Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →Heading: asking BIHLover if he/she will put in their blog that Irna's website is recommended by some academics |
→Heading: you have two rights |
||
Line 568: | Line 568: | ||
Irna is a blog and I can't believe how an encyclopedia is using her as a source. My point is to have articles that are supporting the Bosnian pyramids, in an objective way, as a reference. I have given you at least five articles from five different news-stations. [[User:TheBIHLover|TheBIHLover]] ([[User talk:TheBIHLover|talk]]) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
Irna is a blog and I can't believe how an encyclopedia is using her as a source. My point is to have articles that are supporting the Bosnian pyramids, in an objective way, as a reference. I have given you at least five articles from five different news-stations. [[User:TheBIHLover|TheBIHLover]] ([[User talk:TheBIHLover|talk]]) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Disrespect? Pah! I have nothing but contempt for idiotic woo-woo pushers and frauds. I also have very little respect for those who keep insisting they have provided suitable references while refusing to follow Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|Reliable Sources]] policy. Oh, and threatening to write nasty things about us elsewhere will gain you no traction here. Finally, you have no freedom of speech here and no right to anything - see [[Wikipedia:Free speech]]. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
:Disrespect? Pah! I have nothing but contempt for idiotic woo-woo pushers and frauds. I also have very little respect for those who keep insisting they have provided suitable references while refusing to follow Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|Reliable Sources]] policy. Oh, and threatening to write nasty things about us elsewhere will gain you no traction here. Finally, you have no freedom of speech here and no right to anything - see [[Wikipedia:Free speech]]. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:: {{reply to |TheBIHLover}} You're completely wrong again. This is a private website and actually you have exactly two rights: the right to fork; and the right to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Why on earth should I follow the references on this Wikipedia, when most of them are ten years old and the reference is linking to blogs and other irrelevant sites? Well, I'm not breaking any rules whatsoever. I'm discussing the situation on a talk page. I'm giving you references, but you keep ignoring them. Calling people idiots, will not get you anywhere by the way. [[User:TheBIHLover|TheBIHLover]] ([[User talk:TheBIHLover|talk]]) 11:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
Why on earth should I follow the references on this Wikipedia, when most of them are ten years old and the reference is linking to blogs and other irrelevant sites? Well, I'm not breaking any rules whatsoever. I'm discussing the situation on a talk page. I'm giving you references, but you keep ignoring them. Calling people idiots, will not get you anywhere by the way. [[User:TheBIHLover|TheBIHLover]] ([[User talk:TheBIHLover|talk]]) 11:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:22, 19 March 2016
![]() | Bosnia and Herzegovina C‑class | |||||||||
|
Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Lack of objectivity in this article
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should be objective when it comes to different subjects. Calling a project pseudo-archaeology, which has spent countless of hours with resarch, tests and excavations, is absurd. Where is the objectivity, guys? Seriously. This article is also outdated. The references are mostly from 2006 and 2007. One example is: His excavations were still funded by local authorities. This is not true at all. The project has not had any financial support from the government or local authorities since 2012.
There are several new reports and news about the project and the Bosnian pyramids on the internet. There are also countless of videos around the internet about the Bosnian pyramids. I just can't figure out why no one can edit this article, without gettig re-edited. When people put new facts and news in an article and write in an objective way, then it should stay, right? Apparently no. But this article is all about attacking the Bosnian pyramid project and the man who discovered the pyramids in Visoko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please review WP:COI given your username? --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say, and if they describe it as "pseudo-archaeological" then Wikipedia should too - it's got nothing to do with the hours spent, only the academic quality of the excavations and claims. I've had a good read of this article since I first came across it as I hadn't heard of the pyramid claims before and was intrigued. And having read a few sources too now, it sounds to me like it's blatant crackpottery and that the tone of this article is about right - and any attempts to whitewash it as serious archaeology and a genuine find would be inappropriate. If some individual parts are out of date, they can be updated with new sources. And if findings change, they can be updated with new reliable sources too - but not using "countless of videos around the internet". So if you want this changed, find some reliable academic sources and present them here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, "His excavations were still funded by local authorities" is true, as it is in the past tense and clearly refers to 2011 - and you say such funding went on until 2012, so even you profess that it's true. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the sort of thing one editor wanted to use.[1] LaViolette has no qualifications in archaeology or geology and after doing standard mainstream science started to push anti-gravity, UFOs, etc. Note the claim "An electromagnetic energy beam issues vertically from the peak of the Pyramid of the Sun." Great stuff. Ordinary archaeologists and geologists have more or less ignored all of this recently because they've already done the work. One person hasn't though.[2] which may have some stuff that can be used. Doug Weller (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear, that LaViolette seems, well... But the Irna source looks like it could be useful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the sort of thing one editor wanted to use.[1] LaViolette has no qualifications in archaeology or geology and after doing standard mainstream science started to push anti-gravity, UFOs, etc. Note the claim "An electromagnetic energy beam issues vertically from the peak of the Pyramid of the Sun." Great stuff. Ordinary archaeologists and geologists have more or less ignored all of this recently because they've already done the work. One person hasn't though.[2] which may have some stuff that can be used. Doug Weller (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been numerous of visits from scientist and experts from different fields. The statments from the archaeologists are over nine years old. Would it not be nice to have updated the article by saying that volunteers and tourists are visiting the site and that the excavations are still in progress, instead of calling it just pseudeo-archaeology and slamming with negativity when it comes to Dr. Semir Osmanagich and the project. The article is not uptdated and it lies, when it states that the foundations is getting support from the local authorities. There has been five conferences and it has hosted over 80 scientist and resarchers, there has also been given over 89 scientific papers at five scientific conferences. There can be believers and scepticism between the people, but you can't write a project that has been running for ten years and hosted over 80 different resarchars pseudo-archaeology. By the way, here you have all the resarchers that has been to the five different conferences. Not to mention that the foundation has archaeologists, anthropologists and geologists resarching the Bosnian pyramids. If you want to see all the different resarchers that has visited the site, then here you have it:
TheBIHLover talk 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- — TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No, Osmanagic's ideas about those hills had no scientific credibility to begin with and their status has certainly not improved with time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You ignore the facts. The project has hosted hundreds of volunteers, resarchers and numerous of scientific resarcher for example archaeologists, geologists and anthropologist. This Wikipedia article is straight up attacking Dr. Osmanagich and the project and has no objectivity at all. That is a shame. What happened to give encyclopedias and articles more sources from different angles? TheBIHLover talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not provide equal weight for all views and does not give the views of fringe pushers the same weight as the views of established academia. Wikipedia summarises the academic consensus as supported by reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources (in a subject like this, that would generally mean peer-reviewed academic sources - and *not* the project's own web site, which also pushes ignorant rubbish about free energy and perpetual motion!) that support the pyramid claims, then that view can be added. It's no good just banging on about "hundreds of volunteers..." and "objectivity" without providing such sources - without sources, you are being the very opposite of objective. As an aside, I've read a handful of proper academic sources on this subject now, and they all debunk the claims as nonsense in a very convincing (and scientific) way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Stating that the project is pseudoarchaeology is not objective. There are also several sentences in the article that are outdated. For example: His excavations were still funded by local authorities The article just gives one side of the story. If you let people edit the other side of the story (without deleting it) it would get much more objective. Instead of stating that the project is a cruel hoax etc. you can call it a debate between different communities and the reasons behind it. The foundation have several archaeologists and geologists that are working there right now, which have a degree, and it would be bad to call the whole project pseudoarchaeology. Wikipedia states that pseudoarchaeology is: refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline. The project does not reject accepted datagathering and analytical methods of discipline, in fact they are analysing different datas like C-14, different energy-analysis, archaeological analysis etc. Stating that the project reject accepted datagathering etc. is a statment without facts. TheBIHLover talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.163.188 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I explained, Wikipedia reflects the balance of reliable sources, and does *not* give equal weight to everyone who wants to add an opinion. Now, if you want to make changes to the article, you need to provide some of those reliable sources rather than just repeating your own person opinions and assertions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I also suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which is clearly applicable to this article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
So you are saying that over 80 resarchers that have visited the site and given their own scientific papers are not reliable sources? Why? That is not my own opinion. I'm giving you facts. An article is not objective when it it for example has Bosnian pyramid claims and pseudoarchaeology. Not to mention the outdated data about the foundation receiving financiel support from the local authorities. This article is all about attacking Dr. Osmanagich and the whole project. And that is not objective. Tell me how a statment from one person, Robert Schoch, can add a sentence in the Wikipedia article, that the foundation has been carving out the *hill* to look like a pyramid? On Wikipedia is states that Schoch is interested in Parapsychology, so why isn't HIS statment *rubbish* like you said? TheBIHLover talk
- Schoch's findings were published in a reliable peer-reviewed publication, The New Archaeology Review, volume 1, issue 8, pages 16-17, September 2006, which is why it is acceptable. If you can provide us with a paper that documents any genuine archaeological evidence for the existence of pyramid construction that has been accepted by a reliable peer-reviewed publication, please do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Archaeological reports:
- 2014: http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/archaeological-reports-1/item/9805-archaeological-report-season-2014.html
- 2013: http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/archaeological-reports-1/item/9149-archaeological-report-season-2013.html
- 2012: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B67VINWzAtLcNGl3alg1NXF4UXc
Geological report:
Archaeologist interview:
TheBIHLover talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- (I've formatted those links a little better to make it easier to follow - I hope you don't mind).
As I have already explained, the project's own site is not a reliable source for the accuracy of its own claims - and it is certainly not a peer-reviewed academic source! An archaeological report produced by the project itself is also not a reliable source for the accuracy of its own claims and also is not a peer-reviewed academic source. An interview on YouTube (put up there by you!) is also not a peer-reviewed academic source (and what are Anela Podrug's credentials? Just appearing on YouTube and captioned (by you?) as "Archaeologist" is not sufficient). All you are providing here is the project's and supporters' own claims yet again. We need reliable support from independent third parties published in reliable peer-reviewed sources. If you cannot understand those basic requirements, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain them to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Tell me how Shoch's statment ist a third-party statment when it is coming from his website where he is also attacking Dr. Semir and the project. This article is straight out, outdated. And I can't figure our why it is called Bosnian pyramid claims Why not just call it Bosnian pyramids? The Wikipedia is attacking the project in that way. Here you have a third party article by the way, and you know what, this article was made in 2015, news from the site, but Wikipedia is just telling about 2005-2011:
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/exclusive-discovery-new-prehistoric-underground-tunnels-bosnian-pyramids-020343 --TheBIHLover (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh, that Ancient Origins story is written by Osmanagich himself! And the Ancient Origins web site is not a reliable peer-reviewed publication. Yes, the article is outdated, and it can be brought up to date - but only using (and I'll say it just this one more time) reliable, independent, third-party, peer-reviewed publications and not the project's own claims. I'll leave you to it now, and you can see if you can get a consensus supporting you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but is it possible to delete pseudoarchaeology and some outdated sentences from the article? Since it is more of a subjective way of writing, than objective way of writing. At least write that it is a debate between believers and sceptics if it is a pyramid or not, and give for example different facts. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Pseudoarchaeology" is well referenced. Removing it violates Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:NPOV.
- What "debate" and "different facts" there are have been covered in the article (and discussed at great length on this talk page), but if you believe there's more to add, please identify it with sources independent of Osmanagich and the foundation.
- Likewise, if something is out of date, identify it with independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have explained why "pseudoarchaeology" stays - it's because that's what leading respected archaeologists say about it, and it is supported by reliable sources.
Outdated sentences cannot be deleted as long as it is clear that they refer to a past time and were accurate and supported by reliable sources at the time - they can be updated with later reliable sources, but not simply deleted.
It is already clear that there is a disagreement between believers and sceptics, but I have already explained very patiently that we do not give all opinions equal weight. We reflect the consensus in reliable academic sources, and it is abundantly clear that respected academic archaeologists writing in reliable peer reviewed sources have overwhelmingly rejected the claims of there being any pyramid there (and even I, with my rudimentary education, can see how ignorant some of the claims are).
Repeatedly claiming that your view is "objective" and other views are "subjective" does not add anything whatsoever to the support for your arguments.
If you want to make a change, present the specific change you would like to make here and provide reliable independent third-party sources to support it, and we will review your suggestion and try to come to a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- So far as I can see the only archaeologist to have been involved for several years is Sarah Acconci who had a Masters degree and some experience, and the last conference she was involved in was 2011. Brett has an undergraduate degree in archaeology but his paper was not about archaeology but "The birth of Hebrew culture and religion before, during and after the Babylonian captivity" Anela Preljevic is their current archaeologist but as she is also inexperienced.[3] Meanwhile we find that there are healing tunnels there.[4] The bottom line seems to be that no experienced archaeologists are involved. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Anela Preljevic has a bachelor degree in archaeology from University College London and she has been volunteering at the site for three years and been an archaeologist for the foundation for two years, 2014 and 2015. So she has a lot of experience when it comes to this site and archaeology. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, that absolutely does not give her any serious academic credibility, as there are thousands of bachelor degree graduates out there every year who'll take any job so they can feed themselves - and it really doesn't help the credibility of the project that the best archaeologist they can attract is a mere bachelor graduate with no published track record. Academically credible archaeologists are those who have gone on to do serious study of various sites, usually advanced to PhD status, and have published a significant number of papers that have been well received by mainstream peer-reviewed sources. As a comparison, I have a bachelor degree in biochemistry, but if I showed up at a quack alternative medicine site as their resident biochemist and extolled the virtues of their bogus claims (and got people like you to upload videos of me to YouTube captioned with the word "Biochemist"), would that lend any academic credibility? I'll leave you to work out the answer to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Irna? You are talking about a women/man that is writing anonymously against the project? Is that fair? Why do people credit her/him when no one knows who she is and what degree she/him has. I can't figure it out. You guys delete everything about the different sides of the story, but you give sources from Irna's site.
Well, if she has a bachelor degree in archaeology, then she has studied ancient history etc., taken an exam and worked in different fields before. Am I right? --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why would she have studied ancient history? She does have a lot of experience of that site, but not of archaeology. My son has an undergraduate degree in archaeology but that's not enough to call him an archaeologist. Hm, just found this by one of the first archaeologists who worked there - he also had at the time a BA but also a year's practical work. Since he worked there he's taken a Master's in Archaeology focussing on B&H.[5]. Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but Anela has had her degree since 2014 I think. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've had my biochemistry degree since 1980 - does that make me one of the world's best? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It is irrelevant. The facts is, is that she is an archaeologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough, present the papers she has had accepted by reliable peer-reviewed academic publications and we'll be happy to consider what she says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unlikely as she is extremely inexperienced. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we're done here. If no one is going to offer any independent reliable sources to justify any changes, let's work on improving Wikipedia elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, she has been working on the archaeological report for 2015. I will share it here as soon as possible. I still wait some answers about the Irna subject. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- what about it? Doug Weller (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Quote: Irna? You are talking about a women/man that is writing anonymously against the project? Is that fair? Why do people credit her/him when no one knows who she is and what degree she/him has. I can't figure it out. You guys delete everything about the different sides of the story, but you give sources from Irna's site. Please answer this for me. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me how Irna's site is a third-party user, when she/him ironicallyis writing anonymously agains the project, and you guys use her/his sources, but I can't place the archaeological reports as sources and write that there is a debate going on about the project. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- The sources from there can be checked and used, eg Andrew Lawler's interview which is on a separate site. No one, at least at the moment, is using her site as a source for the article. And the article makes it clear that there is a debate. But remember Wikipedia is a mainstream site and always prefers academic sources. Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You are using Irna's site as a reference. Irna'a site is like a blog, but she/him writes anonymously. As far as we know, Irna has no academic background and no third-party user has checked Irna's site, but Wikipedia still use her/him like a reference. Is that fair? For me it looks like double standards. No, the article does not make it clear that it is a debate when slamming claims, and pseudoarchaeology. The article is still outdated no matter what sources I give you, the Wikipedia article needs to be updated big time. --TheBIHLover (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The book Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology by archaeologists Ruth M. Van Dyke, Reinhard Bernbeck and published by the University of Colorado says " For an excellent series of articles, blogs, exposes, and links, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html, accessed March 14, 2012." Doug Weller (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, Dr. Semir got his degree in Mayan-studies, but that reference is still not in the Wikipedia article. It is still weird to use a blog or a site by an anonymous user. It does not sound objective to be honest. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as we know, Irna could have been lying all the time for Irna's own agenda. She is writing anonymously though.--TheBIHLover (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- As Mayan studies is not the subject of this article, it's not relevant here, it is relevant in his own article. As for Irna, most of her stuff can be checked and she is not writing anonymously as her full name can be found on her website.. And for all I know, you could be lying. But we should should never accuse anyone of lying here. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why pseudoarchaeology can't be replaced with hypothesis? When there are so much people involved in the project, then why should it be pseudoarchaeology? What pseudoarcheology means on Wikipedia: refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline. This is not true. The foundation accepts datagathering and analytical methods. Here are some examples (some of them have shared with you in the archaeological reports).
The document of the Carbon-14 dating on the Bosnian pyramids:
Engineer about the concrete on the Bosnian Moon pyramid and the Bosnian Sun pyramid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHTZXdd93mI
Plus, there lots of scientific videos on youtube. Here are some videos from the different conferences:
2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnhzwYDv2wc&index=10&list=PLt_TE56WfD98BmhDb_XnDfSAm9h1BGjZh
2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybtl7O76gZ8
2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K58fZSPlNp4
There are also several presentations from independent resarcher and scientists. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I am still waiting for some answers. --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't be so impatient, you should be pleased that people are replying as you don't seem to be listening.. We cover his PhD in his biography.Do you agree with Osmanagic's suggestion in his book The World of the Maya, in which he suggests that the Maya were descendants of aliens from the Pleiades by way of Atlantis. He is quoted as positing, "Were perhaps those who were ready picked up in spaceships by their mentors from the Pleiades star cluster? Or perhaps they joined the Lords of the Galaxy and, in pods of light, set off on a journey with no return."[ Osmanagić also wrote, "It is my theory that the Maya should be considered watchmakers of the cosmos whose mission it is to adjust the Earthly frequency and bring it into accordance with the vibrations of our Sun;... Their ancestors, the civilizations of Atlantis and Lemuria, erected the first temples on energy potent points of the Planet. Their most important function was to serve as a gateway to other worlds and dimensions." That's from our article on him. Not surprisingly in his PhD he claims they are an older culture than the Olmec, which no archaeologist accepts.
- You say we define pseudoarchaeology as referring to "interpretations of the w past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted data gathering and analytical methods of the discipline". And this is what archaeologists say is happening. We are a mainstream encyclopedia and we for archaeology and geology we need mainstream sources. We can't use that image, not just because it might have been doctored, but because it hasn't been discussed in an academic source. Not to be rude, but I doubt that you understand how radiocarbon dating is used by archaeologists and geologists. I'm sorry, but all of this stuff about concrete, rays emanating from these 'pyyramods', ancient technology, are all nonsense. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I really never thought this would need saying again, but YouTube videos are not reliable peer-reviewed sources! I guess there's none so deaf as those who won't listen - you should be grateful, TheBIHLover, that people have humored this nonsense this long. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with him about the spaceships. So you are telling me that the Archaeological Park is faking the radiocarbon datings? That is absurd.
In this report you can read the explanation of the radiocarbon dating, page 65 (2013):
http://piramidasunca.ba/images/2013/1103/bosnian_pryamid_2013_report.pdf
At least Wikipedia could put the reports in external links or references, then it will look a little bit better. I can not see any problem putting the reports in the Wikipedia article as links. --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is produced by the pyramid foundation itself and is not a reliable peer-reviewed publication!!! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hope this is better: http://icbp.ba/2008/index.php/Reports/Reports/ --TheBIHLover (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, that is the pyramid foundation itself yet again! "Independent" and "third party" are the words you seem to be totally deaf to or unable to understand.
Look, this is getting us nowhere, so here's a suggestion. You start a new section making a proposal for one specific change to the article and provide sources to support it, and then we'll have Support/Oppose comments to see what the consensus says - and then you accept the consensus? How does that sound? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I will do it. Do I just make a new section? --TheBIHLover (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'll even make a new section for you, so you just need to tell us what specific change you want made to the article and provide the necessary sources (and in that section, please stick to the one specific change rather than making general unspecific criticism and/or suggestions)...
@TheBIHLover: I made a new section for you, below, for your proposed change, yet you posted two suggested changes here in the existing section. We will need to be able to support or oppose each suggestion individually, so I have taken the liberty of moving your suggestions to two separate sections and reformatting them slightly so they're easier to follow (like using bullet points for lists of sources rather than double-spacing). I hope that meets with your approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, no problem I appreciate! --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be brought to everyone's attention that TheBIHLover is directly involved with the Bosnian Pyramids themselves and therefore conflict of interest is at play as well as quite possibly being paid to request such changes. Here is their YouTube channel promoting non-factual videos and misinformation https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBIHLover . I would also like to point out that TheBIHLover blocks comments from anyone who opposes their ideology, which holds a certain level of double standards considering he/she is complaining about a lack of objectivity towards the Bosnian Pyramid claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.20.63 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don’t get paid anything for the things I do. Who ever said that, lies. My channel is my hobby and so is the Bosnian pyramids. I block people only that are spamming in the comment-section, and I think that should be logical to you. I always allow debate in the comment-section. If you have resarched enough through my videos, you can see that there are both believers and sceptics involved in the discussions. Every single comment someone posts on my videos, I get an e-mail and I read most of them. By the way, maybe you should sign in with your own account and then make accusations when you are not anonymous. --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused a bit about your desire to update the article and not use anonymous sources when you want to use an unsigned 2008 report - at least one person mentioned in it has changed their view on these geological formations, maybe more. And Irna, I repeat, isn't anonymous. So far as the radiocarbon dating goes, the pdf you linked to mentions Timothy Moon, a music producer[6] who for some reason was put in charge of some of the archaeology. He seems to be an amateur archaeologist.[7] (it's a link to a broadcast and doesn't work, but it does say amateur and he doesn't claim any credentials. The problem with the carbon dating is that it is meaningless - these are geological formations so of course you'll find old organic material. It's only if you buy into them being pyramids that it might mean something. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Timonthy Moon is an anthropologist. Please read this article: http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/scientific-analysis-of-the-bosnian-valley-of-the-pyramids/
I can't understand why people think that the foundation is paying people for their own favour. Like I said, there are so many people involved in the project and it is not Dr. Osmanagich's claims. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't made an account because normally I only use Wikipedia for it's educational and factual purpose, I discovered the discussion here via Reddit, my Google+ is Psyanide and I commented on several videos talking about the other side of the coin aka the lack of actual scientific evidence, yet you blocked me claiming that people are just trying to suppress the claims and to quote you Of course, you can read everything on Wikipedia, but the wikipedia editors are not fair when it comes to the Bosnian Pyramids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgxWTKRDWP4 then you blocked me after I said I trust professionals that have dedicated huge portions of their life to the study of archaeology not the lies of a documented business man and marketing assistant who spouts claims that he cannot back up with evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. With respect I decline from creating a Wiki account as I don't believe I'll use it enough to warrant it's creation, just wanted to point out some facts about TheBIHLover, also I never accused you directly of being paid by the pyramid foundation, I said it's possible considering your absolute rejection of genuine science unless it conforms to your own ideology. I just thought the editors should know you exercise unpleasant tactics to reduce the amount of counter argument on the subject.--82.2.20.63 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I know you. You were the one that spammed all my videos. No it is not possible, and you were still accusing me for that. Unpleasant tactics? Come on, you are just grumpy that I blocked you because of your spam on my channel. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You seem to not understand the definitions of spam, evidence, reliable and peer-reviewed, also you may want to go and look up what confirmation bias means. As for your videos, voicing an opinion which opposes yours on each of your videos is not spam, I included valid sources that debunk the Pyramid claims on all videos that only contained Pro- Bosnian pyramid claim comments, not just yours, so that there would be at least 1 scientific comment amongst a whole load of misinformation so that others who would have just taken the contents of the videos as unchallenged truth might actualy think and research the subject, but I'm not here to argue with you as I've made my point and as usual you're not listening to what anyone is trying to tell you. To finish I'd like to thank the editors and contributors who keep the information on Wikipedia truthful, factual and clear of misinformation. Thankyou. - Psyanide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.20.63 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Timothy Moon is not an anthropologist or an archaeologist. He's a music producer and does archaeology as a hobby. Again, [8] is his Linkedin site, where does he claim qualifications in anthropology or archaeology? Doug Weller (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he has not updated his linkedin-page? --TheBIHLover (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. If he were an archaeologist he would already have qualifications - degrees, participation in real archaeological excavations, peer reviewed publications, etc. He wouldn't have let a radio station call him an amateur archaeologist (which is what he is, and what I am except that I've actually studied archaeology formally (not for a degree) and participated in both training and ordinary excavations. Doug Weller (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is spam. I have zero tolerance for spam on my channel. When you post ten comments on ten videos in 30 second with the same comment, then it is spam. No matter if you are a believer or sceptic. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No it's really not classed as spam, spam is the same message repeatedly applied to the same comments feed/forum thread/chat channel, When I copied my arument and posted it once in each of your videos that's purely saving me time while spreading my side of events instead of having to write it out again and again by hand, it's kinda what copy/paste was designed for buddy, if I had put the same message 2+ times in 1 comment feed then yes it would have been spam. What you have no tolerance for is rationality, science, critical thinking, objectivity (using lines like I feel like is not objective, it's subjective as you are basing your opinion on your own emotions towards the topic, not factual evidence peer reviewed by trusted academics) and those who oppose your views, who you try to silence by blocking..... then you have the cheek, after bad mouthing Wikipedia, to come here and try and get your misinformation published, maybe you could learn a thing or two about how the scientific community has let you have your say without blocking you despite how you seem to think you can persuade an academic community to accept your claim without using the same methods academics use to validate their own claims and evidence, which is what makes the Pseudo-community and new age philosophers so absurd. Nobody has made lame attempts at bullying you like your supporters on your video comments (which really does show your double standards, you'll block someone adding actual weight to a discussion but you'll allow people to throw abuse around so long as they agree with your ideology). As seen here, you cannot accept how someone with degrees is more reputable and trust worthy than a musician who's just been slapped with a few titles by the Pyramid foundation/Semir, because the musician named here isn't the only musician Semir has lied about and misslead the public about, take the Email from Giancarlo Barbadoro, which the pyramid supporters label as sole confirmation regarding the Polytechnic Institute of Turin tests in 2009 on the artificial concrete, a test of which was never published except for a illegible photo of said result paper printed in SHAN magazine, but when you dig a little you discover that Giancarlo Barbadoro is the founder of the Ecospirituality foundation which, coincidentally IS THE PUBLISHER OF SHAN MAGAZINE, oh but then it gets better, you later find out that the document containing the test results are now property of the Ecospirituality Foundation from Torino and I'm yet to have any reply from them to see the document, probably because I mentioned I was a sceptic, I mean seriously look at this rubbish http://www.bosnian-pyramid.org/journal/2010/1/1/bosnias-sun-pyramid-the-concrete-pyramid-theory-confirmed.html, http://piramidasunca.ba/bs/component/k2/item/3213-shan-magazine-about-the-bosnian-pyramids.html, http://www.eco-spirituality.org/tdgr-prmdbsn.htm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, a photo of the front page of a document is not extraordinary let alone evidence. - Psyanide --82.2.20.63 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to relax, man. You have no sources for your accusations against Dr. Osmanagich. You are a sceptic and I respect that, and you also have your own subjective opinions.
I never silence people. I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech. You posted the same comment all over my videos in a matter of minutes, which I consider spam. I can unblock you if you want, but please do not spam or post a lot of comments all over my videos in some minutes. It would be great if you could visit the Bosnian valley of the pyramids and see for your own eyes, if you want. --TheBIHLover (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Again with the subjectivity here ″which I consider spam″, it does not matter what YOU consider/think something to be, what matters is the official definition, I think many here would have hoped you understood this before you made a post about ″the lack of objectivity″ in the Wiki entry, as evident from many trying to teach you what evidence is, you don't even know what the words you are using mean! I just posted my sources are you blind? they are Osmanagich's own sources that are quite obviously meant to mislead people and which a magazine publisher clearly has a conflict of interest in, look at the ″about″ section for the site I also previously posted http://www.bosnian-pyramid.org/journal/2010/1/1/bosnias-sun-pyramid-the-concrete-pyramid-theory-confirmed.html .That site WAS MADE IN SUPPORT of the Bosnian pyramid foundation back in 2005, it is a bias article, if you refuse to acknowledge this then in no way should you expect people to acknowledge anything you have to say on the subject as you clearly cannot even differentiate between bias source material and peer-reviewed source material.-Psyanide --82.2.20.63 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have had enough with your attacks against me. I have nothing more to say to you. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion 1
Ok, first of all I want to remove pseudoarchaeology from the article, because I feel that a project that has spent hundreds of hours of resarch of the structures does not deserve pseudoarchaeology.
Suggestion:
Remove pseudoarchaeology and claim from the article and just call it Bosnian Pyramids.
I think it is better to write that it is a debate between resarchers if it is a man-made structures or a natural formationw, than call the whole project claim because there are so many people involved in it, and not only Dr. Osmanagich. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can't happen as it would violate basic policy, see WP:NPOV#Fringe theories and pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The "pseudoarchaeology" is well documented by reliable sources and represents the academic consensus among respected archaeologists. As for a "debate between researchers", it really isn't, not in academia, because the debate was settled long ago that the pyramid claim is bogus, and serious professional archaeologists have simply walked away and are no longer debating it as there is really no point. Also, presenting it as an equal debate between two sides would, as Doug says, violate Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
But is it possible to remove claims from the article, since there are so many people involved in the project and not only Dr. Osmanagich. This happened for ten years ago, much has been discovered since then. Like tunnels, more concrete blocks, carbon datings etc.
The project does not belong only to Dr. Osmanagich, but all the volunteers that have participated and helped, plus many independent and dependent resarchers all over the world, but yes Dr. Osmanagich discovered the structures. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, they are still only claims as they have not been corroborated independently or published for critical analysis in peer-reviewed academic sources. And no, Dr. Osmanagich claimed he had discovered the strutures, but independent archaeological experts (of which Dr. Osmanagich is not one) rejected his claims (and even I can see how ignorant some of his claims were). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but a lot has happened in ten years! Discovery Science for example is a good source (I know that videos can't be included, but still): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCV4KVs-rTQ
--TheBIHLover (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discovery Science "Unexplained Files, season 2014-2015" is not a good source, it's pop pseudoscience. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh my, you are calling a channel pseudoscience too? So everything that does not agree that the pyramids are a *hoax* is pseudoscience? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you disagree and think the "Unexplained Files" program (or any of those other woo-woo sources you keep trying to use) is a reliable source for scientific claims, then feel free to ask for a review over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. But look, an encyclopedia is written using serious academic publications as sources, not TV programs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion 2
I also want a section where people can read about the findings in the area, and maybe place the archaeological and geological reports in the article. Here are some links from other sites about the Bosnian Pyramids. The second suggestion is to have an own section where the findings from the strucutres can be written and place some new links (like those under) in the section references or external links.
- http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/visoko-astronomical-map-more-100000-years-003215
- https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pyramids-bosnia-exist-according-archaeologist-165225736.html#knRuhXy
- http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/469316/Bosnian-pyramids-discovery-Europe
Great article here (!):
Reports (I know that it is coming from the foundation's website):
--TheBIHLover (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I guess [9] might be ok, but I'd rather use it to update the article. The Daily Star is a tabloid, useless. Ancient-origins is just another fringe site. And your great article is 7 years out of date as I've said before and includes statements now rejected by the people who made them. And anonymous. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is a one step in the right direction. Do you agree that it would be good to make an own section for the findings in the area? One can use the reports as sources. Yes, but please, those people have rejected the project for ten years ago, and it is a long time ago. No one of them have had anything to say in the last years. So much have been discovered in the area and there are many involved in the project. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The serious archaeologists have abandoned any interest in this, yes, because that's the way real science works - when something has been properly debunked, real scientists move on to other things and ignore the fringe pushers. And these "discoveries" are only claimed discoveries, as they have not been corroborated by independent experts (the "many involved in the project" are all Osmanagich's employees and followers) and have not been subjected to independent peer review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, there are a lot of Bosnian articles about the Bosnian pyramids, but they are unfortunately not in english. Here is one in english: http://www.straitstimes.com/world/pyramids-exist-in-bosnia-archaeologist --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not Bosnian, it's Singaporean, and all it does is rehash the guy's claims again - what you'd need (as we have told you many many times) is peer-reviewed academic journals, not newspaper filler stories. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Partial support. I think we could maybe update the article with the foundation's latest claims, and we could use its reports as documentation of their claims. But we can't call them findings as they are not corroborated by any reliable independent academic sources. Also, I think a separate section in any detail would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and the article should not become a forum from which to access all of the foundation's materials - a link to the foundation site will suffice for that and people can get them from there. Now, the sources...
- The Daily Star is a tabloid (and one of the UK's worst), so that's out.
- www.ancient-origins.net is an uncritical publisher of fringe claims and is also out.
- www.gizaforhumanity.org is another apparently uncritical fringe publisher and is also out as a reliable source (and is out of date as Doug says, and does not reflect the withdrawal of some of the statements made).
- The Yahoo! story seems more reliable, but all that really does is reinforce that actual archaeological consensus that the pyramid claims are bogus.
- The foundation's own reports could be used as sources for their claims, but as I say, their claims cannot be accepted as factual.
- So, all I'm really supporting is the inclusion of a summary of any new claims that are not already included. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but can we more away from the claims, please? There is are three archaeological reports published, 2012 - archaeologist and 2013, 2014 by an anthropologist. There is one more geological report and here is the link (I know that you will react on which site it is published on, but if the site it bad, then we can use the report from the foundation's official site): http://themindunleashed.org/2014/11/9-cases-prove-existence-pyramids-bosnia.html
Is it possible to make an own section about the findings? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, until they are presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and corroborated by independent experts, they remain "claims" and not "findings". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've argued in the past for a section about the foundation. It's years later and the foundation appears to be dying. If we included such a section, it should be based upon independent sources only. We've agreed that the foundation and Osmanagic are not reliable sources, and everything they've said since only makes the case stronger they they are not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me what kind of peer-reviewed academic journals? Do you mean an article from some site or something else? Please notice that most of the academics are against the project because of the petition the European leading archaeologists signed ten years ago. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look in Category:Archaeology journals. And if most academics reject the project's claims, then that's what an encyclopedia should reflect. Maybe that's tough, but it's how Wikipedia works. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Here you have an article by Dr. Paul LaViolette: http://etheric.com/bosnian-pyramid-complex-signs-technically-advanced-ice-age-civilization/
He is an academic, and there is no exuses because he writes about energies, he is still an academic.
Here is powerpoint-slides by SB Resarch Grouop about the energy phenomena: http://www.sbresearchgroup.eu/index.php/en/research-papers/37-slides/98-bosnian-pyramids-measured-energy-phenomena
- The http://etheric.com/ site is pushing secret messages in the stars and stargate travel!! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
--TheBIHLover (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Those are not peer-reviewed academic journals, are they? And LaViolette is another woo-woo nutter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
He is still an academic. Did ignore the link I gave you about the SB Resarch group? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm an academic, but it doesn't make any unreviewed crap I might spout reliable! And that SB Research site is also not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Now, I really am getting sick and tired of trying to explain this to you, so if you really really cannot understand, then you simply do not have the competence required to work on this site. And if you do understand but refuse to listen, then you're being deliberately disruptive. I've tried to be as helpful to you as possible, but from now on I have no interest in anything you say that is not backed by a peer-reviewed academic journal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There are several articles that Wikipedia are linking to that are most likely not peer-reviewed academic journal and Wikipedia is linking to blogs. Blogs. Here is one: https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/the-bosnian-%E2%80%98pyramids%E2%80%99-of-semir-osmanagic/
Tell me what is professional with this Wikipedia article when editors are using blogs like a reference? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Independent blogs written by professional with a reputation for good science can be used as secondary support, but they would not usually stand on their own without the reliable academic sources which are already in the article - and I might personally reject that source myself if we didn't also have those independent corroborative sources. Now, I repeat - can you show us one paper in a serious academic journal by an independent professional archaeologist supporting the pyramid claim? Until you can, that's really all I have to say here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That is an excuse. If I linked to some good blogs, you would just straight out reject them. The blogs are there because they are against the pyramids in Bosnia, its simple. That is not objective to be honest.
I gave you some links. Like you said, we can use the Yahoo-link and the geological and archaeological reports. I think the archaeological report from 2015 by Anela will be published soon too, so I will share it here. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No excuse, policy. See WP:RS vs WP:EL. While you are at it, you should familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE. (That blog is an external link only, right? Is it referred to in a source?) --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so where do we stand here with the negotiations? I will share the archaeological report 2015 when it gets published ASAP by the way. --TheBIHLover (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- LaViolette is discussed above, before you came here. He has no qualifications in geology or archaeology which are the relevant fields. He used to be a good scientist, but somehow he went off the rails like Barry Fell did. Doug Weller (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
For some he is a good scientist, for some not. It will almost always be like this. By the way, where do we stand now? --TheBIHLover (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, it will not always be like this. Science isn't something subjective in the sense you seem to mean. A lot of his recent work is simply not scientific no matter what he says, just as people arguing for a flat earth are not scientific no matter what arguments they bring up. That's one of the reasons we have peer reviewed journals. There is nothing scientific about the work being done now on the pyramids. Doug Weller (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of project that does not have peer reviewed journals. You can't call a project non scientific when there are arcaheological and geological reports on the internet. What is not scientific is that Wikipedia puts blogs like their reference. If I have given you something against the pyramids, you would straight up said yes and added it to the Wikipedia-article, like you did with the blogs. Now I give you archaeological reports (which I believe you haven't even read) and instead of facing those reports you give me excuses that Timothy Moon is not an archaeologist or anthropologist based on the internet. Do you realise that the project is almost banned, because of the petition that those European archaeologists signed in 2005? We are not ten years in the project, and Wikipedia has not updated a thing when it comes to the findings of the project, and this Wikipedia article is just slamming the whole project. You can clearly see it in the title and the introduction. There are independet resarchers and dependent that are resarching this project and with you calling it nothing scientific is an attack on those people and on their scientific work. It just shows that you are not updated with the project, but you keep slamming, what a shame. There are still a lot of pages that have references that are NOT peer reviewed journals. I gave you that blog for example. Most of the references in the article are from 2006-2007, they are old. It is time to update with new references and with new information. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Now, I have several Bosnian and Croatian articles, I can post here. There are not that many articles on english about the Bosnian pyramids, but I can give you some in Bosnian and Croatian, because I see that the Wikipedia article has some Bosnian/Croatian articles. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Moon not being an archaeologist isn't an excuse, it's a fact. You won't find any verifiable evidence that he is. And yes, when I start reading reports based on the notion that these are concrete it certainly puts me off. These are standard geological features and you find them all over the earth. And there are geological reports explaining that. When you find something new by geologists and archaeologists who aren't just out of college and whose credentials and experience we can verify, then post their reports. Otherwise you're wasting your time. Doug Weller (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are attacking their scientific work. Now, forget about Tim Moon for a minute and focus on the things I wrote over, please.
Suggestion:
I have several Bosnian and Croatian articles, I can post here. There are not that many articles on english about the Bosnian pyramids, but I can give you some in Bosnian and Croatian, because I see that the Wikipedia article has some Bosnian/Croatian articles. --TheBIHLover (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I am saying that without the proper qualifications, including a lot of supervised excavation work on various types of sites, I can't see any reason to be interested in their report. And if the person is basically a music producer who does this as a hobby and makes clear their disdain for mainstream archaeology, nope, not interested. What's going to be different about your Bosnian and Croatian articles? Are they written by people established as experts in archaeology or geology? Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that there are some links in the Wikipedia article that are not written by archaeologists or geologist, for example, Irna's site. The articles are written by Croatian and Bosnian journalists, I can't see any problem taking some information from them.
By the way, this Wikipedia article do only explain the hypothesis of Dr. Osmanagich and later what happened mostly from 2005-2007. That means that the article is outdated. Period. The article does not explain basic thing for instance how big the Bosnian Sun pyramid is etc.
Here you have some Bosnian and Croatian articles:
Klix.ba (Bosnian):
Dnevnik.hr - Nova TV (Croatian):
Radiosarajevo.ba (Bosnian):
http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/203113/istina-ili-mit-tajna-bosanskih-piramida-fotovideo
Slobodnadalmacija.hr (Croatian):
Avaz.ba (Bosnian):
There you have five articles from five different stations. --TheBIHLover (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Geologists have declared the so-called Bosnian pyramids to be flatirons formations. Nobody in his right mind would think that the passage of time might change anything to this basic geological fact. A flat iron formation in 2007 is not going to morph into a mand-made pyramid in 2015, no matter how much digging Dr. Osmanagic and his followers put into it. What is "outdated" is the pyramid "hypothesis" still being bandied about in this talk page - obviously by a believer - a decade after it was rejected as ill-conceived and outlandish by the scientific community. --Elnon (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
What is outdated is it this article. And a decade later there has been so much discoveries in the valley.
I wrote this above:
By the way, this Wikipedia article do only explain the hypothesis of Dr. Osmanagich and later what happened mostly from 2005-2007. That means that the article is outdated. Period. The article does not explain basic thing for instance how big the Bosnian Sun pyramid is etc.
Please check my links I gave you from three known Bosnian stations and two Croatian stations. Those should surely by allowed to be on the Wikipedia article. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no sun pyramid, there is a hill that is probably smaller now that it's been sculpted. This is like asking us to say how big a UFO is. The links aren't to anything written by recognised geologists or archaeologists. Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of articles in the reference-section that are not written by archaeologists or geologists. Do the editors on this article have double standars? --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue to attack editors and authors that you disagree with rather than trying to improve this article, you put yourself at risk of a block or ban. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not attacking the editors. I'm just stating the facts which are that there are references that are not wrtitten by archaeologists or geologists. The editors are also attacking Dr. Semir and some of the editors have also attacked me by called me deaf and one of the people accused me of being paid by someone. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think TheBIHLover should be banned from this article for some time to get this disruption to stop. I'd hope that during that time TheBIHLover would review WP:DR and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Banned? Are you serious? I'm trying to figure out how this article can be better with all of you on this talk-page. I am using my freedom og speech. I can't see any problem. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
You are not trying to figure out how to make the Bosnian Pyramid claim article better you are trying to figure out how you can get unsubstantiated, bias evidence onto a factual Wiki. You have clearly failed to understand what constitutes as evidence, either out of willingness or by ignorance. Also, I did not accuse you of being paid I merely pointed out that you clearly have a conflict of interest as you promote the Pyramid claims via YouTube videos in which you present them to be of scientific interest which is false, I also pointed out that you blocked my comments on your channel after I spoke out about the hoax which is also a tactic by paid supporters to try and reduce the amount of argument against their claims, in light of all this information, plus the fact some of your videos suggest you are in direct collaboration with the excavation and the foundation, it would be foolish to not be suspicious towards your intentions. Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Please leave this stuff out of this suggestion. If you have any problem, then post it on my talk-page. Keep yourself to the topic, please!
By the way, don't even think that I am paid by anyone. Stop accusing me of these kind of things. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Then you're a volunteer, either way you clearly have a conflict of interest so no it is valid in this talk and do not ask anyone to withhold facts that are relevant to this topic.-Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I want to do is to make this article better and more objective. Nothing more. That is why I have made this on the talk-page, so that everyone can participate with the article. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is already as objective as it can be and as people have already pointed out the only sources and ″evidence″ you have tried to include in the article are not trustworthy and far from objective, furthermore the fact that you promote the claims as true in your YouTube videos clearly shows you have a conflict of interest, again, far from objective. I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence and the definition of ″objective″ and the definition of ″subjective″.-Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it possbile to use these articles as sources for the upcoming updated article?
Klix.ba (Bosnian):
Dnevnik.hr - Nova TV (Croatian):
Radiosarajevo.ba (Bosnian):
http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/203113/istina-ili-mit-tajna-bosanskih-piramida-fotovideo
Slobodnadalmacija.hr (Croatian):
Avaz.ba (Bosnian):
--TheBIHLover (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You already posted those and they were rejected, here's the reason why:
1. http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/203113/istina-ili-mit-tajna-bosanskih-piramida-fotovideo - Bias article containing a youtube video as only source, contains nothing about the fact that academics reject the claims and label it a ″cruel hoax″, no objectivity.
2. http://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/svjetski-istrazivaci-o-fenomenu-iz-visokog-piramide-u-bih-su-stvarnost/140906025 - A conference organized and held by the pyramid foundation is not evidence full stop, for obvious reasons pertaining to conflict of interest.
3. http://punkufer.dnevnik.hr/clanak/na-licu-mjesta-kakvu-tajnu-doista-kriju-bosanske-piramide-sunca---394121.html - Again, bias article that contains no information about the fact the Bosnian pyramid claims are rejected by academia.
4. http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Scena/Mozaik/tabid/80/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/281799/Default.aspx - For a start it does not translate well at all, either that or it's just atrocious journalism. Secondly it too looks like a bias article too but given the fact it's mostly lost in translation no sound judgement can be made but given what can be read, the pictures and the heading I would say it's yet another bias article with no weight being given to the counter argument that it's a hoax. -Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1. Biggest station in Sarajevo, not a bias article. 2. Ok. 3. One of the biggest stations in Croatia, not bias. 4. That newspaper is the biggest newspaper in the area Dalmacija. Which is the south-west coast of Croatia. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Avaz is the biggest newspaper in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the way. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The popularity of a site/newspaper has absolutely no bearing on the authenticity of an article, it's sources do, which from what I can ascertain are either the Pyramid foundation, YouTube videos in support of the foundation, or other supporters. The problem with talking only about the Pyramid claim but not even mentioning that said claims are rejected by academia is that, aside from being incredibly poor journalism, you are not presenting the reader with the full story, only the part of the story that you want them to hear which is why it is bias. Do you understand? An individual cannot decide on something they do not know exits and therefore are less likely to research what the opposition has to say if they are not aware there is an opposition in the first place, which falls under misinformation.-Psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you stop accusing the everyone that supports the pyramids in Bosnia? You can't ascertain anything, because what you are saying is not true at all. Now you are also attacking the journalists who are writing in one of the biggest newspapers in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Misinformation? How so? Because there are some newspapers that *supports* the pyramids? Come on, man. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Reread what I wrote above again, you've not taken in what I've said at all which to be honest doesn't surprise me in the slightest as you haven't listened to what the admins had to say either. Although your subjective interpretations of mundane natural objects, scientific illiteracy, and inability to understand what constitutes as evidence and peer-review is exceptionally common amongst New-age/pseudo followers the fact that you refuse to accept the decision of the admins is outright disrespectful and I'm not surprised you're being ignored, you're just going around in circles rather than coming to a resolution which is both unproductive and just plain silly.
Note to any admin reading this, I would not suggest banning TheBIHLover for their attacks on the admin alone as they are out of pure ignorance as I'm sure is evident from their posts, however if this person continues to try and get their nonsensical fiction into Wikipedia I would suggest either a ban or temporary ban as I have had the same experience with this individual before and I can say from that experience that they will just keep on and on without coming to any kind of resolution. To quote Carl Sagan ″One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back″-Psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Who are they? I'm not attacking anyone, you are attacking me from the start. Who are you, because I can't remember discussing with you before other than youtube. Wikipdia administrators have not right to ban me, because I am using my free speech and I'm not attacking anyone. I just want a better article thats it. --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the place for you to accuse me of attacking you, if you have an issue and would like to highlight the things I've said that you think are an attack on you personally then you can post on my talk page, not in the discussion of an article and it's content. No, you do not have freedom of speech here, nobody does, this is an encyclopaedia not a forum thread. Wikipedia administrators DO have every right to block you, and yes you have attacked them, I quote you:″ Do the editors on this article have double standars? --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)″. I have not attacked you from the start, I pointed out that you clearly have a conflict of interest because the YouTube videos you upload and promote are subjective and bias in favour of the Pyramid foundation, bringing in the fact you blocked me from commenting on your Youtube channel was a little too personal and off topic but hardly an attack, more like bringing a grudge to an intellectual debate about the content of an factual article. Now, I'm not going to bother replying to you here any more as, since the beginning of the section ″lack of objectivity″ it has been nothing but going in circles, I've told you why your sources are not reliable, the admins have told you why your sources are not reliable, but it seems you are not interested in what the admin say nor what the scientific consensus say. There is nothing more to be said and doing so is just beating the dead horse. I agree with the admin that the article ″Bosnian Pyramid claims″ is up to date, unless any reliable scientific evidence is put forward that proves this Wiki article incorrect it will remain as it is.-Psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok. We have our different opinions. Now, please get back to the topic. I would love to know the answer from some the editors if those Bosnian and Croatian articles can be placed and used in the updated Wikipedia-article? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, is it possible to change anything on this wikipedia? The wikipedia is still outdated though. --TheBIHLover (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Something else for later
By the way, the article is really outdated too in some sentences. It would be nice to change that too, but one step at a time. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please leave that out of the two current suggestions, as we need to be able to focus on each one specifically without having to ge into all sorts of side discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Defaultsort
The article contains {{DEFAULTSORT:Osmanagic pyramid hypothesis}}
. This apparently predates the move requests above and was presumably added to work around (no-longer-relevant) issues with diacritics. Is it now acceptable simply to remove the defaultsort? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I support your suggestion. Should be uncontroversial. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bosnian pyramid claims. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060715045949/http://www.piramidasunca.ba:80/eng/podmeni/programistrazivanja/program.htm to http://www.piramidasunca.ba/eng/podmeni/programistrazivanja/program.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060425035231/http://www.theartnewspaper.com:80/article01.asp?id=237 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=237
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091029042204/http://www.piramidasunca.ba:80/en/index.php/DR.-SWELIM-BOSNIAN-PYRAMID-OF-THE-SUN-IS-THE-WORLDS-LARGEST.html to http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/DR.-SWELIM-BOSNIAN-PYRAMID-OF-THE-SUN-IS-THE-WORLDS-LARGEST.html
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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 12:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion 5
In lack of a proper title name for the section named it simply "Suggestion 5". @Boing! said Zebedee:@Ronz: would like to invite you for the discussion because most recently you were engaged with above discussions or article editing. I have not read the entire talk page revision, even less the archives, and perhaps my points are not something new. When I was in previous years reading the article, the main issues about it related with neutrality, but not the neutrality that some editors above or previously noted or wanted to change (WP:WEIGHT), but the twisted edits presentation of the fringe theory, and even author itself. It included little information which was unrelated with the excavations and theory, and among them some oddish claims about the Mayans and 2012 phenomenon. However, somewhere over the years, or recently, it's not anymore the issue. Another significant issue about the article is that it's written mainly by outdated sources. By outdated mean sources which are almost 10 years old, while the excavations continued since 2005-2006, it was further discussed, and were made TV documentaries, if remember right, Discovery Science Channel (2014), and History Channel (2012). This things are notable, and should be properly included in the article.
The main point of this discussion is previous statement by the user Zebedee, "we need reliable support from independent third parties published in reliable peer-reviewed sources". If we do not publish "project's own claims", then who and from which source can we cite the project's fringe theory claims? As mainly edit ancient or middle-age historical articles, often saw fringe theories even among notable academic scholars, but they're given appropriate weight and cited accordingly. There were further excavations, laboratory and multi-disciplinary research, Ravne tunnels and artefacts discovered, and probably even author's own POV changed since 2006. I agree about not citing project website, but in local library can easly access to the book Sve Piramide Sveta (All Pyramids of the World; Esotheria, 2011) by the author. In it, since was released 5 years after 2006, will probably be information on the fringe theory among else. However, as mentioned previously, cited accordingly to the NPOV principles. Another interesting thing is that even notable pseudoarchaeologists like Graham Hancock don't fully accept the theory (see 21:58-26:25 from 2015). Also in the video are shown some of the new findings not mentioned in the article (absent in both "Osmanagić's claims" and "Scholarly reception" section).--Crovata (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I stopped responding to the previous proponent of this theory because they refused to listen to the fact that there have been no updates from reliable academic sources in recent years - only more claims from Osmanagić and his supporters. Recent claims by Osmanagić, and perhaps recent publications by other pseudoarchaeologists, could arguably be added purely as claims if they appear in reliable sources (and YouTube is *not* a reliable source!) But no revision of the academic consensus can be made unless such a revision is actually published in reliable sources by reputable archaeologists, and so far it has not been. If you want to make a specific change to the article, please outline the actual change you wish to make and provide sources to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- How far in the past "recent years" go? You don't need to point out YouTube is not a reliable source to a experienced editor, it was linked only because today accidentally watched it while searching on the Bosnian fringe theory, and seemed interesting (in both facts that a notable pseudoarchaeologist doesn't agree, and there further fringe claims and rejections not mentioned in the article). There was no intention of the discussion to rise any suspicion on the scholarship consensus, only specific updates from past years to the above mentioned sections. Alright, will see if can find something.--Crovata (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies if I offended you with my comment about YouTube - I've just spent too long here trying to explain the idea of reliable sources to others! "Recent years"? Nothing specific, just that nobody has so far presented any reliable academic update I've seen since what is already in the article. As I say, if you want to update the article then by all means try to find some reliable sources and do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, "try to find some reliable sources and do so", funny enough am trying almost an hour and it's not such a easy task as initially thought. Intention is to cite the claims and what are the most recent work there, which are not mentioned in the article, don't know why, but as said according NPOV, not showing them as somekind of facts. Am afraid that at some point, like you said above in the discussions, to do that there will be need to use project sources (for example, seem informative [10], [11]), and some news media. Thing is, even if above mentioned Daily Star is a tabloid, it does include what's the topic of this discussion - the project claims. For example, will link the media and what would like to cite:
- Apologies if I offended you with my comment about YouTube - I've just spent too long here trying to explain the idea of reliable sources to others! "Recent years"? Nothing specific, just that nobody has so far presented any reliable academic update I've seen since what is already in the article. As I say, if you want to update the article then by all means try to find some reliable sources and do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- How far in the past "recent years" go? You don't need to point out YouTube is not a reliable source to a experienced editor, it was linked only because today accidentally watched it while searching on the Bosnian fringe theory, and seemed interesting (in both facts that a notable pseudoarchaeologist doesn't agree, and there further fringe claims and rejections not mentioned in the article). There was no intention of the discussion to rise any suspicion on the scholarship consensus, only specific updates from past years to the above mentioned sections. Alright, will see if can find something.--Crovata (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- BBC 2006 (revealed a narrow entrance to what could be an underground network of tunnels... thought to be 2.4 miles (3.8km) long... The team found two intersections with other tunnels leading off to the left and right. Their conclusion was that it had to be man-made... geologist Nadja Nukic is already cited (the intention is to connect this sections - claim and counterclaim)... two other, smaller pyramid-shaped hills in the Visoko Valley, which archaeologists believe the tunnels could lead to... discovered a paved entrance plateau and large stone blocks that could be part of a pyramid's outer surface... He has already named the three hills the pyramids of the Sun, Moon and Dragon... Locals have begun to trade on the excitement, selling pyramid souvenirs to tourists and visitors (note on the political and tourist aspect of the theory)... According to anthropologists there is evidence of 7,000-year-old human settlements in the valley. German archaeologists also recently found 24,000 Neolithic artefacts one metre below ground. Mr Osmanagic says the hill is a classic example of cultures building on the top of other cultures. The town was Bosnia's capital during the Middle Ages, and a medieval fortress used by Bosnian kings sits atop Visocica. The fortress was built over an old Roman Empire observation post, which in turn was constructed over the ruins of an ancient settlement.);
- The Epoch Times 2013 (Two Italian archaeologists, Dr. Ricarrdo Brett and Niccolo Bisconti (need further research to prove), found a piece of organic material on the pyramid last year. They were able to carbon-date the material, and with it, the pyramid itself. This carbon dating places the pyramid 20,000 years before the Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations, believed to be some of the earliest in the world... Paul Heinrich, an archaeological geologist at Louisiana State University agreed [with Robert Scoch]... Enver Buza, a surveyor from Sarajevo’s Geodetic Institute has stated in a paper that the pyramid is “oriented to the north with perfect precision” reported Smithsonian. Some say the case of Bosnia’s pyramids has been used for political gains.);
- The Straits Times 2015 (not one, but five structures... all connected by underground tunnels... unearthed a network of underground tunnels and found man-made structures there and has also found fossilised leaves tested scientifically to date back 34,000 years... Curtis Runnels (more recent account on his POV) from Boston University, for instance, says that he is "not persuaded" by the arguments in favour of the so-called pyramids because cultures capable of producing such "colossal buildings" came about in that region only about 2,500 years ago. Even then, they did not construct buildings of that size and form... before them Stone Age hunters and gatherers, did not have populations large enough or social structures organised in ways that would have permitted the creation of pyramids on a large scale... Pyramidal shapes offer the least resistance to such forces [wind and rain], and are common forms in nature... Dr Brian Stewart, assistant curator at the Museum of Anthropological Archaeology at the University of Michigan: "There were very worrying reports that he and his team have essentially sculpted the sides of these natural hills into something they think resembles pyramids, in the process stripping away sediment which contains layers of actual archaeology from mediaeval and earlier periods.")
- Smithsonian 2009, already used in the article (the Pyramid of the Moon, the world's largest—and oldest—step pyramid... A third pyramid, he says, is in the nearby hills. All of them, he says, are some 12,000 years old... [embraced by] Bosnian officials... drawn to the promise of a glorious past and a more prosperous future for their battered country. Skeptics, who say the pyramid claims are examples of pseudo-archaeology pressed into the service of nationalism, have been shouted down and called anti-Bosnian... Souvenir stands... Pyramid of the Moon, with three triangular sides and a flat top." Upon consulting a compass, he concluded the sides of the pyramid were perfectly oriented toward the cardinal points (north, south, east and west). He was convinced this was not "the work of Mother Nature"... [geographic information about the valley]... In early 2006 Osmanagich asked a team of geologists from the nearby University of Tuzla to analyze core samples at Visocica. They found that his pyramid was composed of the same matter as other mountains in the area: alternating layers of conglomerate, clay and sandstone... It was just as the geologists had predicted: the excavations revealed layers of fractured conglomerate at Visocica, while those at Pljesevica uncovered cracked sandstone plates separated by layers of silt and clay. "What he's found isn't even unusual or spectacular from the geological point of view," says geologist Robert Schoch of Boston University, who spent ten days at Visoko that summer. "It's completely straightforward and mundane"... agrees Paul Heinrich, an archaeological geologist at Louisiana State University. "They're called ‘flatirons' in the United States and you see a lot of them out West." He adds that there are "hundreds around the world," including the "Russian Twin Pyramids" in Vladivostok...
- ...unperturbed by the University of Tuzla report, Osmanagich said Visocica's conglomerate blocks were made of concrete that ancient builders had poured on-site... This theory was endorsed by Joseph Davidovits, a French materials scientist who, in 1982, advanced another controversial hypothesis—that the blocks making up the Egyptian pyramids were not carved, as nearly all experts believe, but cast in limestone concrete... according to Schoch, workers carved the hillside between the layers—to create the impression of stepped sides on the Pyramid of the Moon. Particularly uniform blocks and tile sections were exposed for viewing by dignitaries, journalists and the many tourists who descended on the town... Osmanagich's announcements sparked a media sensation, stoked with a steady supply of fresh observations: a 12,000-year-old "burial mound" (without any skeletons) in a nearby village; a stone on Visocica with alleged curative powers; a third pyramid dubbed the Pyramid of the Dragon; and two "shaped hills" that he has named the Pyramid of Love and the Temple of Earth... Enver Buza... Ruins of the 14th-century Visoki Castle can be found on the summit of Visocica Hill—on top of the Pyramid of the Sun... "The pyramids have been turned into a place of Bosniak identification," says historian Dubravko Lovrenovic of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Commission to Preserve National Monuments. "If you are not for the pyramids, you are accused of being an enemy of the Bosniaks"... For his part, Osmanagich insists he disapproves of those who exploit his archaeological work for political gain. "Those pyramids don't belong to any particular nationality," he says. "These are not Bosniak or Muslim or Serb or Croat pyramids, because they were built at a time when those nations and religions were not in existence"...
- ...Wellesley College anthropologist Philip Kohl, who has studied the political uses of archaeology, says that Osmanagich's pyramids exemplify a narrative common to the former Eastern bloc. "When the Iron Curtain collapsed, all these land and territorial claims came up, and people had just lost their ideological moorings," he notes. "There's a great attraction in being able to say, ‘We have great ancestors, we go back millennia and we can claim these special places for ourselves.' In some places it's relatively benign; in others it can be malignant"... "I think the pyramids are symptomatic of a traumatized society that is still trying to recover from a truly horrendous experience," says Andras Riedlmayer, a Balkan specialist at Harvard University. "You have many people desperate for self-affirmation and in need of money"... "Anyone who puts their head above the parapet suffers the same fate [pressure, attacks]", says Anthony Harding, a pyramid skeptic who was, until recently, president of the European Association of Archaeologists... Tihic invited Koichiro Matsuura, then director-general of Unesco, to send experts to determine if the pyramids qualified as a World Heritage site. Foreign scholars, including Harding, rallied to block the move: 25 of them, representing six countries, signed an open letter to Matsuura warning that "Osmanagich is conducting a pseudo-archaeological project that, disgracefully, threatens to destroy parts of Bosnia's real heritage"... Brankovic told reporters at a press conference following a visit to the site. "The government will not act negatively toward this project." Haris Silajdzic, another member of the national presidency, has also expressed support for Osmanagich's project, on grounds that it helps the economy... Osmanagich says his foundation has received over $1 million, including $220,000 from Malaysian tycoon Vincent Tan; $240,000 from the town of Visoko; $40,000 from the federal government; and $350,000 out of Osmanagich's pocket. Meanwhile, the National Museum in Sarajevo has struggled to find sufficient funds to repair wartime damage and safeguard its collection, which includes more than two million archaeological artifacts and hundreds of thousands of books... For now Osmanagich has gone underground, literally, to excavate a series of what he says are ancient tunnels in Visoko—which he believes are part of a network that connects the three pyramids... The tunnel was partially filled, he says, when sea levels rose by 1,500 feet at the end of the ice age. He points out various boulders he says were transported to the site 15,000 years ago, some of which bear carvings he says date back to that time... Nadija Nukic... Osmanagich says he plans to dig all the way to Visocica Hill, 1.4 miles away, adding that, with additional donations, he could reach it in as few as three years".
- The above mentioned Joseph Davidovits who researched the concrete material, like G. Hancock said in the video, on his website can be found that although initially supported, in 2013 dismissed, stating "The geopolymer concrete analyzed is a kind of Roman concrete, which in no way corresponds to the materials that constitute the casing of the pyramids and look like pudding stone".
- The four cited sources support each other, and have statements which some only note while other discuss, and many of it is not even cited in the article. They wouldn't be cited word-by-word, but roughly, hope you get the concept.--Crovata (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's far too much for me to give a quick response to, but I'll try to take a look at those sources and will comment on each one individually - but it might take me some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- No rush, also would be appropriate that the article includes images in sections (also "Gallery" should be made) showing the tunnels, some stones, and concrete blocks discussed by the author and scholars in the text.--Crovata (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is there proposal somewhere in all this? --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not going to have time for this, sorry - my time for Wikipedia is limited and I don't have enough interest in this pyramid thing to spend it on this. I hope someone else might be able to help - and as Ronz suggests, an actual proposed change to the article would probably get more assistance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is there proposal somewhere in all this? --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- No rush, also would be appropriate that the article includes images in sections (also "Gallery" should be made) showing the tunnels, some stones, and concrete blocks discussed by the author and scholars in the text.--Crovata (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's far too much for me to give a quick response to, but I'll try to take a look at those sources and will comment on each one individually - but it might take me some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The four cited sources support each other, and have statements which some only note while other discuss, and many of it is not even cited in the article. They wouldn't be cited word-by-word, but roughly, hope you get the concept.--Crovata (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not interested too, but also don't have time for writing proposals, to discuss and so on. It's a simple update, there's no need for further assistance. Will edit the revision then you can review it.--Crovata (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that's probably best, I'll leave it to someone else to review. Once again, sorry I don't have the time to spend on this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Crovata I'm not sure how much we should use Osmanagic's own claims vs independent sources, but I would like to you search above for my mentions of Tere Pruitt and the links I give as Tere seems to be a very valuable source. Also Irna's website, search for "The book Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology by archaeologists Ruth M. Van Dyke, Reinhard Bernbeck and published by the University of Colorado says " For an excellent series of articles, blogs, exposes, and links, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html," in the text way above. That endorsement is enough to use it as a source IMHO, and it's a great one. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Thanks for the input, previously when edited saw the website (only checked its reliability, not exact content for inclusion), think currently is listed under "Furter reading". Will see these days (or weeks, when have time) how to properly include the information. Osmanagic's ie. the project research claims, although fringe, should be included in the proper section, there's no need for somekind of censorship on Wikipedia. However, the information which considered to be included (mentioned above) it was in previous edit, and think there's no need for more (especially not for the alleged healing properties or frequencies about the pyramids(?), we should stick to the scholarship claims/counterclaims). The scholarship consensus is intact, and were added more counterclaims.--Crovata (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Crovata: Yes, Irna's is listed, but did you read the two Pruit papers? They deal with an aspect that needs coverage. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Only quick view, currently really don't have time, am working on other article. Nice find, well written sources. The aspect is partially covered in the article from now, "[Robert Schoch] He also accused the workers for carving the hillside making impression of stepped side on the "Pyramid of the Moon".[4]"--Crovata (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Crovata: Yes, Irna's is listed, but did you read the two Pruit papers? They deal with an aspect that needs coverage. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Thanks for the input, previously when edited saw the website (only checked its reliability, not exact content for inclusion), think currently is listed under "Furter reading". Will see these days (or weeks, when have time) how to properly include the information. Osmanagic's ie. the project research claims, although fringe, should be included in the proper section, there's no need for somekind of censorship on Wikipedia. However, the information which considered to be included (mentioned above) it was in previous edit, and think there's no need for more (especially not for the alleged healing properties or frequencies about the pyramids(?), we should stick to the scholarship claims/counterclaims). The scholarship consensus is intact, and were added more counterclaims.--Crovata (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Crovata I'm not sure how much we should use Osmanagic's own claims vs independent sources, but I would like to you search above for my mentions of Tere Pruitt and the links I give as Tere seems to be a very valuable source. Also Irna's website, search for "The book Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology by archaeologists Ruth M. Van Dyke, Reinhard Bernbeck and published by the University of Colorado says " For an excellent series of articles, blogs, exposes, and links, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html," in the text way above. That endorsement is enough to use it as a source IMHO, and it's a great one. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
POV-pushing removal
I've just removed a whole load of new POV-pushing, uncritically trying to make the claims seem more respectable than mainstream archaeology judges them to be. Anyone watching, please keep an eye on future attempts at more of the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Demeaning phrasing
On what basis is this described only as Pseudo archeology? It is inaccurate and demeaning.
The processes used have been similar to those used at Giza and at the Mayan pyramids in South America. One could easily argue that it was pseudo archeology at Giza to date and attribute a pyramid based on some tools found at the site, whilst overlooking water damage that they can't explain within their dating. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's clearly sourced, with a ref right after the phrase "pseudo-archaeological" itself, and if you have a look at that you'll find it's a paper in French called "Les « pyramides » de Bosnie-Herzégovine : une affaire de pseudo-archéologie dans le contexte bosnien" ("The "pyramids" of Bosnia and Herzegovina: a matter of pseudo-archeology in the context of Bosnia"). If you read the rest of the sources from respected archaeologists, you'll find the same kind of criticism throughout. (As an aside, we've had a lot of attempts to whitewash this article and make it sound like a genuine scientific discovery in recent months, but Wikipedia articles are based on the consensus of academic opinion as published in reliable sources and those are pretty much unanimous that the Bosnian pyramid claims are incompetent at best - and possibly even fraudulent). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I reject the comparison in any case. What pyramid at Giza is dared by tools and your source that says water damage was ignored? The "evidence" here is either but guys or misinterpreted and there are no clouds of negative energy or beams of energy shooting into space as claimed by the Foundation. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy, for now there's no enough evidence that both Bosnian "pyramids" were built with the same technology (even civilization) like those in Giza. What you're mentioning is related to the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis mainly proposed by Robert M. Schoch. @Doug, think that the image they present about the Bosnian pyramids (with that lighting-beam) is a visual misconception (which as you say look unlogical and ridiclious), but by it they mean a specific frequency/energy others really measured there. It's some natural(?; due to "pyramidal shape") or manmade(?) anomaly - look at February 2015 37:00- for "10. Energy Phenomena", and 56:00- for "Energy beam". That's something archeologists and historians cannot explain, yet physicists.--Crovata (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, he's probably confusing a pyramid with the Sphinx and hasn't read how Egyptologists date them, just fringe stuff. Anyway, you don't need archaeologists or physicists for stuff like Kirlian photography or PIP. You just need to know about Osmanagic's source, Harry Oldfield. The foundation[12] describes him as a biologist, Honorary Doctor of Sciences, visiting professor at the medical faculties of the University of Grenada and member of the Royal Society for microscopic research at Oxford. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and patents in the field of Kirlian photography and its computer and microscopic improvement through variation of energy fields." He calls himself a biologist [13] and gives his CV as "DHom(Med), qualified as a homeopathic physician in 1982 and received an Honorary Doctorate (Citation of Honour) from the World Peace Centre in Pune, India, in 2000. Harry is also Professor Honoris Causa, Department of Alternative Medicine, Zoroastrian College, Mumbai, India; Visiting Professor, Department of Medicine, Grenada University, 2001; Visiting Professor of Energy Medicine, Holos University Graduate Seminary, Missouri, USA, 2007; and Fellow of the Royal Microscopical Society, Oxford." But take a look at Irna Lautre's comments. Color me unimpressed. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discrediting a person due to being part in alternative medicine is not right as in some parts of the world, like India, it's an official way of medical treatment beside conventional. As well, he has degrees, and as such is capable of handling such technological devices, which beside others, showed there's evidence for energy "visual" waves and "frequencies" which are not normal for natural hills, at least that's the interpretation. However it is interpreted, you cannot fool devices, it seems there some anomaly. Hopefully someone more "scientifical" will go there to prove/dismiss this waves/frequencies. Just trying to be neutral.--Crovata (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whether something is "official" somewhere says absolutely nothing about its scientific validity. As for those supposed inventions and devices that you say can't be fooled? Well, I don't claim to be a top scientist, but I do have a scientific education and a lifelong interest in various fields of science, and those technological claims are plainly ludicrous nonsense. And there is absolutely no evidence presented for these "frequencies" or any "anomaly" that stands up to even the most cursory scientific examination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discrediting a person due to being part in alternative medicine is not right as in some parts of the world, like India, it's an official way of medical treatment beside conventional. As well, he has degrees, and as such is capable of handling such technological devices, which beside others, showed there's evidence for energy "visual" waves and "frequencies" which are not normal for natural hills, at least that's the interpretation. However it is interpreted, you cannot fool devices, it seems there some anomaly. Hopefully someone more "scientifical" will go there to prove/dismiss this waves/frequencies. Just trying to be neutral.--Crovata (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, he's probably confusing a pyramid with the Sphinx and hasn't read how Egyptologists date them, just fringe stuff. Anyway, you don't need archaeologists or physicists for stuff like Kirlian photography or PIP. You just need to know about Osmanagic's source, Harry Oldfield. The foundation[12] describes him as a biologist, Honorary Doctor of Sciences, visiting professor at the medical faculties of the University of Grenada and member of the Royal Society for microscopic research at Oxford. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and patents in the field of Kirlian photography and its computer and microscopic improvement through variation of energy fields." He calls himself a biologist [13] and gives his CV as "DHom(Med), qualified as a homeopathic physician in 1982 and received an Honorary Doctorate (Citation of Honour) from the World Peace Centre in Pune, India, in 2000. Harry is also Professor Honoris Causa, Department of Alternative Medicine, Zoroastrian College, Mumbai, India; Visiting Professor, Department of Medicine, Grenada University, 2001; Visiting Professor of Energy Medicine, Holos University Graduate Seminary, Missouri, USA, 2007; and Fellow of the Royal Microscopical Society, Oxford." But take a look at Irna Lautre's comments. Color me unimpressed. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy, for now there's no enough evidence that both Bosnian "pyramids" were built with the same technology (even civilization) like those in Giza. What you're mentioning is related to the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis mainly proposed by Robert M. Schoch. @Doug, think that the image they present about the Bosnian pyramids (with that lighting-beam) is a visual misconception (which as you say look unlogical and ridiclious), but by it they mean a specific frequency/energy others really measured there. It's some natural(?; due to "pyramidal shape") or manmade(?) anomaly - look at February 2015 37:00- for "10. Energy Phenomena", and 56:00- for "Energy beam". That's something archeologists and historians cannot explain, yet physicists.--Crovata (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I reject the comparison in any case. What pyramid at Giza is dared by tools and your source that says water damage was ignored? The "evidence" here is either but guys or misinterpreted and there are no clouds of negative energy or beams of energy shooting into space as claimed by the Foundation. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have two genuine degrees from prestigious universties and several postgraduate qualifications but I am not qualified to handle such technological devices. He says he has a DHom(Med) but not where he got it. That stands for "Diplomate of Homeopathic Medicine", not Dr. This source[14] is either wrong or he is as it says it hasn't been granted since the 40s. But the college (no idea if he went there) does something similar stil.[15] - it's not a degree. He doesn't claim any actual degrees and it's interesting that he gives no details about his qualification to practice homeopathic medicine. The UK doesn't regulate training, for instance. Anyway, I see no reason to take any of this seriously. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am just neutrally replying, and would like to note that anyway this is not the initial topic of the section, it's closely related, but am not interested to continue discussing it. Both of you seem to have a specific point of view which was created somewhere before. Think that you have not seen those minutes in the video (presentation images, as well of the devices) - that was the initial point of reply - that they don't exist, while actually were measured. You cannot deny and ignore that devices physicists or engineers use (if remember right) measured something, was it unnormal or normal. You cannot call something "ludicrous nonsense" if didn't saw the video, and don't know what you're talking about, was because you didn't saw it, or simply because as both of you stated - we don't have enough knowledge about physics (and technology) to approve or dismiss those phenomena for granted. What homeopathy has anything to do with years of experience with those devices? And again, you're only talking about those "waves" and Oldfield, not energy "frequency". Also how do you know that there's no "cursory scientific examination"? Did you check before?--Crovata (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- First: A YouTube video is evidence of nothing.
- Second: It is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to make these determinations. In fact, we're not allowed to. We only publish what we find in reliable sources, as defined here: WP:RS afaict there are no reliable sources that support any conclusion other than "pseudo-archaeology". In fact, multiple specialists in the field have reached the "pseudo-archaeology" conclusion. On the other side we have... someone who claims as their credentials a no-longer-issued certificate in a field that claims that chemically pure water can be medicinally effective. It is well within WP editors' purview to decide that this person is not a reliable source. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (see WP:FRINGE), and so far there isn't even ordinary proof of the extraordinary claims. If you want to write essays defending this nonsense, I'm sure you can find blogs that will "publish" you, or you can start your own. But it won't appear here, and to those who are offended by what they see as a "demeaning" label, too bad. Go argue with the degreed specialists who said that, not here. (p.s.: It would help if what you wrote was far more intelligible than it is.) Jeh (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Jeh has it spot on there. It's not whether you or I think there's any valid science behind any of the claims, it's whether reputable academics in the relevant fields think there is. And every single publication I have seen in any reliable source (which, in the case of science, usually means peer-reviewed scientific journals - *not* YouTube videos) has refuted the claims. Oh, and yes, when I read that the guy claims to have invented instruments to record the "interference between photons and the human energy field" then I am entirely entitled to call it "ludicrous nonsense", which is what anyone with any knowledge of science would know. It is utter unmitigated pseudoscientific bollocks. (If the guy wants to have such claims taken seriously, he needs to publish the science behind these devices in a peer-reviewed journal and have it reviewed by actual scientists - not stick it on YouTube). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't help noticing that after a number of pyramid supporters have had their attempts to rewrite this article rejected over the past few months, and after attempts to whitewash it by IPs have been stopped, we now have editors coming along with more attempts to get it rewritten - only this time they're using stock phrases like "balanced article" and repeatedly claiming they're coming from a neutral view and aren't actually pyramid supporters at all. Does anyone else smell a coordinated attempt somewhere to get this article rewritten by pretending to be neutral observers? I might be overly suspicious, but to any pyramid supporters reading this - if that's what you're trying to do, it will not work. The only way anyone will get this article changed to imply any validity in the pyramid claims, or to "balance" it away from the universal academic rejection that currently exists, is to present support for the claims in reliable academic sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I've seen the same sorts of attempts at articles like Perpetual motion. See WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, etc. Just because a few misguided souls think the Earth is flat does not mean we have to include the slightest mention of them in the Earth article in the name of "balance". See also Concern troll. "Oh, I don't support these wild claims, but Wikipedia must present a balanced view, don't you think?" In some cases there are simply not two credible sides.
- And regarding the oft-repeated defense that "we don't know everything, science can't explain everything", that is true. But that does not require science, or Wikipedia, to give credence to every wild conjecture that's invented to explain phenomena which themselves lack any documentation - particularly when those conjectures contradict widely accepted theory without offering viable replacements. Jeh (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's an organised attempt[16] at Heartland Institute so it certainly happens. Here's Osmanagich's comment about the article.https://thebihlover.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/interview-with-dr-semir-osmanagich/] A complaint from last year.[17] I'm sure there are more. While searching found this[18] about Crimean pyramids older than the dinosaurs. As for Oldfield, why would he mention the Royal Microscope Society, which has no qualifications for membership and is even free to students. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller@Boing! said Zebedee@Jeh First and foremost, think this should be a lesson to all. For community health, next time don't write false assumptions, labeling other editors "pretending to be neutral observer ... coordinated attempt somewhere to get this article rewritten", without actually understanding his intentions. It's really offending. I am not defending or trying to prove or find extraordinary sources for inclusion. It's all in the realm of discussion. That's just an example what I am talking about your previously created standpoint - due to it you react, also logically due to previous disruptive experience, a bit unreasonable for a normal discussion. Second, you don't need to point out Wikipedia principles, in general WP:NPOV by which Wikipedia is edited, to an experienced editor. If your reaction is a benefit for the Wikipedia - ie. alert for other IP or suspicious accounts, alright then. Third, probably is not just on the YouTube, but wherever it is, generally don't discuss something without checking it beforehand.--Crovata (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Crovata: I have checked *everything* that has been presented here in support of and against the pyramid claims - every source used in the article, and everything offered here on this talk page since I have become interested (and a good bit more that I have found for myself). So please do not accuse me of not doing so! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's incredible how misunderstanding someone can be. Who says that I was thinking about, even less accusing, specifically you? Low down your ego. I was talking about the video on YouTube, not article sources, in relation to Doug's initial comment, and later because you guys stuck with one device and measure, while there were two-three devices and measures mentioned in the video with other people involved.--Crovata (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, until we have Reliable Sources (have you ever bothered to read that?), we *do not* have "two-three devices and measures". (I could make a YouTube video today in which I show measurements of the ion-flux field around a human anus using my electro-capacitative trombone (which I invented myself) and it would have exactly the same validity as this guy's YouTube claims - precisely none.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Crovata: AGF does require me to assume that you are opining in support of what you feel is best for the encyclopedia. But it doesn't require me to ignore my past experience with concern trolls. And it seemed to me, based not only on what you wrote but also the person who started this thread, that I most certainly did need to point out that NPOV does not require the inclusion of WP:FRINGE theories. In fact, NPOV has its own little section on how pseudoscience should be handled, which in turn references WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, all of which are essentially consistent with what I wrote on those points above. So, I stand by my previous. Jeh (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
((ec))@Crovata:I have no idea what a "previously created standpoint" is, but I have certainly experienced disruptive editors here and elsewhere. I also know quite a bit about the subject and own a couple of Osmanagich's books. Just found an interesting site which also talks about Oldfield's work there.[19] By the way, the page mentions Amer Smailbegovic. He in fact is pretty contemptuous about Osmanagich's work (I've discussed it via email with him). Doug Weller talk 13:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- A specific standpoint - perspective, which often is more subjective, less neutral. Thought pattern. The site mentions both PIP and thermal (thermography) measurements. A phenomena (or anomaly) like I said above - due to natural pyramidal shape, or anthropological activities.
- However, not all measurements I was talking about are mentioned like in the video.
- Since the discussion is currently focused on this topic, could we do this - was it discussed here or some other talk page (generally used for discussion) - watch the parts of the video I mentioned before, ignore the part of the Osmanagić/Foundation data interpretation (which often really is ridiculous), be focused on the devices, measurements and personnel who done it, and call two-three editors who are experienced (preferably professional) physicists and engineers who can explain us this devices, measures and if they are officially used and approved. As well, find sources who discuss them (generally), and like the one linked above in relation with the Foundation research, and cite them here under each related device/measurement point. Obviously we lack knowledge and experience about that stuff, and simply are not competent to discuss it, to give adequately neutral and relevant explanation and thus correct conclusion. When that is done, and some consensus is reached, it could be used as topic's reference point and for future disruptive attempts.--Crovata (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, we can't get where you apparently want to get by discussion, and we cannot use expert editors to validate anything. All we need is published Reliable Sources which validate that these devices do what is claimed and explain how. If those sources do not exist (and none has ever been proposed so far, as far as I am aware), then these so-called device readings have absolutely no factual value in Wikipedia. (My personal view is that no such sources *can* exist, because what is being claimed of these devices is pure woo-woo bullshit, but I'm open to revising that if you can find any...) The bottom line is, if you want these "device measurements" to be taken seriously, then you need to provide reliable sources to validate them. And until you do, we already have our reference point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Boing! said Zebedee I'm going to disagree with you. We don't want sources discussing these devices unless they discuss their use in relationship to Bosnian pyramid claims. Otherwise it's only the sources we are concerned with, not the gadgets they use or misuse. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. The point I was trying to make is that unless these are scientifically validated devices in the first place (like, for example, a camera or a Geiger counter) then any "measurements" are worthless in any context. Then beyond that, we'd need sources verifying the relevance of what they're measuring in the context of the pyramid claims. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee, "my personal view is that no such sources *can* exist" - who cares what's our personal opinion, and especially when you're not following the discussion - Doug already linked above at least one reliable source which discussed two of those devices/measurement techniques, ie. PIP (Kirlian photography) and termal images (thermography). May I ask why there's no possibility for such activity on Wikipedia? Since when open discussion is not adequate on Wikipedia?--Crovata (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since we have had SPAs like you pushing a fringe POV in direct contravention of WP:FRINGE:
"Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."
We are not required to give any credence to mumbo jumbo like "he invented PiP camera, through which he can view bio-energy fields" (the YouTube video at 37:10) A picture-in-picture camera is an app that enables creative photo-editing. It's not related to Kirlian photography, which requires the object photographed to be connected to a high-voltage source and the hill in the video could not possibly be connected to that. The idea behind these "pyramids" is pure unadulterated rubbish, using a lot of fancy-sounding terminology and pretty video effects designed to fool the lay reader, and it's the very definition of pseudoscience. This article ought to be reduced to a stub saying "Osmanagich made up a load of pseudo-archeological nonsense that nobody in mainstream science takes seriously." --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Crovata, my personal opinion was offered merely as a parenthetical aside. My point is simply that if you wish to assert in the article that "bio-energy fields", or any other such woo-woo guff, actually have been measured, then you need to find a reliable source (as per WP:RS) which supports it. Please feel free to provide a reliable source if you know of one, already used in the article or not. If you cannot find a reliable source to support the claim that these things have actually been measured, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they have not been measured. It really is as simple as that, and evading Wikipedia's policy on these issues will get you nowhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since we have had SPAs like you pushing a fringe POV in direct contravention of WP:FRINGE:
- @Boing! said Zebedee, "my personal view is that no such sources *can* exist" - who cares what's our personal opinion, and especially when you're not following the discussion - Doug already linked above at least one reliable source which discussed two of those devices/measurement techniques, ie. PIP (Kirlian photography) and termal images (thermography). May I ask why there's no possibility for such activity on Wikipedia? Since when open discussion is not adequate on Wikipedia?--Crovata (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. The point I was trying to make is that unless these are scientifically validated devices in the first place (like, for example, a camera or a Geiger counter) then any "measurements" are worthless in any context. Then beyond that, we'd need sources verifying the relevance of what they're measuring in the context of the pyramid claims. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Boing! said Zebedee I'm going to disagree with you. We don't want sources discussing these devices unless they discuss their use in relationship to Bosnian pyramid claims. Otherwise it's only the sources we are concerned with, not the gadgets they use or misuse. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, we can't get where you apparently want to get by discussion, and we cannot use expert editors to validate anything. All we need is published Reliable Sources which validate that these devices do what is claimed and explain how. If those sources do not exist (and none has ever been proposed so far, as far as I am aware), then these so-called device readings have absolutely no factual value in Wikipedia. (My personal view is that no such sources *can* exist, because what is being claimed of these devices is pure woo-woo bullshit, but I'm open to revising that if you can find any...) The bottom line is, if you want these "device measurements" to be taken seriously, then you need to provide reliable sources to validate them. And until you do, we already have our reference point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS, you're already third or fourth editor who thought that my intention is inclusion of those information in the article, while it is not at all. We're only discussing the topic. What's with editors/admins this days, we cannot even openly talk about controversial topics without being labeled, or misunderstood. Labeling me a "fringe POV" pusher, again, in violation of Wikipedia principles is almost like a personal attack. @Boing! said Zebedee, I don't want to, all this discussion started when Doug said that there's no energy (not in the sense like Foundation visually represents), but as energy is everywhere, some of those energy phenomena were actually measured, whatever the interpretation. Doug linked above The Bosnian Pyramids (2009), by Brian Dunning. As well look at The geophysical (satellite) analysis (2006). About the third measurement (electromagnetic field) read here (doubt it's reliable source, just to understand what's about, and that at least were done three different measurements), actually 9 articles here (2007-2014). Below will cite Dunning:
- The Foundation commissioned one of its members, geophysicist Dr. Amer Smailbegovic to study available thermal images of the area, looking for thermal inertia. Basically, looking for areas that cool faster at night, and warm faster in the morning, than the surrounding area. Smailbegovic's report claims to have identified nine pyramids in this manner, five of them in Visočica's valley. Neither Smailbegovic nor Osmanagić offer any plausible explanation of why man-made pyramids might exhibit such a property, but it turns out there is a good reason that they do. The large pyramids in Egypt and Latin America are the highest points around, and a comparison of Smailbegovic's thermal images with topography maps show that (big surprise) it's generally the highest geographic points (hilltops, ridges, pyramids, whatever they are) that exhibit the lowest thermal inertia. If Smailbegovic did control for this fairly obvious correlation, he did not mention it in his report. When you choose your conclusion first, and then look for data that supports it, you're virtually guaranteed to get the results you want.
- Further evidence in favor of the pyramid comes from Harry Oldfield, an enthusiast in New Age energy crystals and aura photography. He took video of Visočica using a camera that digitally replaces colors, to which he gives the scientific-sounding name Polycontrast Interference Photography, and which he claims provides a "real time, moving image of the energy field." Technically, replacing colors just alters the visual image, it does not change the fact that the camera is capturing only visual data. Osmanagić, who refers to Oldfield as Dr. Oldfield for reasons known only to himself, analyzed this video and stated: "..The energy fields are vertical, as opposed to horizontal, which is the case with naturally occurring hills. In contrast to natural phenomena where the energy fields are fixed, these electromagnetic fields are pulsating and non-homogenous. The Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun is in fact acting like a giant energy accumulator which continually emits large quantities of energy. It is the proverbial perpetuum mobile, which got its start in the distant past and continues its activity without respite." In Oldfield's color replacement video, brightness gradients in the sky appear as different colored bands, as is fairly obvious from a glance at the video. In explaining how he chose which colors to replace with which, Oldfield says "Some clairvoyants and mystics with their gifts helped me develop some of the filters in PIP which simulate what they see." If you understand what simple color replacement means, you should be able to judge for yourself the validity of Oldfield's video as proof that Visočica is a man-made pyramid.--Crovata (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is only documenting what pyramid supporters have *claimed* they measured (and this "Polycontrast Interference Photography" is indeed utter unmitigated woo-woo crap and did not measure anything, especially not through the assistance of "clairvoyants and mystics with their gifts"). We do not give any credence to such claims unless backed by scientific support in reliable sources. So as far as this Wikipedia article goes, I'd say it really is time to put up or shut up. If you want a change made to the article, suggest the actual change you want to make and provide the sources to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Crovata, the first paragraph you cited describes why the "thermal images" show nothing but high points in the terrain; they do not prove that those high points were constructed by people. The second paragraph... well, you can really stop reading at "New Age energy crystals and aura photography," both of which are complete crap. "Energy fields," my ass. You can't get evidence of "electromagnetic fields" at any other wavelengths than visible light with a visible-light camera, even by rendering the images in false color. But false color images that take minor variations in color and make them major variations will commonly show the visual effects seen in the video.
- "The energy fields [by which he really just means the variations in color] are vertical, as opposed to horizontal, which is the case with naturally occurring hills." Says who?
- "In contrast to natural phenomena where the energy fields are fixed, these electromagnetic fields are pulsating and non-homogenous." Actually if you take movies of just about any area of sky and then use false color to over-emphasize subtle changes you can find variations that move around. Glider pilots call one reason for them "thermals".
- "a giant energy accumulator which continually emits large quantities of energy" - uh, yeah, anything in sunlight does that; it absorbs heat in the day and simultaneously radiates it away - if it didn't there would not be an equilibrium temperature.
- This reminds me very much of the "ghost hunters" who wander around with EM field meters and proclaim "we've found ghosts!" when the needle wiggles. The readings on such meters are essentially picking up background noise, which varies greatly in level for completely ordinary reasons. Even citing the above as an example of how poor the evidence is, and of how self-deluded the "investigators" are, would also fail WP:DUE. Crovata, please stop wasting our time. Jeh (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Guys, what's wrong with you? I said from the start that I don't want to change the article, we are just discussing the topic, and while you insisted that there was no energy-measurements, Doug provided reliable site with articles and links to sources which talk about some measurments being done, whatever devices, credibility, result, as well ridiculous interpretation. That was the whole point. You diverged the discussion on a totally different track, labeling me a POV pusher, relating to some agenda, or that want to change the article. Just...? We all get that most of the stuff Foundation claims is far-fetched. You're wasting my time explaining you things you, who read *every* source, should already know.--Crovata (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you see, what's wrong with us is that we're using this Talk page for its intended purpose. It is for discussing the article and changes thereto, not for discussing the subject itself. So as you apparently have no interest in changing the article, well, goodbye then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- And I repeat, Smailbegovic doesn't think there are any pyramids there. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- This reminds me very much of the "ghost hunters" who wander around with EM field meters and proclaim "we've found ghosts!" when the needle wiggles. The readings on such meters are essentially picking up background noise, which varies greatly in level for completely ordinary reasons. Even citing the above as an example of how poor the evidence is, and of how self-deluded the "investigators" are, would also fail WP:DUE. Crovata, please stop wasting our time. Jeh (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Heading
Why is this article semi-protected? This articles contains references from an anonymous blog (Irna France) and is very subjective. The article is not telling about the recent excavations and energy measurements by a couple of scientists. Furthermore, this articles does not contain information about the five different conferences, where tens of scientists have been and talked about the Bsosnian Pyramid project. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Due to constant disruptive activity which is against Wikipedia principles. About some of those "scientists" and measurements, as well their factual issues, you can read above (and follow the links), as well think that your concern was already answered by other editors months ago.--Crovata (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheBIHLover: It's to prevent you logging out and making edits that look like they come from someone else. It also makes it much harder for you to use meat-puppets recruited online via Facebook, etc. to spam the article. HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, there are still problems with this article and it lacks objectivity. Furthermore the article is using irrelevant references for this article, for example Sub Rosa. Sub Rosa site states: "Where science and magic, myth and history meet." Link: http://subrosa.dailygrail.com/download.html Now tell me, what kind of reference is that and why is that reference relevant for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- There may well be problems with the article, but objectivity is achieved only through the use of good-quality, reliable, independent sources, from publishers who have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources #Overview). How about I go through the article and remove all of the unsourced content and the content that is only supported by non-independent sources? Sub Rosa is an equally poor source and should be removed, along with all the stuff sourced to piramidasunca.ba, robertschoch.net, The Epoch Times, cleopatris.net, davidovits.info, Klix.ba, and so on. How does that sound? --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree. This article is all about the subjectivity against the Bosnian pyramids. If you remove all those sources, then you have no sources that support the pyramids in Bosnia. Sub Rosa is a really poor source, because the site has nothing to do with the Bosnian Pyramids. It's an advertisment for their books.
I have given you archaeological reports from the site and a lot of articles, that are independent from the foundation, that support the Bosnian pyramids. This whole article needs to be rewritten, because it slams the Bosnian pyramids into an hoax. An hoax can't have over 50 different scientics that have been to the five different conferences, 2000 volunteers that have worked for the foundation and numourous og testings that have been done. I would say that this article is covered with conflict of interest to slam the pyramids in Bosnia and Dr. Osmanagich. TheBIHLover (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
"If you remove all those sources, then you have no sources that support the pyramids in Bosnia."
Hooray! That's what we've been trying to tell you all along. There are no reliable sources that support the pyramids claim. So there's no way that a Wikipedia article can provide any support for such a claim. It's as simple as that. --RexxS (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Meat-puppets? Look, RexxS, I would like you to respect Bosnian pyramids supports. No one here are meat-puppets. Here we are trying to change this article to something more objective, while the Wikipedia editors still slams the Bosnian pyramids and evidence that are pointings towards them, the best examples are the energy investigations. TheBIHLover (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The article correctly slams the ridiculous pyramid claims. This idea is designed to bring visitors, as this nonsense article is excited to report. "Energy investigations" are just more fiction for the gullible. Wikipedia is not going to help Dr. Sam pull the wool over people's eyes. Binksternet (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheBIHLover: Yes, meat-puppets. Are you telling me that nobody has been trying to drum up support offline for this blatant piece of fringe nonsense? Respect has to be earned and I have none whatsoever for shills and charlatans who try try to peddle snake-oil with rubbish like "energy beams" and "PIP cameras". I've pointed you to WP:RS and you've chosen to ignore all requests for reliable sources. So I'm warning you now, the next time you come here, wasting editors' time, with more woo-woo pseudoscience sourced to some crap site like piramidasunca.ba, I'm going to ask for you to be banned from this page under the discretionary sanctions for tendentious editing. Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great minds, eh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheBIHLover: Yes, meat-puppets. Are you telling me that nobody has been trying to drum up support offline for this blatant piece of fringe nonsense? Respect has to be earned and I have none whatsoever for shills and charlatans who try try to peddle snake-oil with rubbish like "energy beams" and "PIP cameras". I've pointed you to WP:RS and you've chosen to ignore all requests for reliable sources. So I'm warning you now, the next time you come here, wasting editors' time, with more woo-woo pseudoscience sourced to some crap site like piramidasunca.ba, I'm going to ask for you to be banned from this page under the discretionary sanctions for tendentious editing. Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You are giving me an article from 2011. The energies are there and it's proved by numourous resarchers.
What about looking into these articles?
If Irna's blog is a reference, then I want the archaeological reports to be a reference too. These kind of slams does not belong to an encyclopedia. TheBIHLover (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- TheBIHLover, Last time you spent ages wasting our time here (and trying to persuade us using videos on your own woo-woo YouTube channel), you were told what you need to do. You need to present reliable sources to support whatever changes you want to make to the article. I won't explain what constitutes a reliable source again, as I explained multiple times before (and it's still up above on this page), yet you refused to pay any attention to it. Once again, you repeat the falsehood that "I have given you archaeological reports from the site and a lot of articles, that are independent from the foundation, that support the Bosnian pyramids". You have, in fact, not provided one single reliable source that supports the pyramid claims, and all your "archaeological reports" are from the idiots and charlatans who make these nonsense claims in the first place. I will shortly post a notice of discretionary sanctions on your talk page - as far as I understand it, your continued disruption of this talk page by repeatedly making the same demands against consensus and against Wikipedia policy, while refusing to listen to people who point out what you are doing wrong, is covered by such sanctions. But I do hope no sanction is actually needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your suggested sources are unreliable and cannot be used. Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- When academics of the status of Ruth Van Dyke[20] and Reinhard Bernbeck[21][22] write "1. For the geology, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html., accessed March 14, 2012." and particularly "For an excellent series of articles, blogs, exposes, and links, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html" in an academic press book[23] we might consider them. Those comments alone are enough to use Irna's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You have, in fact, not provided one single reliable source that supports the pyramid claims, and all your "archaeological reports" are from the idiots and charlatans who make these nonsense claims in the first place.
You have now disrespected the whole community of the Bosnian pyramids and all the degrees that the scientists have. Shame on you! If you give me sanctions for using my freedom of speech, then it is absurd, because I have every right to discuss this topic. If you give me any sanctions, however, I will write about it in my new article and send it to some internet portals. I have already made an article about our last situation.
Irna is a blog and I can't believe how an encyclopedia is using her as a source. My point is to have articles that are supporting the Bosnian pyramids, in an objective way, as a reference. I have given you at least five articles from five different news-stations. TheBIHLover (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Disrespect? Pah! I have nothing but contempt for idiotic woo-woo pushers and frauds. I also have very little respect for those who keep insisting they have provided suitable references while refusing to follow Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy. Oh, and threatening to write nasty things about us elsewhere will gain you no traction here. Finally, you have no freedom of speech here and no right to anything - see Wikipedia:Free speech. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheBIHLover: You're completely wrong again. This is a private website and actually you have exactly two rights: the right to fork; and the right to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --RexxS (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Why on earth should I follow the references on this Wikipedia, when most of them are ten years old and the reference is linking to blogs and other irrelevant sites? Well, I'm not breaking any rules whatsoever. I'm discussing the situation on a talk page. I'm giving you references, but you keep ignoring them. Calling people idiots, will not get you anywhere by the way. TheBIHLover (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheBIHLover: - will you have the integrity if you mention Irna's website to also point out that it's recommended by at least two academics (more actually but I was just pointing out those two)? Doug Weller talk 12:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)