Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

More Refs

Note: This is a list of possible additional references. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [1] 10 Aug 2006

Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" [2] Sep 2006

John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine [3] 22 September 2006 (article available [4] here --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)

Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims"[5] --Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument [6] --Ronz 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pyramid No More: Sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell report from Bosnia", Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006. [7] --Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 [8] --Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (article available here --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 [9] --Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 [10] --Ronz 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"An open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina" [11] 14 Mar 2007 (Haven't found other copies of this letter as yet) --Ronz 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Come see the pyramids ... in Bosnia?", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2007 [12] --Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [13].

"It is not possible that those are pyramids," says Mark Rose, of the Archaeological Institute of America, who organized a petition asking Unesco, the United Nations' education-and-science agency, not to send a proposed expedition to the site. "Every major media outlet that initially covered this story got it wrong. It's clearly crackpot stuff, but apparently nobody bothered to check the story."

But as pyramid mania has grown, spread by credulous accounts, those who have expressed skepticism have been savaged in the Bosnian news media, deluged with hate mail, even labeled traitors to their nation. Many observers now see the debate in stark terms: Will a pseudoscientific project, even one that serves to restore Bosnia's wounded pride and dignity, win out over peer-reviewed archaeological research?

Unesco does not intend to send a mission to Visoko, says Mechtild Rossler, of the organization's World Heritage Center, in Paris.

--Ronz 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters" Independent Online, May 21 2007. [14] --Ronz 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding" Javno.com, 11 June 2007. [15] -- Ronz 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia Pledges Renewed State Support for Study of 'Pyramids' Whose Existence Is Doubted by Scholars" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 July 16 2007. [16] --Ronz 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Egyptian Geologist: Bosnian 'Pyramid' Likely Man-Made" Fox News, 17 May 2006.[17] (Looks like the typical rehashed press release from that time) --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Mystery of Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids" Smithsonian. December 2009. [18] --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Pyramid" Discover Magazine. 22 Oct 2008. [19] --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptians and Semir Osmanagic’s Theatre of the Absurd - Science against deception a translation of Blagoje Govedarica. Berlin. 25 Mar 2009. Published in Oslobodjenje. 4 Apr 2009. - Might need to be reviewed against WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning ICBP

LoL, why on earth was my editing erased? Are the names appearing on the list of the attending people of the first ICBP not relevant? Is the information irrelevant? Or is someone (I'm prepared to bet on my kidney it's Ranz!) just not fond of positive news on the pyramids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, am I going to get an answer or is someone just going to erase my question as well? LoL, this is getting childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

LoL, I've put it up again, let us see for how long this vital and very imporant information shall remain intact. Ninhursag - Ki (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable (by Wikipedia standards, see WP:RS third party source for this? The ICBP itself is just another Osmanagic organisation and like the Foundation cannot be considered reliable. The Foundation made claims, for instance, that it had staff that in fact were never affiliated with it. On the ICBP page is a report which I know is censored as I have seen the original report from its author. In any case, yes, a list of the names is not relevant. Also, and the article may need cleaning up a bit, as I only learned a few months ago we do not call people Professor Smith, Dr. Jones, etc, and certainly don't say 'with 3 degrees' -- see WP:CREDENTIAL to see how we deal with this sort of thing. dougweller (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? You need proof this meeting happened and those people where there? Ok, pics and videos? Can be done. What on earth would be a more reliable source than that? Do I need to personally make videos of those people attending, interviews in which they clearly testify they were there? Many of the mentioned stuff in the article comes from totally unreliable sources btw or they're just conradictory (Like no scientist has ever been to the site and Osmanagic lied about yet, still there somehow seams to be a lot of scientific investigation indicating there is no pyramid. I didn't know archeology was a fortuneteller job). The ICBP is not just the organisation of Osmanagic since the president of the ICBP is a name very well known in the business, but of course he probably hoaxed the attendence of all those so important people present at the ICBP. I think the list of the names is very important and relevant, it clearly makes sides with a bunch of very imporant and famous names in the business. But of course, the videos and pictures are just a hoax, there was no meeting, it were aliens probably, or the same crew that hoaxed the first landing on the moon. Jesus, talk about paranoyed. Ninhursag - Ki (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, which I asked you to read and you didn't. Your opinions of what is reliable - or mine - aren't important. You need to understand more about Wikipedia works.

But also read these comments on the conference and on the Oxford report [20].

Just because a person gathers a group of like-minded people together in a meeting to give talks does not mean it is a valid scientific conference. For example, the Creation Science Fellowship and the Institute for Creation Research jointly sponsored International Conference on Creationism. Like the ICBP, they gathered togethered at an event called a "conference", gave what they promoted as "talks", and even published proceedings from their "conference". However, just because they did all of this failed to validate what they did as being credible, "scientific conference" in any form or fashion.70.177.42.4 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you go by that logic, you should remove a majority of the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.36.196 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Clastic?

Under Expert interpretations we have Professor Dr. Sejfudin Vrabac quoted as saying:

made of classic sediments of layered composition and varying thickness..

Shouldn't that be clastic sediments? Pterre (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should be clastic. Paul H. (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reference 17 says "classic": "klasičnih sedimenata", but the original by Vrabac, reference 18 ( http://irna.lautre.net/IMG/pdf/Output.pdf page 6), has "clastic": "klastičnih sedimenata". I felt that also "classic" makes sense: "just normal, well known", so I checked. Hooray for WP good references. --46.115.23.8 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Please add this picture

http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i587682_n11005744381777069141.jpg"

Believe it or not, this is Pyramid Of The Moon'.And I believe this add a brand new light to this article, don't you agree?. This picture was taken by my friend, so there is no violation of copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it shows it to be a natural geological formation, not sure what your point is.

It's not our job to judge anything. This is Wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral.But this photo must be added because it's much better than previous ones.--Truthseeker1412 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But you want it added because you think it adds a brand new light to the article. Leaving aside any othe problems, what light is that? Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion

Modern science identifies Illyrians from 1000 BC^[1] and after making claims prior to that made by Osmanagić of Illyrians (12,000 BC to 500 BC) unrealistic.

Without access to the reference, it's hard to make sense of what this might have been intended to mean. Looks like a criticism of the dating. Given that we have references on the same topic specific to the Bosnian pyramid claims, I don't think additional information is needed sourced by a general reference. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on logic. At one point the article says there is no evidence it is an archeological site, but at another point the excavators are accused of damaging an archeological site. You can't have it both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.240.34 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The hill has been the site of human activity for a very long time, and there's been harsh criticism that the digging for evidence of a pyramid has damaged multiple real sites. --Ronz (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But this article says it's an archaeological site and so it's not, at the same time. Moreover, what you present here is a purely socialistic view. There should be no-once rights placed over the other rights in general, or based on any common good values, in democratic system it has no value. 178.72.244.250 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following. The hill is not a pyramid, so in that sense the entire hill is not an archaeological site. On the top of the hill is Old town of Visoki, an archaeological site. I believe the southern portion of the hill, the areas rarely shown in any photos because it looks absolutely nothing like a pyramid there, has some old (ancient?) cemeteries. The western portions contain burial sites and other artifacts - I believe it was this area where the foundation unearthed a burial and then lost the body. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudoarchaeology"

How come this is categorized under "Pseudoarchaeology" but other archaeological forgeries and hoaxes are not? Hoaxes and frauds are hoaxes and frauds, and sure aren't real archaeology, so wouldn't they all be "pseudo" archaeology? If not, why not? mike4ty4 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid Hoax

Should we rename the article to include the word "hoax" as this seems to be the overwhelming consensus in the archaeological community? BrendanFrye (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be premature at this point. What references do we have to support that it is a hoax? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the intro,

Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there.[1][2][3] Additionally, scientists have criticised the Bosnian authorities for supporting the pyramid claim saying, "This scheme is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public and has no place in the world of genuine science."[4] BrendanFrye (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's overwhelming evidence that there is no merit to archeological claims of a pyramid, ancient construction, etc. That's different than stating that those meritless claims are part of a hoax. Without better sources on the issue of it being a hoax, I think it would be a WP:SYN violation, and possibly WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it more I would have to agree. There is no evidence that it was a deliberate hoax. I'll bring this up again if I come up with a different term/name. As of now, I can't think of anything better. Thanks for you opinion. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the second paragraph date from 2006, 4 years have passed since then and it is now obvious that the diggers have found something. Even if its not as old as Osmanagic says, it is still an archeological find hence it can not be a hoax. It may just be a wrong theory.Adriatic_HR (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Faulty logic. BrendanFrye (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Implying it's an hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg noodles (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is more than interesting that 'pseudoarcheologist' after his reports on pyramids in Bosnia is admitted to Archeological Society in Alexandria and become a member of Russian Academy of natural Sciences. Something is wrong here. Or there is some truth in what he is claiming or those two societies aren't prominent societies. Answer yourself to that question. Borchica (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the place for debates like this, but politics and religion are important aspects in this whole thing, and probably are a reason for membership in those groups. I know other pseudo-archaeologists who belong to various societies. I'm pretty sure he's not a Russian so I don't understand his membership there, which we can't confirm in any case. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse Russian Academy of Natural Sciences with Russian Academy of Sciences. The latter one is the real one (similar to the US National Academy or Royal Society in Britain or French Academy etc). The former is a self-proclaimed alternative and while it included (from googling it seems to be defunct) some genuine scientists (perhaps majority), it's more like the New York Academy of Sciences - anyone can acquire membership if they have minimal qualifications (bona fide or not) and willing to pay a small sum. It's like internet PhD. Firebug2 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific investigations"

On visiting the page I tested what the lede said re "scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there." - I checked and read each of the sources (excepting the last, which is behind a paywall), none of the sources describe any scientific investigations at all, one does state that he was 'equipment all ready to do measurements of pyramids' but then doesn't actually say he measured anything. So what exactly are these "scientific investigation" then, based on the given sources, that have now been reverted three times to a false claim (it might be true but the sources provided certainly do not say such things). I re-wrote the line to say who and when had visited the site, leaving the original conclusion as that is a fair summary 'there aren't any man-made pyramids there', thinking it an all round improvement on the clearly incorrect summary of sources given. If editors of the page want it read that way they had better go find better sources that actually say that, I'll certainly have no objection to reliable sources being provided, the current ones don't cut the mustard however.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a list of potential sources above, if it's unclear and needs further references. However, I think it is clear. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Scientific investigations" does not have a valid cite. If you wish to retain that wording, you may attribute it - I have already spent time checking the provided sources and re-wrote it to match what the sources actually said. My improvement has been reverted so now the onus is on those re-instate that version to supply cites, not get me to go chasing.163.1.147.64 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a proper synthesis of the sources in the lede and Bosnian_pyramids#Expert_interpretations. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It fails synthesis of the three (only) sources provided in the lede, it if didn't one should be able to quote what the scientific investigation was comprised of. It's not there, so one can't.

As for it being a summary of the section cites [11]-[13] do not mention any scientific investigation, [14] doesn't mention any scientific investigations, it mentions excavations (possible clue for a better wording for summarising the sources?) and states they evidence medieval occupation (original research therefore must be used to determine it prohibiting a 'real pyramid', [15] doesn't mention it, nor does the repeat of the lede [2] source.

It's unclear where one should look to verify the last part of text using [16]-[17] and doesn't mention scientific investigations anyway. Vrabac's reports may well have been based on some of the elusive scientific investigations but the source of [19] doesn't mention him, nor the six drills holes, nor the supporting council. I have no clue what's going on there.

[20]-[23] are about the Barakat saying 'they are man-made' but how he is no expert. [24] has Schoch visiting and looking, not conducting any scientific investigations. [25] is about how shocked Schoch is by O's behaviour and doesn't mention any scientific investigation.

In summary the claim that "scientific investigations show" no pyramid is patently flawed, using the sources given. It may well be the case that some have, I don't see sources saying that though. I too, am unhappy with my most recent version "Expert visitors" as it clearly strolls into OR, despite being logical if not entirely common sense, that's why I stated who had visited and when in my first version, which I found much more informative and a better 'call to authority' than the previous version and I still stand by that.86.3.142.2 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (163.1.147.64 at home, drinking tea)

Two things to start:

Is it proper to describe the scientific research and conclusions as "scientific investigations?" Perhaps not. This seems to be a matter of semantics. Schoch and Harding both investigated the foundation's claims and the site itself. Bosnian scientists have done the same. "Scientific investigations" seems to be a good summary.

It is a fact that the foundation has made a pr campaign dismissing all reputable scientific inquiry and consensus into the site. Let's be sure that we don't perpetuate their pr campaign. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. This is not just about investigations that occurred in response to the foundation's pr campaign. The geology and archeology of the area has been well-researched prior. I think it would be best to document this better in the article, but the lede is accurate. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, ignore that the cites don't actually support what you'd like to say, thought it would be a waste of this editors (two FAs, various DYKs, 60K+ edits) time. Thanks for fuck all.86.3.142.2 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm ignoring nothing. Care to respond to my comments? --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you address the fact you are unable to quote even one of the "scientific investigations" conducted that "show" no pyramid. I doubt this crap as much as you, but I won't abuse the sources to 'make sure O's campaign doesn't succeed' or whatever it is you think you doing this shit for.86.3.142.2 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All of them.

Meanwhile, care to respond to my comments? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You say first that it's proper to describe the scientific research and conclusion as "scientific investigations" and it seems to be a matter of semantics. When the sources do not mention any investigations other that attending the site and viewing it, it is a misrepresentation of of the data provided by the sources to say there has been some, that is hardly "semantics", it's utter non-adherence to the source content.

My edit changed this to "In 2006 Anthony Harding, anniversary chair in archaeology at Exeter University and president of the European Association of Archaeologists as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell visited the site and state". That does not misrepresent the sources but it may not be what you think ought to be said, and if that is the case find better sources.

Secondly you state H&S investigated the claims and the site. They did visit, they do have expert knowledge, they looked and they stated what they thought. The current version is open to the question "How did H&S investigate the claims? - please show the steps the investigations took, other than visiting the site and looking at the excavations".

Thirdly, you mention the Bosnian scientists, which I pointed out above has a section that is shot to pieces and bear no resemblance to the sources whatsoever, the archeologists may well have done what's described in the text of the article, but it is not shown by the sources provided.

If there are better sources for any geo. and archeo. previous, they would need to be pertinent (as in having a statement in the sources about how this prohibits the pyramids - otherwise OR must be occurring somewhere in the chain) "Scientific investigations" does not seem to be a good summary as it is plainly open to (currently valid) criticism of not being verifiable.

The fact that O is a <insert favourite abusive label here> and may not be fighting fair is irrelevant to the text of the article as is any 'duty to observe' its non-perpetuation, but if this view is in multiple reliable sources, that viewpoint would be for inclusion in the article.

When in comes to erring on any side of the line, sticking to the facts per the sources (as my revision left it) is better than statements that have a hard time being clearly shown in reliable sources.86.3.142.2 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum The closest I can suggest to how the text reads at the moment (that one can get out the sources) is "Various scientists, such as Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell, have visited the excavation sites and concluded that there is no pyramid there." Is it possible to live with that until better is possible?86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"When the sources do not mention any investigations other that attending the site and viewing it, it is a misrepresentation of of the data provided by the sources to say there has been some, that is hardly "semantics", it's utter non-adherence to the source content." I disagree. I find that describing these scientific investigations as such is proper synthesis. Certainly, each is a scientific investigation, whether or not we use that phrase.

No, it is not the just the opinion of various scientists or individuals. It is scientific consensus on the matter. Presenting it as anything else is a NPOV and FRINGE violation. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Secondly you state H&S investigated the claims and the site." I don't know what you mean by "H&S", nor what statement I made that you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

When the only tool noted as being used to investigate is the mark one eyeball it is not scientific. There may well have been a variety of measurements taken, and samples collected for analysis but none of the source describe such things. They are not investigations plural they are all just looking at the excavations. Scientifc consensus? - cite me with a quote. Ah, the good ol' Fringe and NPOV line - if as you say, there is scientifc consensus on this and that O's views are fringe, this will be in multiple reliable sources, please state how my version falls foul of not being neutral. H&S = Harding and Schoch. You stated they had examined the claims and the sites. If you are not going to start discussing what wording is acceptable I will back out here, because as I said before, you are wasting my time. I've made the right edit and backed it up and answered your questions, you fail to address the issue by quoting any of the so "investigations" per V note 2 and it appears that all you can say is "it's a good description". I've pointed out the egregious error of misrepresenting sources and suggested alternatives, you've offered what as a solution - nothing. Good day and happy editing, no further comments from me on this page.163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"When the only tool noted as being used to investigate is the mark one eyeball it is not scientific." I'm unaware of any encyclopedic sources that would support this opinion. Pseudoscience (or anti-science) sources, certainly. Hence FRINGE. If we have any reliable, independent sources expressing this viewpoint about the hill, we could include it with proper characterization per FRINGE and NPOV.

The hill is not a pyramid. This was known long before Osmanagić set his eyes on it. Osmanagić's eyes don't invalidate all research done into the area. The scientific investigations into the site built upon the prior research. I think it's important that we reference some of this prior research. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The author of this Wikipedia entry systematically ignores the fact that Anthony Harding in referenced article in "British archeology" (reference 3) claims that there haven't been any scientific investigation at this site. "On our way down, Predrag Novakovic (EAA secretary), Sylvie Kvetinová (administrator) and I called in at the hill of Visocica, on the edge of the town of Visoko, and looked at the excavation trenches that had been opened. We did this solely in order to avoid the charge, already laid at our door, that we had condemned the project without seeing it for ourselves." "We would all agree that the taking of such samples would need to be done by trained personnel, who could vouch for the true stratigraphical context and ensure that the sample was not contaminated at any stage prior to its reaching the lab. Do we, as trained archaeologists, agree to take part in such work? Without the presence of an experienced person one would be very suspicious of any result that emerged; but those who agree to take part in any of the Visoko work quickly seem to find themselves billed as supporters of the project. Several websites record how some archaeologists unwittingly found themselves enlisted without their knowledge and certainly, had they known, against their wishes." Later on, Harding mentioned various researches which support his belief that Visocica hill is not a pyramid. However, he concludes this section: "This does not absolutely exclude that they could have existed: but a manned landing on the (non-) planet Pluto in the next 20 years is more likely."

For the sake of truth, this Wikipedia article was submitted to peer review in 2007, and one reviewer insisted twice that the article is "too optimistic about the pyramids" and proposed word "hoax" as more appropriate than "controversial" simply on the grounds that scientific community is against the idea (without ever properly examining it!). The author at first replied that he didn't understand what reviewer wanted to say, and in the end agreed on everything, concluding that the article should be rewritten, since it "gives too much weight to Osmanagic and his foundation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.149.5 (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you're proposing. Harding most definitely did not say there hadn't been any scientific investigations. The scientific community has most certainly examined it - Harding did himself. They found that the hill is naturally formed, and there is no evidence of any pyramid. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Harding didn't say he investigated the site, merely that he and his colleagues visited it in order to dismiss any claims that they had made conclusions without ever visiting the place. He testified of only taking a brief look, which hardly qualifies as scientific examination. He than asked himself: "Do we, as trained archaeologists, agree to take part in such work?", explained why it would be necessary, and why it DIDN'T HAPPEN. He finally concluded that, however improbable it may be, research done in Balkans so far concerning this archeological period "does not absolutely exclude that they (the pyramids) could have existed".

I'm not implying that these hills are pyramids, simply that nobody inside scientific community bothered to properly determine that they aren't, and that you refuse to acknowledge that fact. Proposal made on this subject earlier seems logical to me. Is it possible that you are unable to see it?

89.216.149.5 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)ZBN

No reliable sources support these interpretations of the situation.

As I've pointed out in the past, I believe we have enough reliable sources to have a section focusing on The Foundation and their campaign of misinformation. However, this is not a forum to spread that misinformation or present it as anything other than misinformation. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No reliable sources support your interpretation about "scientific investigations" and you have routinely dismissed any and all of those of us who've said "oi your sources DON'T say what you're saying" on multiple occasions.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From the pictures and other information alone that has been published by both the Foundation and others, it is quite blatantly obvious anybody with any training in geology that the so-called "manmade stonework" and pyramids are natural rock formations. The natural origins of the so-called "Bosnian pyramids" is so clearly seen by the examination what has been already published about them, there is no need for any expert to conducted an onsite investigations. An onsite "scientific investigations" into the validity of the artificial nature of the Bosnian pyramids are as necessary as "scientific investigations" into the validity Young Earth creationists proposals that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.Paul H. (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with what is "quite blatantly obvious" it is concerned with what has been verified. Someone has to have to have said there has been scientific investigation for the article to say it. The scientists themeselves don't say they did. No-one has profferred a source/cite that states they did. I don't believe it for a moment myself but I don't put into Wikipedia what I believe, I put in verfiable information. If anyone is able to provide a source stating that scientific investigations have happened - fine, please go ahead but at the moment "scientific investigations" as is used is worse than poor putting what you think it says. I suggested some forms of alternative text, I'm now asking for anyone who wants to keep "scientific investigations" to quote from the sources to prove that the sources say so (per the verifiability policy) - imho editors should have the courtesy to either negotiate on better wording, prove me wrong, or shut up.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would read what has been published on the alleged "Bosnian pyramids," you will find that people have conducted verifiable, scientific investigations of their validity of the alleged "pyramids" in either one of two forms. First, some people have actually visited the alleged "pyramids" and evaluated the validity of the interpretations that they are artificial structures by firsthand, on-site observations. Finally, other people have made scientific investigations of the validity of these features being artificial structures by studying what has been published on them by the Bosnian Pyramid Foundation and others and basing their opinions on an analysis of this published material. Both are valid, verifiable means of scientific investigations, which people have published as listed below. Published investigations based on a scientific analysis of information, either from on-site observations or from the published literature exist and are cited in this Wikipedia article. Published investigations, i.e. Harding's writings, of the validity and significance of interpretations made by people about specific archaeological (or pseudoarcheological) sites that are based entirely on an examination of only what has been published in the literature without any fieldwork or site visits involved are quite typical in archaeology and are just as scientific and verifiable as on-site investigations.Paul H. (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember the bit about Wikipedia being a blind man, only knowing what people say of things? You are trying to convince me of what can be considered as a scientific investigation - that's original research. I'm pointing you back to the matter that Wikipedia reports what others have said - who has said that scientific investigations have been conducted? Note 2 of Wikipedia:Verifiability says "[w]hen there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy."

It's been stated a number of times now that the current text cannot be supported by the current cites. The options are:

provide quote or details per note 2 of V to prove this false
quote another reliable third party source stating that scientific investigations have been conducted
engage in discussion of more realistic text
another route I haven't thought of but someone else might

I've already suggested a form of text that is supported.--163.1.147.64 at home on 86.30.189.230 (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:LETGO. There's a partial list of scientific investigations below. I don't think it's original research to claim they are scientific investigations.

The real issue isn't how many or the type of investigations, but the scientific consensus. That's perfectly clear: there are no pyramids, only natural geological formations. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Then quote per request, please. Thanks.--86.30.189.230 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No quote is needed. References and a thorough discussion have been provided. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note 2 of Wikipedia:Verifiability says "[w]hen there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." Neither quotes not details have been provided to back up your preferred wording, despite multiple times of being asked.

There is a difference between the current version (unsupported):

"Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there."

and what can be supported;

"Scientists investigating the site conclude that there is no pyramid there."

Or, to keep the current wording, provide another source for this "scientific consensus"--86.30.189.230 (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect, but I see no point in continuing this discussion. Choose another method of dispute resolution if you'd like to continue. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I've made the required edit to make this article comply with both verfiability and the no-original research policies.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your pointy edit per the obvious consensus above to keep it the way it was. You've been advised to WP:LETGO of this issue as you are not correct. He iro 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So now we have 2 IPs that geolocate to the same place pushing for this POV. I'm now at 2vts on their pov pushing insertion, would someone else care to step in and help informing them that their edit is against the consensus put forth here? He iro 18:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah right, the old "sockpuppet POV pushing, admin come sort him now" routine. Did you miss the "163.1.147.64 at home on 86.30.189.230 (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)"? The version you and Ronz insist on is against the policy of verifiability - I have asked multiple times (per note 2 of said policy) for evidence to support your preferred version, I've suggested alternative wording to avoid the original research your preferred wording includes but neither of you have negotiated on that. Other editors have raised this issue again and again - it won't go away because the wording you prefer is flawed by any standard and against two core policies on Wikipedia to boot.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for an outside opinion, we'll see where it goes from there. He iro 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's constructive, thanks - and to Dougweller too - seen lots good of that account - but a bit unfair to ask them to look at the conversation starting only a few comments ago (maybe you didn't mean to and it just reads that way) - the whole matter goes back to May when I made the original attempt at getting this article to state what the sources state, reading the very first post on this thread very carefully would be essential, if not the whole darn ugly thread.--163.1.147.64 at home on 86.30.189.230 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Going over some of the diffs following the original toing and froing I noticed Dougweller has made quite a few edits to this page so I will have to point out that his will not be an entirely "outside opinion", with no disrespect to the editor behind the account, obviously.--86.30.189.230 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked for his opinion specifically because he is a good, level headed admin who has real world knowledge of archaeological subjects and has shown some knowledge of this subject (Bosnian pyramids) in particular. If you notice my wording to him, I tried to elicit his opinion without asking that he side with a particular faction in this current debate. Also, please notice when I linked the last few posts of the talkpage discussion(which I thought explained the current situation), I also linked the entire discussion a few words later so he could read the entire discussion. He iro 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tick tock another two months and a year will gone past and the violations of policy are still there.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has demonstrated there are any violations. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple requests have been made to quote the sources proving the claim as stated - no-one, NO-ONE, not one person has given those quotes as requested, the policy of verifiability demands it be verifiable - it isn't - despite multiple requests. Please end the chararade of endless talkpage discussion and represent properly what the sources actually say without resorting to original research.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Swelim's report

Talking about scientific investigations of the site and the general conclusion, what about to mention also the Nabil Swelim's report: "The Pyramid Hills: Visočica and Plješevica Hrašde, Observations, and Analyses, 30 August to 12 September, Sarajevo, 2007"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.147.254 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this report, I would characterize it as a pseudoscientific report. For example, it repeatedly misidentifies naturally jointed bedrock as "stones tiles," "cobble road," "tiles," "tilted surfaces," "terraces paved with thin tiles," "tiling," and so forth. On page 36, this report identifies classic examples of Ripple marks (Linguoid ripples) as a manmade "basket weave pattern" on "tiling." There are Young Earth Creationists, who have a better understanding of basic geology than Nabil Swelim exhibits in this report. Wikipedia would become the laughing stock of geologists everywhere if his report was accepted as having any scientific validity.Paul H. (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this report in [Some thoughts about Dr. Nabil Swelim’s report].Paul H. (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when Is Nabil Swelim's report not valid because of any aimed discussion on the anonymous forum? The value of here presented reports is either being criticized on this page. (78.108.147.254 (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Swelim's report is of questionable reliability, is obvious pseudoscience, and deserves no mention here until independent, reliable sources are provided that mention it. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nabil Swelim's report is being criticized on this page because it exhibits a profound lack of knowledge of aspects of basic geology that any archaeologist or geologist should have learned as either a Sophomore or Freshman as an undergraduate in college. This report exhibits a lack of understanding of geology that would earn a student either an "F" of a "D" as a term paper in the typical entry level class or laboratory in either historical or physical geology.Paul H. (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

His most recent report says "If nature creates a geological pyramid shape, why don’t we give it the proper descriptive term: pyramid hill ?" ; "At Visočica the calculated base is found to be rectangular but in fact there is no physical base for this natural structure." ; "Field archaeology is a tool which can reveal information about the object and if the pyramid is manmade or if there are any human interventions. [...] If no traces are found then our pyramid hill becomes a geological case." ; "archaeological finds, when unearthed, will show the true status, this has not been attempted and until then we may dismiss human intervention." and "If nature creates a geological pyramid shape, why don’t we give it the proper descriptive term: pyramid hill? The arguments on this nomination at Visočica persist because of: 1) little knowledge on PYRAMID SCIENCE, 2) wrong belief that pyramids are MANMADE; and 3) opinions driven by DISAGREEABLE ATTITUDES.!" small pdf file. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Listing scientific investigations

As I pointed out above, we need more and better references into the scientific evidence concerning the hill. I think we have everything we need in current references, it's just a matter of citing the research directly. I'll start going through everything, listing what I find. Anyone care to help? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Harding - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Schoch and Dowell - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Vrabac and his team - already referenced - include ref in lede? --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Imamovic - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Runnels - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The signatories of the letter to Schwarz-Schilling - not referenced directly --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tunnels

Regardless of whether the "pyramids" are actually hills that have been worked, or pyramids -- what about the tunnels. There are lots and lots of videos of massive networks of tunnels that branch, connect, and run all through there -- without any evidence that they were used for mining. See a single example here (and yes, the supporting timbers are clearly recent). What is up with the tunnels? Why were they cut? What was their purpose? There is all this heat and noise about whether or not those are pyramids while meanwhile the whole tunnel thing is kind of ignored -- yet that is very interesting in and of itself.

Yes, they may be natural formations that were shaped by the peoples of the past -- plenty of that all over Europe. And yes, the discoverer appears to be rather a nut. And yes, the archaeology work there appears to be of poor quality. The tunnels, though, are interesting. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

SunSw0rd please read the "Scientific investigation" section carefully which points out the lack of any scientific investigations whatsoever (in the sources provided) and how that is brushed aside with non-policy bump and insistence that "scientific investigations" is a correct descriptor anyway and then consider whether any time spent on trying to improve this article is worthwhile.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

Here is reported a breakthrough : http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/UNDERGROUND-LABYRINTH-RAVNE-BREAKTHROUGH-FINALLY.html

Mayor of town of Visoko came first day to visit us. He was delighted. Local TV followed. Next day we had a state TV. Major Serbian TV showed up, as well…
We’re looking for exciting winter here in the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids.

Lamiya El Hadidy

One of the more noteworthy aspects of this nonsense has been the amount of misrepresentation made by those arguing there are pyramids here. At the start, a number of people's names were used by Osmanagic, claiming that they were participating when in fact they had nothing to do with the project. Lamiya El Hadidy (a specialist in the conservation of artefacts) however did indeed take part, but she never endorsed the idea of pyramids. These hills a lot of archaeology (less now as some has been destroyed by these excavations, and she confirmed that a vertical wall was manmade. This is a small rectangular structure on Pljesevica, not a pyramid. But her statement has been turned into an endorsement of the pyramid claim. If you see this page [21] which is the official site, you'll see that there they are simply stating that she said the structure is manmade. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What source are you referring here? In [22] she is cited as supporting the idea that the stone structure on the Pyramid of the Moon is man-made, not that it is Pyramid. (78.108.147.254 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Recent blanking

I've reverted recent blanking and change of perspective [23] and [24] that removed reliable sources, and added an unreliable blog as the only new source to justify the changes. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I was extremely surprised to come here and the very 1st line says: "The term Bosnian pyramids has been used for a cluster of natural geological formations" This is a one sided statement. The origin of these structures is under great scientific debate, and the evidence is certainly pointing to them being manmade and not geoligical formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.164 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In reliable sources: what debate, what evidence points to a manmade origin, refuting the cited research? The theory is discussed in due proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Acroterion _(talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess somebody is actually struggling very hard the truth not to be revealed. Anyway it is a battle just against time. I wonder how can one after reading Swelim's article post this. 'Swelim released a report in 2010 in which he makes it clear that he considers it to be a geological and not a man-made pyramid. He still refers to the hill as a pyramid on the basis that it has the appearance of a pyramid. [27]' It is far from what Swelim wrote and claimed. He is saying that pyramid is manmade. He wrote a 50 page expertize on that. So if I posted something which is in favor of pyramids it would be deleted as it was before no matter what kind of evidence would I quote? No matter how hard somebody is trying to shut down the project they will not succeed in my opinion. In fact I do not care much but I see every two or three months something new is discovered and some new evidence is found. The interpretation of most of scientific research in this article in Wikipedia is also very strange and Swelim will be more than happy when he sees this misinterpretation of his words. So my question is: Who stands behind this conspiracy theory? Borchica (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)B

His English is so bad that I can't tell what he's saying. Perhaps the summary in our article needs to be changed. But it is clear that being man-made or natural is irrelevant to Swelim's use of the term "pyramid" (thus "pyramid hill"). If you can quote where he says it's man made, please do—I can't find it.

As it is, I'd be comfortable with Swelim released a report in 2010 in which he clarified that he does not claim it is a man-made pyramid. He uses the term "pyramid hill" for a hill which has the shape of a pyramid.

— kwami (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be obvious English is not my mother tongue but I bet everybody (including you) perfectly understood what I was trying to say. In fact this discussion is so bizarre. And here is Swelim's 50 page report http://nabilswelim.com/downloads/Pyr_Hills.pdf.pdf from 2007. In which he concludes: “Arguments in favor or in disfavor have no effect on the fact that the pyramid concept and the properties are there for everyone to see”. In 2011 - four years later and after thousands of hours of excavations a 5-year old kid can tell those structures are man made after visiting the archeological site. There are so many scientific proofs about artificiality of pyramid hills but Dr. Osmanagich doesn't care much about negative publicity as he knows what he is doing and that his work leads to a phenomenal discovery which will be acknowledged worldwide sooner or later. Borchica (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean your English was bad, I meant Swelim's! I can read a paragraph four times and still not understand what he's trying to say. As far as I can tell, he neither says that it's man made nor that it's geological, but asserts that this is irrelevant to whether it's a "pyramid", which in his definition is a shape, not a construction. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

I had an edit conflict while I was deleting the copyvio text, I was posting: Deleted text as copyvio, but it can be read here: [25] or downloaded from various sites such as [26] Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked the OP to post a link in any case. Acroterion _(talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Osmanagic's current team

The best source of information I know of for this is Irna's blog, and she has an article on his current team, see [27]. --Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagged source (Ezra B.W. Zubrow)

We used to have an article on him, but it was deleted 3 years back as inadequately cited to secondary sources. It's hard to say how notable his opinion might be; but according to his page at Buffalo edu., updated 2008, he's a professor of Geography and Anthropology, not an archaeologist. See here. I'm sure Dr Zubrow's opinion on the Bosnian Pyramids was offered in good faith, but he doesn't claim to be an archaeologist, so why should his opinion on the archaeology of the pyramids be included in this encyclopedia entry? Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We now have a link pointing to his professional archaeological background. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Apologies for the confusing edit summary. Without a secondary source, his personal opinions simply don't belong in this article per WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. That seems sound. Regardless of the professional background I was very doubtful of the source itself, but not quite sure why; so thanks for the link. Haploidavey (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr Zubrow teaches archeology at the Universities in Buffalo, Toronto and Cambridge. And that link proves that. See here What is disputable? Or you want to see his diploma scanned? This whole discussion is becoming ridiculous. Where are diplomas of all other 'scientists' which opinions are published? Osmanagich is crucified like Galileo Galilee was. Thank God it is just in writing. I don't see a neutral approach here. It is far far from that. And people who hold notable positions use their strength to defend their opinion which is based on 'historical' books from which they learned. And we all know history our fathers learned is not the same one we learn. And I can hardly wait to see the day whatthe ones who are so eagerly defending the nonpyramid theory will say when the pyramid is unearthed. Probably that Osmanagich built it himself during the night. And I really wonder who is behind those people trying to hide the truth as long as possible and what are his intentions. Borchica (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:secondary sources. — kwami (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the term secondary source and faculty biography as well as polartec page are secondary source and not close to Dr Zubrow so I am putting his statement back backed up with both links now. Borchica (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

An interview is a primary source. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Then all the claims and statements quoted are also a primary source, aren't they? What makes an interview with Dr. Zubrow a primary source and an accusation that Osmanagich's team was reshaping the 700 ft hill a secondary source? Borchica (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Primary sources may be used with care per WP:PSTS, especially to provide details on information sourced in secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources & deletions

I've taken the recent deletions to WP:RSN. So far as I can see they meet our criteria although we could make it clear what the Smithsonian magazine article is quoting Schoch. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronz your POV doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia regulations. You are strictly struggling to hide the truth and to promote the fairy tale about the hoax. Anyone and I repeat anyone with a sane mind who visits the site can see clearly on their own that the structure is artificial. I am not entering further debates about other discoveries here. And all the scientists that have been there and deny the existence of evidence are perfectly aware what this discovery brings when it is proven. But like I said the truth is always revealed at the end and no matter how hard you try Ronz to win this personal vendetta against true history you are going to lose at the end. I am just wondering why. Are you paid for it or what? And I read today almost whole discussion from the beginning and I realized that from very beginning of this article facts in favor of pyramid existence have been attacked severely and always erased. It is interesting that Swelim's report was not published until he said that these are pyramidal hills. Before that it was disputed and sourced as primary or unreliable and so on. At once it is rellevant. of course - it is contra and not pro. There is a saying that the smart one always back off first. And it always happened that neutral Wikipedia aspect was bulldozed by negative judgments and opinions. If we take a look those are just that. Personal opinions of (here you are correct) of some prominent scientists. But some of them even haven't been there. What makes Zubrow's (archeologist, anthropologist) personal opinion less relevant of personal opinion of Nick Hawton (journalist)? So I suggest allow also positive reliable sources to be published and don't make fool of yourself as this is what you are eventually doing by not allowing pro opinions to be published. I am not a wikipedia freak as you are but I bet there is somebody who can take a look at what you are doing and who is neutral and who is above you and who will delete your account and ban you from wikipedia for being one-sided and biased. Take care, Borchica (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS to understand what we mean by reliable sources. You must also stop attacking other editors, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And, as this is a fringe article (mainstream archaeologists and geologists in Bosnia and abroad have said these are geological features), probably WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. I don't see much difference between Zubrov's comments (which don't say much about evidence) and Schoch's comment about the inscription, shall we include them both? If you think the article is biased, you can complain at WP:NPOVN.

Accounts are never deleted and bans are only done by community discussion usually at WP:ANI, but that is extremely unlikely to happen here. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've warned Borchica about personal attacks on his user talkpage as well. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Statements without any references...

References 15-19 which are supposed to cite and back up Vrabac and his team claims are dead links and/or links pointing to some institution main page but there is absolutely NO evidence those claims are real so I suggest them to be removed. Borchica (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The first of these - Bosnia's rich heritage is live for my UK-based server - as I'd fully expect for a Times online link. It fully supports the first sentence. The rest (16-19) are dead but it seems likely that they were live when added, and supported substantive content: we might assume good faith here. Let's tag and seek new links, rather than hastily delete. Haploidavey (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Duly fixed [28]. No such user (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also references 13, 20and 22 don't exist. So now I am asking one more question. Is it justified to put sth without references which goes against Osmanagich's theory and not ANY referenced proof and/or evidence which supports this theory. It sems like people are deleting their claims because they don't want to be publicly attacked for their claims and because they don't have any evidence to support tjheir claims beside their personal judgment. It is undeniable that there is less and less people and statements that try to stop Osmanagich and on the other site more and more proofs and evidences and scientists that favor his work. So I am askin the editors when the first true referenced sentence which supports Bosnian pyramids theory will be published on the main page. Borchica (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you're after here. Have you yet read Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories, linked above? In providing a balanced, informative article on the "Bosnian pyramids" we should summarise well-informed, preferably scholarly opinion, which should be drawn from reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Thus far, scholarly consensus finds the pyramids natural formations, not man-made. Osmanagich's theories are fringe. Haploidavey (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link rot and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When something was put in the article, it most probably was supported by the online link. When the link gets defunct, it should be updated, at least using {{wayback}}. It is not acceptable to remove the citations supported by rotten links unless that is tried first. No such user (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I put citation needed where were dead links... Borchica (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have just replaced two very much live links I just added.

And please do not replace dead links with {{citation needed}}. Use {{dead link}} to mark the link as dead. No such user (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So what we do with references with dead links? It is ultra stupid to keep them there. They should be deleted or replaced with lčive ones. Isn't it so?Borchica (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Sources do not have to be on the Internet. Note also that our article on linkrot says "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead" Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC

It is ridiculous that everything it is written by somebody who gives poitive statement on pyramids no matter whether it can be validated or not is reversed or deleted. Even Swelim who is definetely rooting for pyramids is misquoted and persons doing wrong interpretations on purpose can be prosecuted as we all know....I will request arbitration committee to intervene here if necessary. Borchica (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to check my edit against Swelim's report? It was copy and paste. Meanwhile Borchica is blocked (not by me, although I reported him to WP:AN3 for legal threats (such a block stays until they are unambiguously retracted). Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Izmo Guglich Affair

The article Izmo Guglich Affair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable blog, a parody on Bosnian pyramids phenomenon; much more notable criticism abound, nothing particular about this one

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. No such user (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Schoch quote

I brought this up at WP:RSN and my interpretation was that we could use it. This is a WP:FRINGE article so we must use "In-text attribution", but that's been done. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hillgate?

The whole story is just like a small global warming story. No matter how absurd both parties sound, one has the power to silence the other one and it uses it. Climategate shown, that it is not hard to buy scientists not only of one field, but most of the scientists around the globe. Global warming is still not marked as a hoax in wikipedia, which is unbelievable in the light of the discussion above. And I remember some of the battles that happened around it here. So, as long as money is involved, mirroring scientific journals is just mirroring scientific journals - nothing plausible, nothing real. If half of the foundation claims prove half true, it really would rewrite not only the history books but first of all the tourism map of europe. So there is no big reason to call opinion of scientist a scientific research if there is no specific discussion of specific claims in any of the opposing texts I came across.

Thus I think, the article should be put in much more neutral way, as those hills are clearly shaped as pyramids, the triangle positioning, their orientation and layers of blocks with 90 degrees between all sides is a bit too much to be just natural coincidence. Maybe those really were rebuilt from hills just a few thousands or even hundreds years ago. Note that the great pyramid of Giza is also just a hill in it's internal core that was rebuilt to look like a pyramid. Silver Nugget (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

However, article talk-pages are not places for coathanging, soapboxing or original research. They're for discussion of article improvements, which should rest on reliable sources. Haploidavey (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I was talking about and I backed that by reasoning which is what you are disputing. Silver Nugget (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it another way - reliable sources deny that the hills are clearly shaped as pyramids, that they have the blocks you claim, that the orientation 'too much', and give other explanations (geological) for some of the claims. The GP is not a hill, there are no hills on the Giza Plateau and whatever core there was is insignificant compares to the 23 million blocks required to build it. I think you are at the wrong place, our reliable sources policy says that we should rely on scientific journals. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And to put it yet another way, the theory itself is fringe; this has been noted above, several times over. Thing is, scientific journals tend to fill their pages with scientific articles, not fringe theories with no scientific basis. Their silence on the topic is in some ways unfortunate, but has an eloquence all its own. Silence on the topic in scientific journals does not mean we give scientifically unsound evidence a fair hearing by default. That's not what WP:NPOV is about. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller - It would be cool then to have them in the article as those contained simply are as reliable as the foundation - unreliable, biased and absurd like most of both pro and anti global warming zealots were. Thus space should be provided either for both of the claims or, article should state that there was no specific reliable research in the area to support either view. The site seems to be open to anyone, so if there was a feeling that it could really be proven that the whole thing is plain natural, someone would have been paid to do it well - as i stated above, the tourism thing means a lot of money available to support both sides.

Haploidavey - To put it in the real outside view way: wikipedia is just a mirror of mainstream science which makes it sadly next to useless. All those battles in many areas where people are thrown of institutions for forming an opinion in so many fields makes this source simply not enough. I was used to use it as portal for keywords and links to search for and that was the way it worked well for me, now I may skip all the wikipedia articles in search results because they are just plain one sided opinion and it would lack sources (this article stil contain some) for other views. My last words here, I do not want this talkpage to run in circles again and I have given all my thoughts on this that were not presented by others before. Silver Nugget (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You mistake NPOV, RS and V for a free-for all, balancing all kinds of fringe theories against mainstream material. That isn't how encyclopedias work, and it certainly is not how this encyclopedia works. It is entirely intentional that "wikipedia is just a mirror of mainstream science;" you will have to go elsewhere to find intentional promotion of fringe opinions. A recent example of Wikipedia coverage of fringe information is Shakespeare authorship question, a featured article and subject of arbitration which examines the issues and which reflects the mainstream consensus that Shakespeare did, in fact, write the material attributed to him.Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You mistake OR for accurate relaying of source material which never has claimed ANY "scientific investigations" per the section so headed and yet to be properly addressed.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to be clear for those that haven't read the above thread about the opening line of the second paragraph, I fully agree with those scientists who've investigated and concluded that there are no pyramids there, however, as the three sources do not mention any scientific investigations having been conducted, stating that there have been (scientific investigations) is wrong, stating that such (scientific investigations) show that there are no pyramids is doubly wrong. I have proposed alternative wording (see above thread - a very simple change from "scientific investigations...show" to "scientists investigating...conclude") to correct this policy violation, I have asked for proof from the sources that I've somehow missed said proof, none being supplied and none being found when a reasonable search is conducted, suggests to me that there is some form of wording that would accurately portray what the sources say which we have not yet arrived at. I am firmly convinced that if we all take a deep breath and press the save button on my proposed wording, those who believe there is a/are pyramid/s there will be satisfied that the sources are being properly represented even if their preferred overall write-up tone (of them being real) isn't given.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Masters thesis: "Addressing Invented Heritage : the Case of the Bosnian Pyramids"

See [29] and another paper, "http://cambridge.academia.edu/TeraPruitt/Papers/118276/Contextualising_Alternative_Archaeology_Socio-Politics_and_Approaches" "Contextualising Alternative Archaeology: Socio-Politics and Approaches", in T. Pruitt and D. Yates (eds.), Invention and Reinvention: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1. Looks like a lot of useful stuff for the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not neutral at all.

The Scientist,(dying Science's superstitious people) trying to Smeared out the FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hoax is in your mind

===> Hoax ?? In fact, They're founding a lot of Prehistoric proves there. And the ancient script, which dated back 30,000 ago. and found similar to other civilizations. FACT IS FACT,use power of hand to quiet people exactly a Hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 November 2011‎

There are no such ancient scripts. And see WP:VERIFY. No sources which meet our critera there and at WP:RS back these claims. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Presentation of the names given by Osmanagić and the Foundation

Given that these aren't pyramids, I don't believe we should use the Foundations' names for the hills other than when specifically mentioning someone's viewpoint who claims they are pyramids (e.g. Osmanagić's, the Foundations', and possibly Swelim's). --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a try, but am not sure about it. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

I think we should be cautious what images we present and how we present them, given that many have been chosen to misrepresent the geology. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to tag the images for that very reason. They offer undue weight to a particular, unscientific POV. Haploidavey (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the recently added images, as they present a POV cherry-picked picture of the sites. We really need another picture of the main hill as from other views it looks quite different. Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple at http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Colette-M-Dowell?page=4 : http://www.dailygrail.com/images/schoch/VisocicaAirOverview.jpg is fairly good, giving a view from the northwest, showing the triangular northern face. http://www.dailygrail.com/images/schoch/VisocicaAirSummit.jpg shows it from the southwest.

I see absolutely no need for more than a single image from the north, which shows the triangular northern face. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I should have thought of that source. I might be able to ask her to donate them to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure whether she will be able to. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Ronz' retitling of the two close-ups helps, but only up to a point. I'm not sure they should be included at all. Are these pics representative of the sites as a whole? Do they show archaeology in progress, or something a little more creative? Haploidavey (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to look through the sources and see what locations are mentioned regarding the excavations where the exposed areas look like steps on a pyramid or where the exposed natural rock layers look like stonework. In that context, the images might be useful. Presenting them without explanations as to what is shown is improper. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Images

With respect to images in this article, I have been looking for images of the alleged / so-called "Bosnian pyramids" to use in a couple of articles. As a result, I have have been examining the copyright status of the pictures in the articles, specifically in the gallery, and found that their copyright status appears to open to question and unverified. They are so lacking in in any clear documentation as to their copyright status, there are none that I can use. This certainly raises questions as to whether they meet Wikipedia standard for copyright permission. What is needed are people to contribute to Wikimedia are pictures with clear documentation of who created them and clear permission for their use in Wikipedia. If I am wrong, which I might be as I am not a copyright lawyer, please correct me Paul H. (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, but they seem fine. I didn't look carefully, but most (all?) are from HarisM (talk · contribs) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mhare . --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Archaeology blog article

http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/the-bosnian-%e2%80%98pyramids%e2%80%99-of-semir-osmanagic/

Bad Archaeology (badarchaeology.net and badarchaeology.com) is currently used as a source in multiple articles, as well as pointed out as a valuable source within articles. The blog hasn't been used as a source. What do others think about using it? --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We can use it in articles such as this one, no problem. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:MoonPyramid.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MoonPyramid.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pm s1 5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pm s1 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011

What should I do?