Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 2

message: The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" 
Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" 
John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine
(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)
Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims"
--Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Refs

message: Levine2112's recent edits, which I reverted other than some cleanup he did, bring up some good questions about the External link selection.  My perspective:
* This is a controversial, current event, so some of the best information available is from websites that might otherwise be questionable per WP:EL, especially to an editor that has not followed the discussions here.
* A number of the external links are to blog (or blog-like) websites written by recognized authorities.
* A number of the blog/blog-like websites written by English speakers from Bosnia.  Because the vast majority of information about the Foundation and their work is in Bosnian, these websites provide very useful insite into what otherwise would be unavailable to readers.
* A number of these blog/blog-like websites have been used as references in the sources currently in the article.
I'm probably forgetting other important rationale.  Perhaps the links in question need comments attached to them?
--Ronz 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the answer. I see tonight that there is another text in english, an "open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina". I think it could be interesting ?Ilinka Z 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I can't find any other copies of this letter to confirm that it's genuine.  Any idea where it came from? --Ronz 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found that : [], [] and []. It seems to me that the original texte in bosnian is this one : []
at the least it also talks of the pyramids and M. Schwartz-Schilling, and it is the same pictures that in the pdf.Ilinka Z 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "see also" section is meant to be a list of articles broadly related to the article subject. It is not intended merely as a list of "directly related subjects" - or in this case, a list of "authentic pyramids". Deliberately expunging links to articles on clearly related subjects as you are attempting to do constitutes an inappropriate application of a personal POV to the editing process; it is not our place to be making value judgements of this nature. I am consequently restoring the article to the default position prior to your edits. If you feel this is inappropriate, you may wish to  establish a straw poll on the subject to help establish community consensus on the subject before attempting to implement further changes. --Gene_poole 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also List 

message: From Visoko during the Middle Ages
::Archaeological excavations proved that the Visoko Valley was the center of a medieval Bosnian state and later kingdom. Many royal charters were written in Visoko and surrounding locations. Visoko Valley, as it is called today, included Visoko, its trade center, Podvisoki, Mile, coronation and burial place for Bosnian bans and kings, and Moštre, where Bosnian Church institutions were located, including a university.
Just to make it clear. Cheers.  --HarisM 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that makes it clear.  The quote in question is "Visočica hill, once the centre of the medieval Bosnian capital."  Seems like a minor issue though. --Ronz 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is clear that Visočica hill (Visočica is name adopted after 1945., before that it was called 'Grad' (simply: Town)) was NOT center. It is minor issue, and we should then mention that hill WAS occupied by town, and nothing more. Naming it center of capital is inaccurate. --HarisM 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Visoki thing... 

message: The article leads off with "...highly controversial claims that it is actually an ancient man-made pyramid..." Are these claims really "highly controversial"? Or just idiotic? Abortion is highly controversial; the Iraq War is highly controversial; "highly controversial" pretty much implies that there's a lot of heated back-and-forth between two opposing camps. But there isn't; there's one idiot vs. everybody else.
We don't say in the Time Cube article that Time Cube is "highly controversial". Sheesh. As near as I can tell, it's just this guy Osmanagić's delusion.  I don't know what change to suggest, but "highly controversial" seems weasely in the extreme. Herostratus 06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  See the discussions above. Early on, almost all the information available came from press releases from APBPSF (Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation).  APBPSF and it's members are not reliable sources.  The first sentence of the article, and probably much more, is mostly from these press releases.  Their press releases were an attempt, that succeeded in many ways, to make it the focus of international attention, but that doesn't mean such statments should be in the lead of the article.  As far as "highly controversial", that's again from their press releases.  There's certainly controversy still, but again it's pov directly from a source that's not reliable. --Ronz 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial? 

message: Do others think that this article has reached featured article standard? As the original article creator I've had the pleasure of watching dozens of other editors turn this into a damned fine piece of work, over many months. I believe it's a great example of what a WP article should be. --Gene_poole 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing else, we certainly should put the article up for WP:Peer review. It would be nice to get some new eyes scrutinizing the article, and it would be a step toward Featured article candidates. --Ronz 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bosnian pyramids/archive1 --Ronz 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature article candidate?

message: Currently: "became the focus of international attention in October 2005, following claims that it is actually the largest of a group an ancient man-made pyramids, the so-called Bosnian pyramids."
I think this inappropriately promotes the pov of the foundation, and the word "claims" is too much a weasel word in this context.
Proposal: "became the focus of international attention in October 2005, following a news-media campaign promoting the idea that it is actually the largest of a group an ancient man-made pyramids, the so-called Bosnian pyramids."
If necessary, we can source this with 
"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. . 
Thoughts? --Ronz 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. In general terms I think the article needs to give much more attention to the way in which the "pyramid" story was propagated by the international (mostly print) media. I think it was first reported by AAP, and snowballed after being picked up by dozens of papers from there. It's an interesting illustration of how the media can erroneously define perceptions. --Gene_poole 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I think there should be a section specifically about the foundation and it's activities.  This would give us a location to place the discussion about the so-called "international team of archeologists" which is not in the introduction/lead. The "Research program" section should be moved into it as well.  It should also include mention how "pyramid"-related tourism appears to be why they're getting away with this hoax. As long as we write the section mainly from reliable, secondary sources, we should be able to treat these and other controversial issues fairly. --Ronz 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Foundation's history and plans

message: Just think about folks.. how do you explain all these constructions and artifacts.. these are photos taken at the sites. Its not smart to blindly reject things just because it doesn't fit into the framework of what we think we know.
Please do take a look at the photos taken at the excavation sites and think about it - but not starting with assumption that the framework presented to us by the textbooks is absolutely correct and that anything that doesn't fit into it must be rejected . 
And also do notice that many of the attacks made on the people working on the project are emotionally charged. They don't even scientifically address or give explanations for all the artifacts found. If someone were to start digging up a mud hill i wouldn't get so emotionally upset if I were an archaeologist....
Dilip rajeev 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for your soapboxing. --Ronz 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And more, before claiming anything, open some books about geology and archeology, not only pulp magazins about Lemuria.Kromsson 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Think about it

message: I continued the cleanup work started by J.smith on the external links.  They should still be checked for redundancy with other links and references. --Ronz 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EL cleanup

message: Someone has removed this twice and referred to the talk page. However I can't find a reference here. This is the paragraph removed:
However UNESCO has published a report entitled: "Bosnian Pyramids: A Pseudoarchaeological Myth and a Threat to the Existing Cultural and Historical Heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina" which is extremely critical of Semir Osmanagić, stating that he has suppressed findings which contradict his views and the whole enterprise is being run as a money making exercise rather than a scientific investigation.  
Please explain why it has been removed or I will reinsert it.  --Dumbo1 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UNESCO did not publish it.  It's a letter to UNESCO. --Ronz 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UNESCO report

message: :,
,
Dr. Hawass' letter.
 
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 
 
Mr. Mark Rose                                                                                                           
Archaeology Magazine 
 
Dear Mr. Rose, 
In response to your question regarding the ipyramidi in Bosnia, here is my answer: 
 
The discoverer of the ipyramidi in Bosnia, Semir Osmanagic, who claims that a hill 
near the Bosnia River is a man-made structure built before the end of the last Ice Age, is not a 
specialist on pyramids. His previous claim that the Maya are from the Pleiades and Atlantis 
should be enough for any educated reader. 
This ipyramidi is actually a sloping hill near a village. This was famous in the Middle 
Ages as a meeting place for merchants. What was found there is really just a mass of huge 
stones, evidently a natural geologic formation. The stones do not match, and there is no 
evidence that they were put together to form a solid structure. No one can say that these 
stones were transported by human beings since each weighs approximately 40 tons. Apart 
from its general outline, this hill bears absolutely no resemblance to the Egyptian pyramids. 
Mr. Barakat, the Egyptian geologist working with Mr. Osmanagic, knows nothing about 
Egyptian pyramids. He was not sent by the SCA, and we do not support or concur with his 
statements.  
Other archaeologists, such as a specialist in Prehistory at the National Museum in 
Sarajevo named Zellika, have stated that Mr. Osmanagic is giving out false information. 
What can Mr. Osmanagic use to show the age of the ipyramid?i No archaeological materials 
have been found near the pyramid. Mr. Osmanicis theories are purely hallucinations on his 
part, with no scientific backing. 
Sincerely yours, 
 
Dr. Zahi Hawass 
Secretary General, SCA Megistias (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on the "pyramids" 

message: Dr. Aly Barakat is the Egyptian geologist who visited Bosnia in 2006.  A geomorphologist named Irna has published a recent correspondence with him on her blog (which has a lot more on these alleged pyramids that really needs to be read.
Pirimidosta's requests to publicise Omerbashich's blog and ideas have been turned down, I think rightly. (And I will add that as virtually every post of primidosta I can find anywhere pushes Omerbashich I have come to the conclusion that they are the same person).
Irna's website is also a personal blog, but I think that this correspondence is valuable and relevant and so far as Dr Barakat's emails go, those would easily be accepted here.
It's here: http://irna.lautre.net/A-correspondence-with-Dr-Barakat.html
I'd like to add a link to it, what do people think? Ronz said it should be discussed here first.  Thanks. DougDougweller (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I tried to do this, Ronz has stopped all attempts to have this information listed. Totally unprofessional behaviour on his account. There are entries here on the talk page about how Wikipedia is preaching, and I can only agree. This entire entry is extremely biaised, and should be flagged as such. And the sole reason why it is so unprofessional, is, it seems to me, Ronz's editing of it. Dsine (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irna's blog should not be used as a sole source. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original report is available here: http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/The-geological-and-Geo-archaeological-Observations-on-the-Bosnian-Pyramids-in-Visoko.html So I assume the original report is good enough to actually report on the findings of Dr. Barakat? It can't get more authorative than that. Dsine (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know this is the original report exactly how?  The Foundation site is not a reliable source for anything but its own claims. Certainly not for anything else. Early on it lied about its staff, for instance, claiming people were working for it who weren't.  And look what happened to poor Andrew Lawler's report. . Doug Weller (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Correspondence with Dr. Aly Barakat

message: i think wikipedia could be interest by this letter of osmanagic : http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/395/semir2zt8.jpg " we also plan to be more active in submitting positive news on internet about the project : from press releases, to wikipedia, archeological websites, forums, etc. "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.181.66 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised they haven't done this already. I keep looking for it. I hope other people can look after the Wikipedia article because they know me, I'd rather deal with their attempts elsewhere.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This mail is Fake. Lol! User is not registered, every kid could do this. --HarisM (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you know it's fake? I'd expect you to say that. Real names, real email addresses, etc.  There is nothing fishy about it.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: why do you think it is fake ? i have find it here : http://irna.lautre.net/A-new-expert-for-Mr-Osmanagic-s.html and the original message is here : http://izmo-ekspert.blogspot.com/2008/02/konano-unio-u-struni-tim.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.170.43 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Izmo Ekspert blog... man... it's obvious you don't know Bosnian :) That is ironical and satirical blog against pyramid. Be sure to check your sources next time, that can be harmful to wikipedia project. Thanks. --HarisM (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you don't need to know Bosnian to know that, Irna explains it herself, and of course she does know Bosnian. Osmanagich hasn't denounced it, nor has Nanad/Hyperborean, and both of them must know about it.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny :) --HarisM (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. There's also a clear Houston link between at least 3 of the people (including Osmanagich himself) in the email.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: a plan to flood wikipedia with positive news about the pyramids

message: "Scientific investigations of the site show there is no pyramid. Additionally, scientists have criticised the Bosnian authorities for supporting the pyramid claim saying, "This scheme is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public and has no place in the world of genuine science."
That is a bull... There is a strong personal animosity from the Ministry of culture BiH circle which disseminate that crap. Go to http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/content/view/1059/117/lang,en/
:The Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation is not a reliable source. See lengthy discussion above. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just letting that student put her lies on their site shows how unreliable it is. She's libelling friends of mine. Colette did no such thing. To get a bit more context about Merima, see http://irna.lautre.net/Did-you-say-interview.html
and about the 'writing' http://irna.lautre.net/In-which-the-proto-Bosnian.html  What is really funny is Merima's comment about aliens, as Osmanagic has suggested that the Maya come from Atlantis and before that from the Pleiades star cluster (he claims a Mayan codex says that).Doug Weller (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, don't we have a conflict of interest here? You've just argued that you're not including some evidence in favour of Osmanagic Foundation's cause because someone involved in the controversy is your friend? Dsine (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No coi.  While it's fine to discuss, we need to take care how we use any information solely from Irna's site. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific investigations of the site show they ARE pyramids 

message: User:193.203.82.194 is deleting text from the article with no edit summary. Guidance is clear on this, "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s)."  Lack of an edit summary is often seen by editors as a good reason for automatic reversion -- deletion of text with no explanation even more so.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletion of text 

message: Erebus74 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science becoming "religion" and loosing any touch with pragmatic views? 

message: Boston University's Curtis Runnels, an expert in prehistoric Greece and the Balkans states that, "Between 27,000 and 12,000 years ago, the Balkans were locked in the last Glacial maximum, a period of very cold and dry climate with glaciers in some of the mountain ranges. The only occupants were Upper Paleolithic hunters and gatherers who left behind open-air camp sites and traces of occupation in caves. These remains consist of simple stone tools, hearths, and remains of animals and plants that were consumed for food. These people did not have the tools or skills to engage in the construction of monumental architecture."
This comment has no direct relevance to the issue. No-one is claiming - as is shown elsewhere in the entry - that these structures are 27,000 or 12,000 years old. Dsine (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have multiple, independent, reliable sources showing otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, list some references for your statement here, please. Merely claiming there are "many" somewhere isn't professional. I can find many "multiple, independent, reliable sources" that show such dates aren't being claimed. You are the one making the claim, so you've got to put up the evidence backing your claim. Full stop. Dsine (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't like the references, then we still have an expert opinion. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance?

message: Clovis has tried to remove certain key, and founded, changes made to this article, including changes re the outcome of the first ICBP, related to the Bosnian Pyramids. I would assume that the Wikipedia editors do not let this person continue in his vandalism, and will take appropriat action to monitor his behaviour. Dsine (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted Dsine's edit as original research, improper systhesis of information, use of sources that are not reliable, and giving  improper weight to minority viewpoints.  In addition, it violates WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used PRECISELY the same sources as are already available on this entry, namely Irna's site, with the discussion on Barakat. So if you claim her page is a "minority view" (which it actually is, but there you go), then we should remove ALL references to this page, and that means removing that entire section. You can't have it both ways, Ronz. Dsine (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Irna is the best source we have for Barakat, then all mention of Barakat should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism of contributions

message: * Archaeologists find medieval artefacts on Mt. Visocica, disparage pyramid seeker, 19 Sep 2008, Southeast European Times. 
* Excavations for Bosnian Valley of Pyramids continue despite ridicule, 9 Oct 2008, Southeast European Times. 
--Ronz (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent news