Talk:Seahenge

message: I don't know how true their claim was, but some locals claimed it had been visible since around the 1950s. This was part of their argument about it not being newly at risk from the environment. My source is the Time Team special on Seahenge. -- Whitepaw 09:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk to the circle from the sea 

message: Under "purpose" is a link to "inversion", that points at a disambig page. I really can't tell which meaning of inversion is intended here (or I'd correct the link). Can someone help? Thanks. 132.244.246.25 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inversion 

message: Hurdle, in the article, is a link to "hurdling".  Something tells me the hurdles buried in Holme II had little to do with the modern track-and-field event.  Could someone create an article stub on that subject? --Joel (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurdle 

message: I'd like to add a link to photos of the archaeological excavation, but this is rejected automatically.  I feel that the link does not contravene Wikipedia guidelines.  It contains unique content that is not available elsewhere, and I do not profit in any way from my Flickr photographs as I am not a professional photographer. The link I'd like to add is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dstirk/sets/72157621203742115/ Dstirk (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link request 

message: In my opinion this article is a bit of a mess. It claims (without a source) that unspecified 'locals' knew it was there all along; it described the monument as a 'henge' (I've added a link to the page for henge) and then says that actually it isn't a henge; it claims (again unsupported) that the monument is 'thought to be' a mortuary platform. Any archaeologists who know me know I'm all about the mortuary platforms but without sources it's just opinion. 
Does anyone have decent scholarly sources for info on Seahenge? I think a lot of work is going to be necessary to get this page in any decent order.
Markaeologist (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying up 

message: I have undone two recent edits to the page - one changed 'unable' to 'able' in the sentence 'archaeologists have been unable to determine activity at the site so its function remains unknown' (where 'able' would make no sense in context, and anyway as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on what actually happened there), and the second an alteration of '1998' to '2015' in the sentence 'archaeological investigation began in 1998...'. As the majority of sources quoted are from 1997-2005, it is obvious that the 'Seahenge' excavations did not begin in 2015. The actions are tantamount to vandalism, though of a very minor kind.
Markaeologist (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: While cleaning up the citations in the article, I noticed that just about all of them are for a single source:
: Watson, Charlie (2005). Seahenge: An archaeological conundrum. Swindon, UK: English Heritage. ISBN 1-85074-896-9.
So I inserted a "single source" template. It's currently rather obtrusively at the top; you might want to move it down into the "References" §.
The discussion of the media coverage, at least, could be padded out with citations to the actual press articles (already mentioned in the narrative, but not enough for a citation). And surely there are one or two British Heritage reports on the dating evidence. There might also be an article or two in British Archeology, and perhaps a citeable minute or two in the Time Team programe, regarding the significance of the site. I recall that Francis Prior was the person (or one) who speculated about it possibly being a sky burial site.
The article could greatly benefit from a picture of the site as-found, or perhaps the replica created by the Channel 4 crew.
:::107.127.18.31 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single source