Talk:Avebury

message: "The construction of large monuments such as those at Avebury indicates that a stable agrarian economy had developed in Britain by around 4000–3500 BCE. The people who built them had to be secure enough to spend time on such non-essential activities." Considering that now we have Gobekli Tepe which appears to predate settlement and agriculture, can we state this with such confidence? I'm not saying this assertion is wrong, just that we can't be so sure of it being right any more. 82.71.30.178 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. At least it doesn’t feel accurate or remotely valid to me. British archaeology relies on a few colonial and deterministic assumptions (like progress in the western sense is universal) that also rely on structural white supremacy, again, like euro-style development is universal or expected. This is a problem with most of wikipedia in my (Kikila at https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/learningtolisten/indigenous-community-advisory-ica/) reading of it. The reliance on Aubry (whatever their name is) from 1979 is tonedeaf as well, and assumes that a pre modern population would fear “nature” the way christian theologians anticipate. This sort of writing makes our ancestors look like they were huddling fearfully awaiting a modern period, which they weren’t, and is racist in so many ways. If folx read more Vine Deloria Jr and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson we would produce better histories of our ancestors. Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is The Following A Valid Assumption These Days? 

message: Anyone have any idea what's going on with the infobox image? It's calling files from Wikidata, but obviously too many, and not displaying any image at all... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor reverted the infobox to a working version today. Wire723 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken infobox image 

message: It says in the section "Henge" that: "The Avebury monument is a henge, a type of monument consisting of a large circular bank with an internal ditch. The henge is not perfectly circular and measures over 1,000 metres (1,090 yd) in circumference.[23]" End quote. Not clear whether this is the outside diameter of the bank, or the diameter of the central flat area. The large stone circle is at the edge of the central flat area. Other sources give the diameter of the Avebury stone circle as 330 m (National Trust) or the diameter of the henge as 347.4 m (Caroline Malone, "Neolithic Britain and Ireland", p. 172), which is clearly inconsistent with a diameter for the henge of 1000 m, whichever way it is measured. Possibly there is an error introduced here as 330 m is pretty close to 1000 feet, so the original source might say 1000 feet diameter? I don't have a copy to look up. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK made change and gave C. Malone as ref. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And then found this statement "Burl speculates that it was likely built for defensive purposes.[25]" Is this a joke? The one thing clear about a henge is it is not defensive. I'm now thinking that this is simply a subtle form of vandalism, so now deleting anything referencing Burl as vandalism, given that was also the reference used to support the incorrect diameter of the henge too. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous wording you quote was circumference so that is consistent with the diameter mentioned. The ratio would be pi for a circle. I agree henges - with the ditch inside - are not defensive but calling it vandalism is a bit strong! Burl seems to a well respected archaeologist and parts of the book quoted are available on Google Books. I don't see any reference to defence on pages 197 or 199 but 198 is not available. On the dimensions, those pages say the ditch encloses 10.5 ha and measures 368 m across.  Cavrdg (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out circumference not diameter. My mistake, but I think diameter is a more useful metric than circumference (unless working out man-hours of ditch digging etc.)? I wasn't thinking Burl was a vandal, but someone had used his name to infiltrate the idea that a henge was defensive. I think the henge section is now OK as it is? Thanks again. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizes? 

message: The recent reversion contradicts the main text: "It was in the Early Modern period that Avebury was first recognised as an antiquity that warranted investigation. Around 1541, John Leland, the librarian and chaplain to King Henry VIII travelled through Wiltshire and made note of the existence of Avebury and its neighbouring prehistoric monuments."Dimadick (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing it here. How does that constitute an archaeological discovery? It was already there, and Leland mentioned it. This is not a claim that he discovered it. If I send you a postcard from London, I am not claiming I discovered it - it was already there. I feel that your category cannot be taken seriously and I am removing it again. You should not have replaced it before discussion. If a consensus is reached here saying it should go in then of course I will respect that. Similarly, I expect you not to re-add the category without that consensus in its favour. Thank you and best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: The lede and first 3 paragraphs contain zero sources, but surely someone could insert them, yes? Josh a brewer (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally sources aren't needed in the intro when it provides a summary of the rest of the article which is itself properly sourced. MOS:LEADCITE refers. -- Wire723 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources 

message: Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot 

message: Moved another user's comment here and created section —BillC talk 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing in this article which supports ‘’. And I suggest you read WP:RGW. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  issues with narrative and white supremacy 

message: Hello all, following on from 2022's pilot, I'm working on a second pilot with the National Trust (more here). This includes introducing some volunteers to Wikipedia editing. Yesterday (22 Jan) I ran a training session with some volunteers from Avebury, who are interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. I'd be grateful for your patience any future support you can give them. Though they are based at Avebury, a wide range of topic ideas came up in their enthusiasm, including RAF bases, a village near Bradford, Japanese translation, and many more. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust - pilot 2 

message: Hello! I am a postdoctoral researcher for the Avebury Papers project. I work for University of York, and University of Bristol and the National Trust are key project partners. I have made some edits to the page today, and intend to make further edits. My aim is to share new research and information on Avebury as I encounter it during the Avebury Papers project. Please do be in touch if you have any queries regarding COI. Medievalfran (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avebury Papers project