringe theories are for Stonehenge nowadays. I know they used to be quite famous and stereotypical reference in "extra-terrestrial interference" debates, but I haven't heard much of these ideas as of recent. Obviously, once notable; always notable, so this shouldn't affect the articles themselves, but for further-or-less inclusion in the main article?Eaterjolly (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
heres a way to tell you about it in a easy way for you to no about it

Stonehenge is an ancient monument that is an incomplete circle of standing stones in Wiltshire, England.Stonehenge is made of 83 stones and they weigh 25 tons. Scientists believe that it was constructed in 2000 bc to 3000 bc. Stonehenge is one of the most popular places in England and it has been protected ever since 1882 and it is owned by the national trust. The rocks that Stonehenge was constructed out of was used to be called Pendulous rocks but now it is called Henges in a place called Yorkshire.

Around Stonehenge is a ditch that is the shape of a circle and is about 360 feet. When it was first constructed, Stonehenge was a complete circle when it was first built but then a part of it fell down and broke and that is why there are rocks in the middle of the circle. On the rocks there were carvings of axe heads and a dagger. The circle around it was made in 1600 bc. North from the Stonehenge is a rough stone and it's 16 feet.

No one knows for sure why Stonehenge was built. Some people think that it was a burial ground because there were human bones. Some people think Stonehenge was used as a calendar. No one knows how Stonehenge rocks was transported but some scientists believe that the rocks were transported on rollers and sledges.

In 1977 Stonehenge was roped off and now people can't touch it and get get near it. Stonehenge was roped off because the rocks will wear away if people keep touching it. Some access had been allowed during solstice to allow people who have a genuine religion because Stonehenge is a place of worship for some religions. The people that worship Stonehenge are Druids, Pagans, English heritage, and spiritualists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinjjj (talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stonehenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC) poor description

In the section "Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC)" the text describes a ditch and a bank, likely concentric, but fails to state which is inner and which is outer, the bank or the ditch? Poorly described, please illuminate which was on the inside and which was on hte outside. 2601:342:0:E3D0:D1AF:1709:9A21:BC0B (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody mentions idea that mammoths carried the stones

The extinction of the mammoth happened about 500 yrs after the construction of Stonehenge. It seems obvious to me that they were used for trade throughout these times in the same way that elephants still are used like that. They wouldn't have even needed to be carried at the time of construction it could be millennia beforehand.

I'm guessing that a lack of evidence of a mammoth bone in Britain of this time is why people don't suggest this? But how far have they looked?

It just is the only reasonable solution to the transport of the bluestones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 08:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source for this theory it can't be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
well if you google the time of building for the monument and read the wiki article about mammoths and then compare them, you find that mammoths were around 500 years after the henge was built...I haven't investigated their sources, someone else can take the reins on that, I have no attachment to this being true or established knowledge in the wider human psyche :) J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"Woolly mammoths lived in Britain as recently as 14,000 years ago"? The Mammoth article says "Until recently, the last woolly mammoths were generally assumed to have vanished from Europe and southern Siberia about 12,000 years ago, but new findings show some were still present there about 10,000 years ago." And this article says "Archaeologists believe it was constructed from 3000 BC to 2000 BC." There seems to be a bit of a gap of about 5,000 years there? And Stonehenge isn't in Siberia? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
why are you assuming that the stones need to have been transported directly at the time of construction? J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Um, yes. Why aren't you? The article says "Radiocarbon dating suggests that the first bluestones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC although they may have been at the site as early as 3000 BC"? By all means present sources for a different date. And, more importantly, present even one single source, from a recognised expert, that mammoths were involved. No-one is going to "take the reins to investigate their sources", because no-one else seems to think it's even remotely possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Unless you can find a reliable source that claims that mammoths were used, this discussion is pointless and will be closed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stonehenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pZ7uR6v8c&t=325s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Wallington Thought this discovery would be a useful addition to the theorized construction techniques presented in the text.

Suggested text: Recently a simple "seesaw" lever technique has been proposed by carpenter Wally Wallington (link to Wikipedia page), which is especially plausible considering it requires little manpower, and no ropes or pulleys. 178.82.115.215 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is already in the related article Theories about Stonehenge, which is linked from this one at the top of the "Function and construction" section: . In 2003 retired construction worker Wally Wallington demonstrated ingenious techniques based on fundamental principles of levers, fulcrums and counterweights to show that a single man can rotate, walk, lift and tip a ten-ton cast-concrete monolith into an upright position. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Supposed errors for Stonehenge render.jpg

Hi, I've posted an issue section in discussion page for Related media at Wikimedia Commons:

as author User:Jlert (or User:Jlert~commonswiki) is unreachable !

Thanks, yours, En rouge (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


For those that are interested, the discussion page is at commons:File talk:Stonehenge render.jpg --Marc Kupper|talk 04:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Murno gladst fence

User Youtryandyoutry (talk · contribs) has included the above term, both here and in Henge. Having requested they provide an appropriate citation to justify this inclusion they have provided this reference: [6]. This citation makes NO mention of murno gladst, there is nothing which resembles such a fence and in fact it does not include the word "fence" at all. This looks very much like OR or agenda pushing. I see no justification for the inclusion of this term but before I remove it would like others opinions. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this subject to light. I'll make one correction to your summary. Today I saw that there was an invalid reference in the same place as where my current citation now is. I knew that my reference both corroborated the statement that had been improperly cited and also that it referenced the murno gladst fence as being something which has been discovered at the site. I included the reference in my ORIGINAL edit and NOT when I was asked to do so afterwards (please check the history). I also included the two other references which appear at the end of this sentence which further support this statement. I can provide further references that indicate that evidence of a murno gladst fence has been found in the surrounding ditch of SH - indeed in the 1600s and 1700s the ditch was often simply referred to as the murno gladst fence. After my original fix and citations, a CN tag was place immediately after the term "murno gladst fence". I interpreted this to mean that someone wanted the ref tag to be moved to a position directly after the term, a request I was happy to oblige. I went about doing this, but I made a copy and paste error and subsequently had to troubleshoot the now broken links with a few reverts of my own edits. That understandably sent up red flags, which we are dealing with here. After the reversions I placed the citation properly, but this was reverted because it looked like part of the confusion rather than the solution. I was again asked to provide a citation as I had originally done, and I have done so.
On page 1 of the referenced text it states that a murno gladst fence once stood in the ditch. My two other citations also contain references to this in several places (both the Chalton and Webb references). You can find reference to this embankment type in many other texts on the subject, for example William Long's great work "Stonehenge and its Barrows" (on page 92 as well as other places) <ref>{{cite web | url =https://archive.org/details/stonehengeandit00longgoog/page/n114| title =Stonehenge and its Barrows| author=Long}}</ref>
I completely understand why this all seems to be a lot of confusion. I am entirely responsible for that because I accidentally pressed "publish" instead of preview during a simple edit and caused a nasty mess to exist in that paragraph for a few minutes (minutes of panic and hell for me I might add - it's a terrible feeling to be responsible for an important wiki page having a blemish like a bad ref notice, even if it was up for only a few minutes. I can only offer my sincerest apologies for this and commit to being more careful with my mouse clicks in future.)
Why is any of this important? I have an unusual interest in this fence type, which I have maintained since I was a child. It's such a strange name for a fence type and nobody as far as I can tell knows the origin of that name, though it appears in texts as early as 1665. The term has been used frequently enough to be included in construction textbooks up until the present day. I consider it a hobby fascination which I will take to the grave I suspect. Youtryandyoutry (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I merely searched for the term using Ctrl-F and it did not find Murno Gladst. It appears the search function does not work at all with that document, though I have found it works perfectly with other Pdfs. I still think it is stretching a long bow to use this term in relation to henges without expert archaeological opinion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

“And yet the source, from 1962, mentions it. “

not according to google, it doesn’t..]

...nor does Hathitrust.

The source linked is an individual upload to Internet Archive, by the look of it, and the AFD page for Murno gladst fence gives two examples of forged sources on IA. Qwirkle (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor who added it was blocked today, and has been spreading this hoax for years.[7] Doug Weller talk 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought it sounded like BS. How pathetic. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • But wait. So you're saying that this is hoaxed as well? Drmies (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, yes. Personal upload that differs from curated version? Hoax, almost always, unless we are dealing with the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or suchlike. Qwirkle (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
PS:Have a gander at this, all neatly packaged and wrapped in a ribbon. Qwirkle (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's File:Murno Gladst Fence Wall.svg on Commons, but I'll leave a note there. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

In 2013 a team of archaeologists, led by Mike Parker Pearson, excavated more than 50,000 cremated bones of 63 individuals buried at Stonehenge.

should be changed to

In 2013 a team of archaeologists, led by Mike Parker Pearson, excavated more than 50,000 cremated bone fragments of 63 individuals buried at Stonehenge.

as 206 x 63 is not 50,000 and so is physically impossible. Source in Guardian has 'bone fragments' Jfctjfct (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders

What is about this?

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47938188 10:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.42.0.150 (talk)

That was a good idea. I put it in. Y-barton (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

based on the source

This part is based on the source, and needed for background,

"These Neolithic migrants to Britain also introduced the tradition of building monuments using large megaliths, and Stonehenge was part of this tradition."

No need to remove it. Y-barton (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT. Stating that DNA evidence is proof of a particular group of migrants introducing Neolithic monuments is unjustified. "There is considerable evidence supporting the theory that.." or "It is generally accepted by most experts that..." would be acceptable if that were the case. One person, or only a few people, stating that this "proves" the theory is not proof. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I may have overstated the strength of the evidence for them having introduced this tradition. So I modified the statement somewhat. In archeology, it's always the matter of the degree of confidence that something really took place. Y-barton (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2019

In section "Stonehenge 3 II (2600 BC to 2400 BC)," paragraph three, the last sentence seems redundant with sentence five. The data should be verified, and then remove the less accurate sentence. 107.129.181.1 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot verify the heights myself, I have no access to the cited sources, and I can see no changes to the heights in the recent article history (going back to May this year) either. I have tagged the height as dubious, with a link to this section, so hopefully one of the regular editors can rectify the discrepancy. NiciVampireHeart 18:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

In the "Function and Construction section," please add hyperlinks from "Amesbury Archer" and "Boscombe Bowmen" to the Wikipedia articles on the subjects. I used search to find the articles, and only later did I discover the hyperlinks in the section "Stonehenge 3 II (2600 BC to 2400 BC)" significantly far up on the page, which I had skimmed past to get to the section I was interested in. It would be useful to readers, as the Stonehenge page is quite long and many people are likely to skip to the Function and Construction section. Randompersononfire (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, see MOS:REPEATLINK; but  Done, see WP:IGNORE. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

I need to correct the spelling mistake Prehestoric it is spelt prehistoric and also some of the information is fake 51.52.163.170 (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No - if there ever was that spelling, it's gone now. You'd need to specify the "fake" information in detail. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Secular date format or Christian format... seeking consensus due to user reverting good faith edits

I personally prefer the secular date formats of CE and BCE rather than the anachronistic, theist, and Christian formats AD and BC - It was my understanding that Wikipedia supported edits that secularised date formats, but I have now discovered that I was incorrect... I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.

However, I am of the opinion that it is correct for Wikipedia entries to be non-discriminatory and unbiased, and a dating format that uses Christianized formats is both biased towards Christians and discriminatory against non-Christians (for example... AD being Latin for "The year of OUR Lord" is a declaration of faith as much as a dating format - he most certainly is not MY lord, and I, and others are being discriminated against by being forced to declare him as such by the use of this format or, by being subjected to a form of subtle proselytization just by its use).

The secular formats of BCE and CE completely remove any discrimination or bias. Please state here if you favor the Christian format or the Common Era format by choosing Christian Format or Common Era Format Thank you M R G WIKI999 (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Christian Format is a wildly POV way of putting it. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer the secular format of BCE and CE, but it's really not something to edit war over. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
He started it! (JK - seriously. lol) Look I've asked for dispute resolution, but I fear the day is young yet, so I have doubts whether it will have any legs. But hey, you're right. It's not worth the childish back and forth, so I'll leave it as is for now - So, it seems we're off the starting blocks, at least... 2-0 for the secular version. Thanks for the input, but also (and I mean this quite genuinely) for the calming and moderating tone, I appreciate it - M R G WIKI999 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Policy trumps personal preference here. We should not change the established date style in this article. Or any other,for that matter. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I prefer BC/AD as more common usage. Derivation is not definition - I also use the word antediluvian wihout affirming any belief in Noah. Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Richard, tackling theism and religious bias is nothing to do with personal preferences; at least not on my part... I see it in the same way as I do racism. It is inherently biased, is exclusive rather than inclusive, and is ultimately anachronistic and inappropriate in any place of learning. The fact that so many people felt the need to create the Common Era concept is proof enough of this. Theism and divisive religiosity (the fact we're here having this discussion is proof positive of its divisive nature) really needs to be tackled, not thought of as merely a preference... If you, or anybody else, remain in any doubt that this is something as fluffy as personal preferences, then take a wander over to Conservapedia and see where this very topic leads to if left unchallenged. Conservapedia was created by ultra conservative Christians, outraged that Wikipedia even tolerated the Common Era dating system... I don't see challenging that particular train of thought as a preference; any more than sitting back and letting people get away with using the N-word without challenge is a preference. - M R G WIKI999 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The place for this debate would be on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
1. There is nothing anachronistic about BC/AD – it is used by the BBC and by the Guardian. It is the usage which is understood by the general public. Wikipedia is written for its readers – the general public - not its editors.
2. Using the labels BC/AD does not involve declaring that Jesus is Christ, or ‘our Lord’. The labels are letters. I suspect that a lot of people have no idea what ‘AD’ stands for.
3. There is nothing secular about BCE/CE – it is the Christian dating system by another name.
4. User: M R G WIKI999 compares using BC/AD to racism and the use of the N-word. Are you saying that any editor (e.g. myself) who prefers BC/AD is a racist? If not, please clarify what you mean.
5. I am, obviously, in favour of retaining BC/AD in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Retain BC per WP:ERA, reinforced by the self-righteous POV prejudices of M R G WIKI999, and best practice on very popular articles, as demonstrated by the British Museum, English Heritage etc. There are huge numbers of schoolchildren who won't have a clue what BCE means, which is why the big organizations providing material for a wide public avoid it. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: your reasons are basically saying that no articles should use BCE, which means you are simply ignoring WP:ERA and putting forward a pov article. @Sweet6970: whatever you may think, BC/BCE is seen as a non-Christian dating system by most people, including the religious academics who use it. @Ian Dalziel: you and others seem to have forgotten that WP:ERA says "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content." General preferences are irrelevant and I hope won't be taken into account when this is closed. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Frankly Doug, you're a fine one to talk - you've made your personal views the other way very clear in numerous places at numerous times! My comment made it very clear I was relying on WP:ERA, and unless your memory is very bad you will know I have often supported BCE on WP:ERA grounds, and I've said that I have initiated myself on some new articles, so your comments are frankly nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod: my point is not that you don't defend your interpretation of WP:Retain, which you see as saying that original style must be kept no matter how long ago it was changed had there been no talk page discussion. But your general argument seems to be anti-BCE in articles where possible, whereas that's not my opinion. I think that different styles are appropriate to different articles. If you do also, I've misread you and apologise. And as you I hope know, I reverted the attempt to change this to BCE. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
a) Per WP:ERA, it is for the person advocating a change in the era style to put forward arguments specific to the article concerned. As far as I can see, no arguments specific to this article have been put forward for changing this article to BCE/CE.
b) @Doug Weller: I don’t know how you know that ‘most people’ see BCE/CE as a non-Christian dating system. I could say that ‘most people’ have no idea what BCE/CE means, because that is my experience. Perhaps we move in different circles. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sweet6970: I'm sure we do, I'm used to academic contexts. I think it's a misreading to say that arguments against any change can ignore the article itself. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: No arguments specific to this article have been made in favour of a change in era styles. It is not possible to argue against arguments which have not been made. And by the way – since Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for academics, I think it is a good thing that it has some input from editors such as myself, who are not academics. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sweet6970: what are you talking about? I said academic contexts, eg books, journal articles. History books, theology books, etc. And this isn't the Simple version of Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It's very clear what she's talking about. Our referencing standards promote the use of the highest possible quality references, which in many contexts, as here, means academic sourcing. One of WP's biggest problems is that far too many editors fail to realize that our writing guidelines rightly promote a very different type of writing from academic writing. We are expected to make our writing as accessible as possible, consistent with accurately explaining the subject, aiming for a reading age of 18, and bearing in mind that many of our readers (on some subjects most) are not native speakers. This is a huge problem in for example the medical area. It has a bearing here, as this is an extremely popular article (over 100K views last week, with the news), no doubt much read by children for homework, and special care should be taken over accessibility issues. What academics do in books and papers mainly addressed to other academics and post-graduate students is one thing. I'd suggest we should pay more attention to what the big museums do in their material addressed to the general public. And by now you should know what that is .... Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll tell you what... Keep it, change it, I've lost interest... Not in the case for the common era system. 10, 40, whatever, years from now BC and AD will be consigned to the history books with contempt, and rightly so. I'm on the right side of the argument, in the same way that those people who demand the keeping of certain statues and flags are on the wrong side... History's progressive nature is my ally on this issue. In the long-term, that's all that matters, really... No, my loss of interest is not in the issue at hand, it is in Wikipedia in general - If some of the people herein, and their POVs are examples of contemporary Wikipedians, then quite frankly, I want no part of it, or them. This is not about one POV over another; (I'm a big boy, I can handle people disagreeing with me) it is about the way bigotry, intolerance, exclusivity, theism etc etc, seem to be the bedfellows of those expressing them. I'd assumed (again, wrongly as it turned out) That Wikipedia was inclusive, neutral and secular. I want no part of anything that is opposed to any of those, let alone ALL THREE of them... And don't worry, I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.lol. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: @Richard Keatinge: @Ian Dalziel: @Theroadislong: @M R G WIKI999: There is a discussion on EEng’s Talk page about WP:ERA which you might be interested in. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Add courtesy link [[8]]. Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Cecil Chubb bought the site for £6,600 (£532,800 in 2020)

Cecil Chubb bought the site for £6,600 (£532,800 in 2020) and gave it to the nation three years later. (PAT STRAMANDINOLI - JULY 9, 2020: “CECIL CHUBB BOUGHT THE SITE IN 1915 NOT 2020.”)

Pat Stramandinoli (redacted PD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.38.24 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Origin of sarsens now known

The current text says: During the next major phase of activity, 30 enormous Oligocene–Miocene sarsen stones (shown grey on the plan) were brought to the site. They may have come from a quarry around 25 miles (40 km) north of Stonehenge on the Marlborough Downs, or they may have been collected from a "litter" of sarsens on the chalk downs, closer to hand.

According to this article in the news today, the source of the stones is now known: Archaeologists pinpointed the source of the stones to an area 15 miles (25km) north of the site near Marlborough. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-53580339 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AC25:E300:A554:1C8F:BFE9:5C04 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

In the last paragraph of the Function and construction section, could someone change "rocks that ring out, known as lithophones" to "rocks that ring out, known as lithophonic rocks" and hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_rocks instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithophone. Lithophone is the term for a man-made instrument

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

How may I add info

The famed guru Shri mataji visited this place she was also the wife of India's diplomat to Britain. How may I add info Oligodynamism (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oligodynamism:. All content has to be notable WP:N, verifiable WP:V and supported by reliable sources WP:RS. A visit such as this is likely not to pass the notability criteria but please provide the required links to reliable sources and we can see. You can of course add content boldy but if it is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies then it is likely to be reverted following WP:BRD Robynthehode (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not exactly: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." - notability is about articles, not the content inside them. For that the policy relevant here is WP:UNDUE. This visit is certainly not worth mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Stonehenge 3- glacial option out?

With Mike Parker Pearson's team finding not only the exact source of the bluestones, but the circle they had previously been in, is it not time to remove the glacial theory from Stonehenge 3? I only hesitate because the Page is such a high profile one and will change it soon if no credible objection is raised here.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Made by the Welsh on Welsh soil, but Welsh name not allowed?

The construction was made prior to Roman/Anglo/Saxon/Viking invasions, the page has the name 'stonehenge' (which is fine because this is an English language Wiki) but why on earth can you not display the native name next to the English name?, Snowdon's native name is 'Yr Wyddfa', but you'll insist that it's called Snowdon, so how is this any different? Hogyncymru (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User 'DeFacto' against adding it: "take to talk to get consensus that the subject of this article is closely associated with the Welsh language", yes, let's get a consensus when the population of Wales is 3.5 million compared with England's 56.5 million, I'm sure Welsh perspective will be fairly addressed.. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a great deal of sympathy for including the Welsh name for this British monument which "began its life" in West Wales. We do have of course, for example: "The Second Severn Crossing (Welsh: Ail Groesfan Hafren)". But I suspect the Welsh name for Stonehenge, Welsh: Côr y Cewri [Choir of the giants], came a long time after the blue stone circle had been moved from Waun Mawn and possibly long after the structure took on its present form. But who knows for sure? Impossible to prove, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
But prior to all the invasions, the descendants of the Welsh inhabited most of Britain (Dover > from Welsh; Dwfr, or Glasgow > Welsh for green hollow) it was indeed constructed first in what we today call modern day 'Wales', but Brythonic tongue is much, much older, which comes to why the Welsh name cannot be included?, Stonehenge is somewhat of a new name as much as the Welsh name is. Hogyncymru (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hogyncymru, I'd agree if there was reliably sourced evidence that the majority of this structure was constructed by Welsh-speaking people, or even in Wales. But as far as we know, most of it was constructed where it stands today and from local stone. Sure some of the smaller stones came from a quarry in what is now Wales, and there is a theory that they had been erected in a circle there before being moved to their current location, but I don't think that that means that the subject of this article is closely associated with the Welsh language - as required by MOS:LEADLANG if Welsh is to be included in the header. Remember too that the Welsh language didn't exist for at least 2500 years after this structure was built where it now stands. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with DeFacto. The SSC is a modern structure, with official names, partly in Wales, so not a relevant comparison. And there's no evidence that Stonehenge was built by "the Welsh" in any meaningful sense. Perhaps the Welsh name could be added at Welsh exonyms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that the SSC was built by the Welsh, even though this guy might think it was. I must admit I was struggling to think of a relevant example. Perhaps Penrhyn Castle might have been closer: [9]? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
It was built by the Druids, NOT the Welsh. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Eh? I'm pretty sure Penrhyn Castle wasn't built by Druids. Really not sure if the Druids built anything very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope not the Druids as they were associated with Celtic culture - at least 1500-2000 years after the neolithic people who built Stonehenge constructed it. Welsh language terms should not be included because of the reasons already stated - that the Welsh and their language were later inhabitants of what now is Wales. Its historically inaccurate and a history mash up to mix earlier peoples with one who later inhabit a geographic region Robynthehode (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Someone change traveling to travelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.114.16 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


Wrong information -- part of which should be removed and part reworded, respectively

AS PRESENTLY WORDED: According to Charles Mackay the original name of stonehenge was coir-mhor[16] – old Irish gaelic words which means great ( mhor ) and crime (coir ).[17]

  • [16] is a subscription paywall and [17] is absurd -- what "crime"??? If anything the Cymraeg Côr y Cewri is more appropriate as the bluestones used in Stonehenge came from what is present-day Pembrokeshire in Wales. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This was added recently and I agree that it's very dubious. The "original" name was spoken 5000 years ago and we don't even know what language family it belonged to, never mind what it was. Whether there's an Old Irish name for the site I don't know, but we'd need a better source than a 150 year old work of pseudoscience. I've removed it. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely correct! Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Change “orientated” (paragraph: Introduction) to “oriented” Skosteez (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Orientated is correct. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Fix conversion of measurements

Please fix urgently the algorithm that converts lengths, or its wrong outcomes in the text: the limit of information in the number must be respected. A collection of objects roughly measuring 7 feet on average is of 2 meters, NOT 2.1 meters - because "7 feet" has only 1 significant digit in decimal form, and 2.1 declares 2 significant digits in a unit of measure of very similar magnitude - which is foolish. The measure of 2.1 meters converts to 7.0 feet, not to 7 feet. Wikipedia seems to have filled itself with these flaring basic errors.

The conversion (hence the algorithm, if conversion is automated) must respect the actual amount of information specific to the measurement. If a mountain is exactly 100u (say, 100.35u) and 1u=1.234a, then 100u=123a ; if it is roughly 100u with information limited to one significant digit, 100u=100a. (If the second digit and first zero is precise and the third digit and second zero is not, then 100u=120a.)

It is not trivial to automate conversion, and human care must be applied. The Hadrian wall is reported to be 80 Roman miles long: does the significance include the trailing zero or not? Is it between 75 and 85, or between 79.5 and 80.5? One has to make sure to be able to convert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.7.48 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Timothy Darvill and Stonehenge as a solar calendar

See [10] byJason Colavito and also his Twitter feed[11]. Darvill's article is here. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ya, that calendar theory is hot; does not seem to interest Wikipedia "scholars" so far though... What a waste! 2605:B100:E030:D41:6DCE:9EC9:DABE:797A (talk)alainr345 (I would do it guys but it's wayyyyyy above my pay grade in archaelogy; but I have a nice memory of seeing Stonehenge in 2018; happy those Brits seem to finally give a go to hiding the super ugly and annoying road!). Note: It's worth putting on the main page folks... although perhaps also its debunkink by Dr. Hill just posted on Ancient Origins.net as path is: [/news-history-archaeology/stonehenge-solar-calendar-0016574]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:E030:D41:6DCE:9EC9:DABE:797A (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Who Built Stonehenge?". Retrieved 18 September 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stonehenge/Archive_3&oldid=1143801078"