Talk:Rock balancing

message: So do you just eyeball a rock, up end it and jiggle it until it balances?  A practical explanation of the mechanics involved would be very helpful. 
Thanks!
AndyHuston 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliel (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to... 

message: That's really a joke. Why Tibetan Buddhism instead of Zen, or even Hawaii music? --Mongol (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Section now removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiritual practice involving rock balancing and stacking

message: The image from Goring does not appear to be genuine. The scene of the Thames meandering towards the Goring Gap in the predominantly chalk Chilterns, is bathed in typical soft, slightly silvery, English light, a chalk zone.  The over-sharp edges of the red sandstones (from Somerset or Nottingham at best) are blasted by the pin-sharp red light more associated with Monument Valley, USA. Not to mention the amateurish emplacement on the soft drab grey Thames valley rock at the base.  The poster needs to provide evidence that it was real, i.e. shots from other angles. Autodidactyl (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An image on Flicker does not constitute verifiable proof of anything.  Your points on the gate post and the Thames are accepted, but we cannot know your cousin's garden. As requested originally, please provide additional shot(s) from other angles. Yours sincerely. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image at Goring

message: Does anyone else think the last three "famous" balancers should be removed? I at least think a wikipedia page needs to be available to be linked to for a famous balancer. I mean I know "famous rock balancers" is a bit of an oxymoron, but lets at least nip this in the bud before everyone starts listing themselves as famous. Lila  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the items could do with a single reliable-source reference. If no reference can be found (eg for the unlinked or redlinked people) then those entries should be removed. Simple :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Rock Balancers 

message: Why are some fanatics removing the "Opposition to Rock-Balancing" section?
Can they stand no criticism from nature lovers who want to be free of another building-driven and obsessed cult?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.119.62 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply provide a verifiable reference that this critcism is held by more than yourself and I don't think you will have further issue. I am no rock balancing fanatic, and I see where this practice annoys you, but your opinion can not be the basis of an encyclopedic article. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a more neutral way to approach this topic is to title the section: Appropriate settings for rock balancing (or something like that), and expand on the positive rather than the negative.  Certainly there are settings that should be legally and morally avoided, such as a habitat restoration project, especially if endangered species are involved.  The “knocking down . . ” statement in the current section is adversarial and should be deleted. Pinethicket (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The references removed my concern over verifiability and give credence to the claim even if it is rather self-evident. There are groups that oppose everything; it just a function of whether that opposition is notable for any particular article. Are we now going to see a disclaimer like this in every outdoor recreational activity? Take en:Camping for example where no such opposition is found yet the references applied here are much more applicable to that activity than this? Would we accept a similar oppositional statement in the en:Inuksuk article? Knocking down an Inuksuk could actually put someone's life in danger as they may lose their point of reference. Well, not going to travel further down this rabbit hole as it would be unproductive. I don't know if their is such a thing as a rock balancing community and whether they have a code of ethics (for lack of a better term). With that said, your approach would be better than the one that is offered by the concerned IP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

message: The images i saw on the article are great, but i found the text inadequate in ways that i think i've alleviated. I was also tempted to note three separate disciplines, but decided to construe what i contemplated as WP:OR. Perhaps the aficianados will be inspired to comment, or expand the article in this dimension:
# The article is heavy with what i would call strict stacks, perhaps the most painstaking version: putting one rock on top of another, and putting the next one on top of that.
# As i prowled, i saw more of what i'm more familiar: to some degree tree-like, in the sense of branches and branchlets and [some limit].
# Arches, which surprised me from my awareness of how old the Roman arch is (even if i'm not sure whether that elaboration made first building a pile of rubble where you want a gate thru the wall into the new tech, or into the old pre-Roman tech).  And of course, these are presumably mortarless arches, far more impressively skilled than right-angled, trapezoidal-element based, and/or mortar-dependent structures.
   Anyway, i started to write
: (Generally the discipline thrives on each rock being balanced on only one other, yet often directly supporting than one or more resting on it (and many indirectly supporting the weight of rocks supported directly or indirectly above them....
and realized i have neither the experience nor  the passion that probably the topic deserves.   So kudos to the artisans and artists, and i hope that amounts to encouragement to "edit on, Garth!"--Jerzy•t 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: Very cool, even if that is snow, not surging water, around it. Have we any info on that, and how long the rock has been documented as surviving?--Jerzy•t 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is snow. I think it is moving water. I think you are referring to this image. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tupparo, Colombia phto 

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

message: It's up to the moderators of your page, but I'll post it here so at least those of us interested in talking about rock balancing can take a look, and you can think about maybe adding something like this to the official page itself. (I'm just listing them alphabetically, not playing any favorites with notability levels here). I've only read 2 of them, but they all sound interesting! Has anyone read any of these? Do you know of any other ones? Should they hyperlink to a webpage? Should they have brief bios + summaries? Let's talk about that! :-)  
Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for a "Further Reading" section  

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