Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

"The World of the Maya" by Mr. Osmanagic, Revealing Reading

It is an interesting exercise to read through "The World of the Maya" by Sam Osmanagich at http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/WM.htm. In it, a person finds revealing statements such as:

... 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. Once the Earth begins to vibrate in harmony with the Sun, information will be able to travel in both directions without limitation. And then we will be able to understand why all ancient peoples worshipped the Sun and dedicated their rituals to this. The Sun is the source of all life on this planet and the source of all information and knowledge.

and

"This temple, fortunately, remained hidden and intact until 1989, so that the Masonic cliques were not able to keep it from the world. It is clear that what we see here are space ships which travel between our Solar system and other parts of the galaxy (the head of the Maya is in the vehicles and, thereby, between the Sun and the center of the galaxy).

These statements and the rather disjointed and rambling nature of this essay certainly raises questions about Mr. Osmanagic's qualifications as and his understanding of even the basics of archaeology.

There is an interesting discussion going about the Bosnian pyramid in Regarding the Bosnian "pyramid"

Given that Osmanagic has no qualifications as an archeologist, and no expertise in any of the archeological actions he's taken to date (identifying, dating, and excavating an archeological site), his writings on pseudohistory of ancient civilizations and this "pyramid" are especially telling. In "The World of the Maya" writes of the Mayan's connections with Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, "cosmic harmony", and intragalactic travel in ancient times. It's no surprise then that he, without any evidence at all, dates his "pyramid" to the supposed time of Atlantis. -- (Ronz 19:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

Irrelevent

I removed this line from the article: 

the same number is used for the number of days in one year

Because the meter, of course, was invented at the end of the 18th century, and therefore is irrelevent to the distance between the three pyramids. Aside from the fact that the precise boundaries of each are not knowable down to the meter, since they are right now just giant hills three times larger than the original structures. --Kaz 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevent if it was part of Osmanagic's claims. I have no idea if it was, though, confirm anyone?
I agree. If Osmanagic claimed it, it should be included in his claims no matter what. No one should be editing his claims, nor picking through them for the ones that make the most sense. (Ronz 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Current state of the article

The recent rewrite of the article does not meet wikipedia's standards. Statements like "seems to have located [...] the world's largest ancient man-made pyramid", "Osmanagic is an expert on pyramids", "It is suspected that the ancient Illyrian inhbitants [sic] of the Balkans, once thought to be more primitive, actually built these structures" require citations. Otherwise, the article needs to be restructured to make no such original claims. Besides that, the article includes spelling and grammatical errors, and is laid out in a very non-standard way. I will resist reverting to the earlier version (which was at least encyclopaedic in style), but ask that these issues to be addressed as a priority. — JEREMY 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent highly POV changes to the most recent NPOV version of the article. We seem to have 2 groups of Bosnians fighting over the content here - 1 group Osmanagic-supporters, and the other Osmanagic-haters - neither of whom seem to be aware of Wikipedia's NPOV and accuracy policies. --Gene_poole 03:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a reference to a Bosnian archaeologist who isn't happy with the dig to try and add a balance of opinion to the links out. They're a little uncritical. This is my first attempt at an edit or discussion post so apologies if I've messed up the formatting. --Alunsalt 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to those who have encyclopediaised this article. I've been researching this story and browsing internet forums. The facts are hard to come by and the waters are muddied by conspiracy theorists, Bosnian Nationalists, people who want to scoff at Bosnia and people who believe aliens built the pyramids. There is currently a dig ongoing on the site, we must hope that the facts will become clearer in the next few months. Until then all we can do is try to kepp this article free of nationalistic vandalism (from either side) and from the fantasies of sci-fi nuts. (No offence to Trekkies :) ) Quarkstorm 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

photos

Has anyone managed to dig up an image with licensing we can use of this thing?

Images like this one pretty impressively make the case for it actually being a pyramid. — ceejayoz talk 19:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is at this point in time an Associated Press article up at [1] (that rather clearly shows that the hill in question is a forested hill at this point in time. So I have to view the one you linked to as not being impressive. That article leads me to believe that it is too soon to have a definitive conclusion. GRBerry 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the distinction between this and a Tumulus? -Apr 23 2006


Visocica hill move

I appreciate the desire not to prejudice readers about whether there are actually pyramids present at Visoko. However, readers who come looking for this content will be searching for the pyramid information (which is all this article actually covers — there's nothing worthwhile here about the hill itself), and thus I've reversed the move. — JEREMY 01:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are a lot of photos

Here are a lot of photos: http://index.hu/gal?dir=0604/tech/pyramid/

If you look it is fairly obviously natural. The economy of the area is much collapsed and this is a tourism PR hype trick according to everbody you ask in the central european region. 195.70.48.242 07:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop Osmanagic petition

The link to the petition that was anti-Bosnian Pyramid has been removed due to the fact that it was done by a Serbian nationalist who started his argument with 'Stop Taliban Bosnia!'. Taliban has nothing to due with the Bosnian Pyramid and something like this was only done to instigate more problems.

I would like to ask that the 2 groups of people fighting over the content of this article stop it, forthwith, and take a look at Wikipedias neutrality policy before adding or ammending any further content. --Gene_poole 11:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which groups are currently fighting over the content of this page, but as an anthropology student, I'm very disappointed in the credulous journalists who have failed to look into Mr. Osmanagic's qualifications or even attempt to get a general idea of what most actual scholars have to say on the matter. It's wiki articles like this that make me think that there should be more scholarly oversight on pages dealing with the social sciences. There has been no evidence as yet of Osmanagic ever earning an archaeology degree, though he's identified as an archaeologist in the news media (most likely because he presented himself as such and they were too lazy to verify it).

Also, the dates he presents for the "pyramid" would mean a wholesale reeavaluation of European archaeology. To those who don't see this as a problem, I suggest they find the wikipedia page for Occam's Razor. I really hope that an editor (or the original) will do some more research and fix this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.158.122 (talk • contribs)

This article lists Osmanagic only as an "author", and wikipedia is not original research. If you can find material challenging the Illyrian claim, please introduce it, or link it here so someone else can. — JEREMY 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If Osmanagic practices in the field of archeology, then he's an archeologist. One reason information sources like wikipedia will eventually surpass formal, bureaucratic academia entirely is that this kind of Defend the Establishment nonsense does not hold authority here. And, by the way, if he's proven correct, which seems more likely than not, are all the academic bureaucrats...the archeological community, in other words...going to admit that their way of doing things is stagnating and generally effed up? I doubt it. --Kaz 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The question is not one of authority, but of competence and expertise. Osmanagic has demonstrated a clear lack of both, writing a book about the "pyramid" before having any evidence at all to back up his claims. Perhaps Osmanagic can learn something from slightly more professional archeology as demonstrated here: http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithson.htm.
Who here knows the story of Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of Troy? At the time he found it, it was debated whether it had ever existed. He was short of the standards of professional archaeology of his time (and far short of those of ours), but he did have a major impact and find what he was looking for. It seems to me too early to judge this claim. GRBerry 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It's worth note that, to this day, there is zero evidence that Schliemann ever found Troy, or that Troy ever existed at all. What he found was the ruins of walled city, in one of the MANY places he attempted to predict Troy might be. Nowhere in the city was there ever found any inscription bearing and version of the name Illium, or anything else which would actually link the city to the mythological city. Walled cities were common, and were usually destroyed by something in the end, with conquest and earthquakes being common. --Kaz 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Osmanagic may be like Schliemann? Yes, Osmanagic seems to have no knowledge or experience whatsoever about modern archeology. Perhaps, like Schliemann, he's not above some fraud to bolster his assertions. However Schliemann didn't write his books before his discoveries, let alone use them as primary evidence for his claims.
Your claim that, somehow, writing a book before proving his point is bad sounds completely backward and bureaucratic. In fact, what he did was establish MORE legitimate authority, because his predictions were correct. He's not some weaselly academic who waits until he has everything sewn up tight for years before finally publishing a paper and claiming it all to be his own. This guy had the balls to stick his neck out, and share his information, BEFORE proving it the hard way. The difference between him and Schliemann is that Osmanagic seems to have been proven correct, while Schiemann simply used smoke and mirrors to annoint any ol' city he found as "Troy". --Kaz 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Osmanagic has done nothing but make things up, then look for ways to convince others he has proof. He's proven nothing other than how gullible people can be. He could write a book before any excavations because the excavations don't matter. He's a charlatan and a fraud. (Ronz 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I've tidied the discussion page up by moving this text below the contents box Quarkstorm 09:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool; good work. It's a pity the discussions weren't restored to chronological order, though. Perhaps you could sort that out too? — JEREMY 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the petition - it does seem relevant possibly not as an external link but to show how rapidly politicised this issue got with various factions jumping on it. The political angle is one that I suspect can't really be avoided but God knows how it'd be handled without adding more material for an editting war. (Emperor 03:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

I'd be happy to see a sub-section (or just a paragraph) under criticism which dealt with the political aspects of the controvery. (Alternatively, we could spin off a subarticle entitled "Bosnian pyramids controversy" and put it there. :) But it doesn't belong in the External links section. — JEREMY 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation: anon response

It has to be noted that serious researchers have disputed heavily Mr.Osmanagics claims as not only incorrect but also that his so-called excavations have been damaging older neolithic and medieval archeological sites ! Apart from this, it has been noted that Mr.Osmanagic seems to have no scientific references to display, despite his claims of "15-year-old-pyramid-research".As is apparent from his books, all of his so-called researches are simple tourist trips! For serious information regarding this so-called "research", check:

-- Comment added to main article by anon editor User:85.92.228.157, 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


"Fact" checking

This is going to be a controversial one so I think we need to keep an eye on the "facts" as some things in the entry seem to be taking Semir Osmanagić's statements as fact. A couple of things that concern me and possibly need to be more qualified:

"The 213 metre Visocica hill is symmetrically shaped, with sides reportedly sloping at 45° and aligned to the points of the compass."

The contour map [2] (extracted from here) shows this just isn't so. The north face is roughly triangular (not in itself remarkably in geomorphological terms) but it is nearly impossible to make out a rectangular plan or even well defined other sides at all (making statements on actual aignment impossible). You can make the hill look pyramidal if you stage your photographs from the N or NE but that doesn't make that statement true. Perhaps better wording might be "Semir Osmanagić has claimed that the 213 metre Visocica hill is symmetrically shaped, with sides reportedly sloping at 45° and allegedly aligned to the points of the compass."

"The dig, involving a team of international archaeologists from Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland and Slovenia [1], began in April 2006."

You can see named "international archaeologists" in this statement from Semir Osmanagić "Foreigners on our team include experienced archaeologist such as: Richard Royce from Australia, Allyson McDavid from U.S., Chris Mundligler from Canada, Martin Aner from Austria." [3] - few of them show up online (apart from in connection with this) suggesting they aren't well established in the field. Mundligler is probably Chris Mundigler [4] but a handful of (unconfirmed) archaeology graduates from different countries hardly counts as "an international team" - I could find archaeologists from America and France to come and look at things in my back garden if I tried hard enough (or made big enough claims) - would that allow me to claim they were an "international team"? My concern is that this seems to be providing false authority to the claims. Perhaps better wording might be: "Archaeologists from around the world, including Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland, Slovenia and the USA, " and then throw in the link I gave [5] as a source too.

The current last link is Bosnian language only - for English language concerns you can see the Science and Politics blog [6] which has a number of entries and links to other places raising concerns. This critical article should also probably be linked in [7]

Caveats: I have expressed a range of concerns about this hill actually being a pyramid (despite my really wanting it to be - ironically as I was eidtting this in someone added other comments with links to what I've said - I'd still recommend using the Science and Politics blog entry as the central one for English language blogging concern about goingson as they link out to various other aspects) so I don't feel I should make those updates and will leave it to more neutral editors to decide on the best way forward (Emperor 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree with you and have changed the statement about the hills symmetry, slope and alignment to a less assertive form. With regards the pedigree of the archaeological team perhaps some wording could be found to communicate that they mostly haven't got any other major digs on their cv's.

instead of "...involving a team of international archaeologists... " try "...involving an international team of largely unrecognised archaeologists ..." or "...involving an international team of budding, but as yet, unrecognised archaeologists..." Quarkstorm 08:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The statements in question are derived from the article in the SMH. Feel free to correct, but be careful when rewriting them not to misattribute. — JEREMY 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. There is no mention of "unrecognised archaeologists" in any quoted source. I've modified the content to reflect this. --Gene_poole 03:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How about we refer to this discussion as the source? The contributors here appear to be doing better fact checking than anyone else, certainly better than references to what ultimately are just pr pieces from Osmanagić. -- Ronz 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That is the tricky business - we can't say they are "unrecognised" however we largely have vague handwaving claims made from Osmanagić or sources close to him and this is unconfirmed. I am largely quibbling with the wording as "team" suggests something more organised than it is - which is a few people with archaeology degrees going to take a look and even that is relying on Osmanagić as it is not confirmed and there have been statements made by them. So some kind of tweaking and qualifying "claimed" "individual archaeologists", etc.. If anyone can track down the identity of the named people (there are typos galore) let me know as I will be emailing them for their comments. (Emperor 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC))
I think that picking at the word "team" is a little excessive. Wiktionary defines team as: any group of people involved in the same activity. So the word team doesn't imply any level of organization at all. Also, the word "international" isn't describing anything more glorious than the fact that all the people are from differant nations(In Wiktionary: Of or having to do with more than one nation). Just because it sounds more impressive than saying "we got guys from all over" doesn't mean its false or has to be edited out. I don't know about using the title archeologist though. So I wwould have to say that a french and american coming to your yard to investigate are an international team (assuming they work together in some way)--Matt D 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the facts are shaky, but I wonder if we should be including them. For instance Kaz is right that the 365 metre measurement is nonsense. Nonetheless this is what Osmanagić is claiming. If these are not included then are we misrepresenting his work? Perhaps claims like the 45 degree symmetrical slopes slopes should be included and the caption on the photo changed to

Visocica overlooking Visoko. Semir Osmanagić states the symmetrical nature of the hill and its forty-five degree slopes are indicative of a pyramid. Other archaeologists find the claim controversial.

Presenting Osmanagić's statements is probably the best way to demonstrate the questionable nature of the claims, but leaves it for the reader to decide. The trick is to write it up without sounding sarcastic. For instance - The fact the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun would be the biggest pyramid shows that the pyramids were all built by the same people and the Bosnian Pyramid was the last according to Osmanagić. This has been disputed by Osmanagić who has noted that it may well have been built first. --Alunsalt 12:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can use the current illustration — which was the best I could find of the half-dozen relevant ones available in wikicommons — to disprove the claims; it's simply not clear enough. (I wrote to the "Foundation" a week or so ago about using their images, including one of Osmanagic himself, but have heard nothing back from them to date.) — JEREMY 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
From what I can make of it, a translation of Osmanagić's book will show he's using the same theories from his other books to support his "pyramid" assertions: namely that aliens from the Pleiades cluster founded Atlantis, whose space-faring ancestors then went on to create all the ancient civilizations in the world. -- (Ronz 14:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC))
Does anyone know when the Pyramid of the Sun book was written? It's been asserted here and elsewhere that the book preceded Osmanagic's first visit to Visocica; it would be interesting to know if that's in fact true. — JEREMY 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeologists

If you visit this site you can see the comment

I am the Royce Richards made famous (and notorious) by Mr Osmanagich. I made an initial enquiry into the project and then decided to distance myself from it as it looked to me like someone selling snake oil. I have since had my name published in articles in national newspapers in Australia and in international media as an “Australian Archaeologist out to unearth ancient Bosnian pyramids and rewrite the established version of history........”


Its all a big load of bollocks. The “Bosnian Pyramid” is just a shonky attempt by a shonky person to make a name for themselves, its not something I want to be involved with. Its quite annoying as I now get random emails from all kinds of kooks expecting me to be an authority on Bosnian pyramids!! The damage this will do to my professional reputation is yet to be seen..........!

I never gave Mr Osmanagich permission to give my name to any media organisation and I never gave any media organisation permission to put my name in print. For the record I am an archaeologist. For the record I am not involved in the Bosnian pyramid project. For the record I’m pretty annoyed with finding my name given to the media in relation to Bosnian pyramids.

I thought it could be an imposter, but I've emailed the address in the South Australian government and it's genuine. Royce Richards is, according to the official site, on the archaeological committee. Is this verification enough to be able to write up a section on the misrepresentation of archaeologists? At the moment you only have my word for it that I've emailed him, but realistically the whole world cannot email him to check. It is also provocative enough to inspire a few flames. I thought I'd put it up for debate before writing it up to see what other people think. Alunsalt 08:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Arg. This seems to be classic Original research. What we need is someone else doing the investigative journalism (preferably someone associated with a "reliable source") so we can quote and link to them. — JEREMY 08:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Grace Fegan, the (real) Irish archaeologist. At this site Grace Fegan says:

Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 20:17:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Questions regarding Bosnian pyramid Dear (*izbrisano*) Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify, once more, my position with regard to this project. I have been a professional archaeologist since 1998 and am currently working for a private consultancy in Ireland. In the course of considering summer volunteer positions on various European excavations I contacted, among others, Mr Osmanagich. I found his contact details on the Archaeological Institute of America website. Mr Osmanagich later replied that he may be in a position to offer me a paid staff position, requiring my presence on site for up to six months. I informed him that I would need to consider this very carefully as I am in full-time employment and would find it difficult to take such extended leave. Mr Osmanagich said he would contact me with a definitive offer and also forwarded some information regarding the site.

The information came in the form of two reports, one was a 'geophysical survey report' (it was unlike any geophysical report I had ever seen) and the other was a 'geological report' (ditto). Having looked through this information it became clear that this project was dubious at best. I did some searching on the web and realised that Mr Osmanagich had no affiliations to any academic body, and was not a qualified archaeologist.

My mistake at this point was not emailing him immediately to inform him that I would not be taking part.

Before I knew it an article had appeared in an Irish newspaper, stating that I was going to be taking part in this Bosnian pyramid project. The article stated that I had excavated Newgrange and described me as an 'eminent Irish archaeologist'. Just to clear things up – Newgrange had been excavated to a satisfactory degree before I had even graduated from my B.A., and although I'm doing well in my career at the moment, I would certainly not describe myself as eminent (at best, I would like to think that my eminence is imminent, he he). I also received phone calls from two British journalists enquiring as to the nature of my involvement in the project. These gentlemen were kind enough to inform me that I was listed on the project website as being one of the 'foreign experts' taking part. When I logged on to the website I found that I was listed as Senior Archaeologist, Kilkenny (I am the senior archaeologist for the firm in which I work, but not for the entire county of Kilkenny!). Most worrying of all was a link through which people could supposedly contact me. When I clicked on it an email address came up of which I had no previous knowledge and to which I had no access. Needless to say, I found this pretty unsettling. Mr Osmanagich used my name in connection with his project when he had no right to do so. He also seems to have made every attempt to make me into something that I am not. In addition he potentially misled those who visited the website that they could contact me, and that whatever responses they would receive would be from me. With regard to the excavations taking place on the 'Bosnian Pyramid' site, I would be very surprised if at the end of the season Mr Osmanagich throws up his hands having failed to find definitive evidence supporting his argument. No matter what is there he will find what he is looking for. That is what happens when a site is not excavated by archaeologists, but glory hunters. Kindest Regards Grace Fegan

Doug Weller

Letter to the editor and Dutch link?

I've restored the (apparently representative) letter to the Times Online. Is there some doubt that this (notably redlinked) source is fraudulent or WP:NPOV#Undue weight? If so, it should probably be removed again. Also, why was the Dutch link to Visocica removed? Is the article about the hill, rather than the "pyramids" perhaps? — JEREMY 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the "pyramids" - whether they are real or not. The only reason I or most of the people researching this subject have ever heard of Visocica hill is because of the pyramid theory associated with it. We're not here to make value judgements on Osmanagic's theories - merely to report them, and the controversy resulting from them. --Gene_poole 04:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant "is the Dutch article (only) about the hill?" I was trying to work out why the link was removed. Since it was removed by an anon user (incidentally, one accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry) during a mass reversion, I've restored it. — JEREMY 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK - I misunderstood the context of your query. --Gene_poole 06:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology Magazine

They released a piece on their site [8] - the quotes from Curtis Runnels could do with adding into the criticism section. (Emperor 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

The article doesn't include a lot we don't have already (except the embarrassingly partisan petition, which we've thankfully abandoned now — wish I'd actually bothered to read it earlier...) Sure, the Runnels critique is another good laugh at the pyramidiots, but there's already plenty of that in the criticism section. There is, however, a valuable clue in there as to how Osmanagic might have attracted his "international team" (ie. inclusion in the Archaeological Institute of America's online listing of excavation opportunities); if only we were able to verify that's what happened. Also, there are apparently five pyramids now! Perhaps we should run a competition to name the last one. :) — JEREMY 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd have thought that Archaeology Magazine saying it got on the list was "verification" - you could always ask them directly (or would that be original research ;) ). You are right about the seeming spread of the pyramids - I'm going to call it and go for The Emperor Pyramid. Its grandiose and self-aggrandising which all seems rather appropriate ;) (Emperor 03:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC))
Brilliant! "The Emperor Pyramid" gets my vote. So, who wants to email the BBC? — JEREMY 03:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times has taken Archaeology Magazine's lead: "Some See a 'Pyramid' to Hone Bosnia's Image. Others See a Big Hill."[9] (Ronz 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Are we losing balance?

It's notable that the criticism section is now the dominant feature of the article. While some of us may feel that's appropriate, I suspect a lot of our readers will have come here looking for the juicy details of Osmangic's claims. I'd like to see the Interpretation section beefed up and referenced, lest it appear we're simply straw-manning the whole thing. Also, the redlinking from the Criticism section is actually a little embarrassing; are these really such obscure sources, or is archaeology just one of wikipedia's weak suits? — JEREMY 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Osmanagić's claims are nonsense, but is it Wikipedia's job to investigate that? I'd hope that a journalist would spot that something is a bit odd, but then I'm an optimist. I've added more about his claims for the pyramid, but I think it needs re-working as if they're not weasel words then close. Like stoat words in a weasel suit. One the other hand the problem is that so many of the "facts" are demonstably false. As I've said above I think the metre claim should go in, but it's hard to do that without making him look like a fool, and I wouldn't be happy poking fun at him for the sake of my own amusement on Wikipedia. That's what I use my blog for :) --Alunsalt 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone as able to get a copy of Osmangic's book that can read Bosnian, they would be able to provide much more information on what Osmangic has actually claimed and why. It would be interesting to find out why the book refers to Atlantis, Mu, and Lemuria, plus dates of 40,000 and 27,000 years ago. -- (Ronz 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

What is it we're trying to balance? I've seen concern for the expectations of people reading the article who may know little or nothing about the topic, concern that Osmangic is not treated too "skeptically", and concern that the article isn't too critical. -- (Ronz 01:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

We're trying not to be the people making the judgments on this, because it's not our job to do that (it would be "original research"). We need to cover the topic fairly from all perspectives, at least while definitive proof either way is not available (the overwhelming balance of probability is insufficient), and hope that people are able to use the information we provide to make up their own minds on the issue. And Ronz, the whole book is online for anyone to read (via the link in External links or in the Osmanagic article. Surely we have some native speakers here? — JEREMY 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This is where I see a difficulty. To people who are following the news reports (which are uncritical) if there isn't at least a description of the claims then it will look like Wikipedia is biased against Osmanagić - which will reduce the credibility of the criticism. The average reader isn't stupid and presented with the all of the facts impartially will almost certainly decide for themselves that this is hype - which is more convincing than an entry which tells them it's nonsense.
The problem is that the excavation method seems to be scraping the site down to the bedrock with a bulldozer. You will never have definitive proof, only an overwhelming balance of probability. If an overwhelming balance of probability isn't sufficient then a lot of Wikipedia needs to be re-written. I've met people who would dispute the Figure of the Earth entry. The pyramid claims are at odds with the ethos of Wikipedia as the claims are unverified. I'd like to put in the demonstrably false claims about three of the pyramids making an equilateral triangle, but I can't see how you can do this without it looking like you're editorialising, or else presenting the claims as if they're true. Neither would help give an accurate impression of the claim.
I think the best method to allow people to decide that this is gibberish is to present Osmanagić's claims impartially and fully. For instance I'll have a go at writing up a description of the pyramid complex. It's interesting because they've said where the Pyramids of Sun and Moon are, but if you try and pin down the Pyramid of the Dragon then you find it moves depending on which official map you look at. The extensive plans, mainly to do with tourism and infrastructure development at the foundation site might also be worth mentioning. I think if you want to show this is pseudo-archaeology then Osmanagić is your best ally.
Just added the Research Program section, and then forgot to include it as a note in the edit. Sorry. --Alunsalt 10:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The international "Team of archeologists"

Are they actually archeologists? Are they qualified in the field? if not should we refer to them as such? --Artw 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From an interview with Semir Osmanagic at BosnianPyramids.org:
"11. Which team of experts will work on the excavations?
Core of the teams is as follows: In the geological supervision we have an experienced geologist Nadiju Nikic from Sarajevo, doctor of geological studies Stjepan Coric from the Austrian geological society, geologist Ibrica Peristija from Montenegro and young geologist Nedim Jukic from Tuzla.
In archaeological team we have Sead Pilav who graduated archaeology at the University in Sweden, Silvana Cobanov, who finished archaeology in Zadar and Sasa Jankovic who studied archaeology in Belgrade. Foreigners on our team include experienced archaeologist such as: Richard Royce from Australia, Allyson McDavid from U.S., Chris Mundligler from Canada, Martin Aner from Austria. List is not final and will change and will be expanded before the beginning of the spring work."
There's also mention of Egyptian archaeologists visiting in May and August at this blog. It'll be interesting to see what they have to say after their visits. -DejahThoris 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. Are any of those notable? I;m googling and not finding any of them outside of the many, many pyramid press releases. --Artw 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean Pilav is a recent graduate - his job is mapping the tunnels. The 'experienced geologist' did an undergraduate degree in engineering geology in 1971 and has worked in mining since. Royce Richards (the right name) isn't involved. The official list is at this site. I'm on the trail of Anne Handberry, I hope. I know she's not a senior archaeologist, she is mainly an artist. Doug

See my comments above in the section headed fact checking. I've tried to find the various individuals (not what I'd call a team) but they appear to be leading lights in the field (although the names seem typo ridden so it may be partly down to that). I am trying to track them down and contact them but am currently having very limited success. If anyone spots anyone else (or if you are one of those archaeologists) then drop a note in here. (Emperor 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Royce Richards tells me he finished his undergraduate degree in archaeology in 2004. He's had very little archaeological experience. But he is still on the Foundation's web page as a member of the Archaeology Subcommittee and labelled a 'Senior Archaeologist'. You can imagine how embarrassing that is. DougWeller

It looks like the "team" has dwindled to almost nothing. Currently, the official site lists only: 

 Silvana Čobanov, Degree in Archaeology, University of Zadar
 Saša Janković, archaeologist, University of Belgrade;  
 Anne Handberry, Senior archaeologist, USA;  
 (no name) Department for Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia

So, is the Foundation still lying about their heavily revised "team of archeologists"? --Ronz 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Bosnian language version of the site then Royce Richards is listed from the Department for Aboriginal Affairs screen grab. The Archaeological Team would might be worth a subsection if Archaeology Magazine is considered a sound source to refer to. --Alunsalt 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
And now it's stated that Barakat was not sent by Hawass and is not an expert on pyramids. I think a section on foreign experts would be useful, but I'm busy for the next day or so, so I won't be writing it for a while if someone else wants to. --Alunsalt 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiPyramid Web-Ring

I've added the link to "the other side" of the story. 217.227.222.19 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pyramid Has Supernatural Powers

Osmangic is now on record claiming the pyramid has supernatural powers:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyID=2006-05-08T120401Z_01_L26318455_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-BOSNIA-PYRAMID.xml

Osmanagic believes the site was chosen in the belief that it was a focal point of energies, like Giza in Egypt. That, he says, could explain the local claim that no one was killed in the three-pyramid area during the 1992-95 war.

"The pyramid saved them," he said.

(Ronz 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC))


  • Why are you people so concerned about this story. It is as if you are afraid that people will (just for a moment) stop being cynical and bitter. So what if the man is looking for the pyramid and if people in Bosnia believe in it? It only proves that there are people who are un-cynical on this planet (even after they experienced a genocide!). You will never understand these people. They believe in the pyramid because they want to, because it's a part of their spirit. In the end, if there was a pyramid in Visoko, we will know, soon enough. That there can be a positive human spirit like this in the circumstances like the ones in Bosnia, is a more important discovery than any pyramid in the world.
Why so concerned? Because the citizens of the town of Visoko, the country of Bosnia, and the world deserve better than to be taken by such charlatans. I'm also very frightned as what will happen when people finally start facing the facts and look for a scapegoat when they realize they've been played for fools. (Ronz 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC))


Personally I'm taking an interest because I heard the story, got interested, did a little digging and then it all fell apart. I feel it should be stringly marked as krankery to prevent anyone who can't be bothered doing that digging taking it at face value. --Artw 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Via Ma'at comes the interview with Slovenian magazine Misteriji. I've checked the original and with the very very very limited knowledge I have of Serbo-Croat "negativni ener­gijski oblak" does seem to be "negative energy cloud". A pyramid would be quite pointy and possibly capable of bursting a cloud if sharpened. I leave it to the reader to decide if this is plausible. --Alunsalt 20:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Osmangic's Contradictory Claims

The more Osmangic says, the less sense he makes, the more evident he's just making things up. The "Osmanagić's interpretation" section shows this. Should we try to make the section make sense, or continue with it as is, the ramblings of a charlatan?

I think the claims are contradictory, but I'm not sure he's a charlatan. I'm more inclined to believe that he doesn't know what he's talking about and has a short memory. For instance the article currently states that the Pyramid is between 12,000 and 500 BC. I'm pretty certain I read a claim on the official site (twice) that it could be from before the end of the Ice Age - which would be a very odd misquote. I think if he were intentionally misleading people he'd be much better at it. I don't think you can make the section make sense without editing Osmanagić and people reading the reference might want to know if he has made a specific claim. Then let them make up their own minds. --Alunsalt 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
He's a charlatan in that he claims skills and knowledge that he clearly does not possess, and he uses these claims to support his further claims and raise funds. Whatever his initial intentions, he's currently trying to deceive people rather than admit his previous statements were wild and baseless. (Ronz 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
Sadly I'll admit I'm wrong. It does look like he is a charlatan. Here's one of the photos pointed out to me by Kat Reece at the Hall of Ma'at. It appears that not only is he faking evidence - he's not doing a very good job of it. Can we get that in the article as fair use? --Alunsalt 21:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That image has now disappeared. Did anyone snag a copy? (Emperor 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC))
Unfortunately I didn't. I've just searched my cache and its bereft of anything Bosnian. Alunsalt 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has included much from Osmangic original claims (other than in the article's introduction, which still sounds like a PR piece): It's Europe's first pyramid that's over 12,000 years old and was made by shaping the hill into a step pyramid then covering it with primitive concrete. (Ronz 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

The Economist has an Aug 10th 2006 article that documents some of his more absurd ideas:

Mr Osmanagic's theories sound fantastical. He believes that the biggest pyramid is one-third taller than Egypt's Great Pyramid, and that they were built by an ancient civilisation 12,500 years ago. “Yes,” says Mr Osmanagic, who has been denounced by Bosnian archaeologists as a hallucinating lunatic, “we are rewriting the history of the world.” Indeed. Mr Osmanagic, who has also written about survivors from the mythical island of Atlantis who built pyramids in Central America—and about Hitler escaping in the direction of the Antarctic in 1945—says his enemies are just jealous.

("Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [10]) --Ronz 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible reference to another 'pyramid'

http://www.superbosna.com/vijesti/nauka/i_u_maglaju_piramida?/

Comparison

I'd like a size comparison with Silbury Hill and some famous pyramids in Egypt and Mexico.

Sure! Real monuments have measurable dimensions. The Bosnian Follies don't because they're natural formations. --Ronz 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Information would have to be found. And Ronz, would you mind not making non-constructive comments with a POV?
KV(Talk) 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do mind. Sorry you think reality is nonconstructive point of view. All the facts to date show the formations are natural, created by the upheaval of the local bedrock, which was once a lakebed. --Ronz 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of that, he asked for a comparison, not a cocky retort about how you dismiss his request.
KV(Talk) 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The size and elevation of the various hills are matters of geological fact, available on a topological map. The size and shape of the Bosnian Follies depends on which press release you choose to find the most credible. --Ronz 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In as non-cocky a way as possible, the Pyramid of the Sun is either 70m, 100m, 187.5m or 220m high which makes it either smaller, similar or larger than the Egyptian pyramids. The Pyramid of the Sun is 246 feet high according to Wikipedia, which is about 75m, Silbury Hill is 40m and the Great Pyramid of Giza is 146m. Alunsalt 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The official sites appear to be removing references to the size of the "pyramids". The 220m claim seems to be just a reference to the size of the hill from it's generally accepted base. The hill is 767m above sea level at it's peak. The hill begins it's steep incline generally between 500m and 550m above sea level, depending on the approach. The claimed height is completely arbitrary, other than the Foundation's need to justify the locations of their digs. --Ronz 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Description of Osmanagić

In the interest of averting an edit war with User:Jeremygbyrne, can various editors interested in this topic offer suggestions on a proper characterization of S. Osmanagić? I think it is at least neccesary to point out that he is not a real archaeologist, or even a scientist. Obviously this brings us into NPOV/POV territory, but I think their are NPOV ways to say that someone is pretending to be something he is not. Taking an extreme NPOV view of him does no service to an uninformed reader who might use this article to form an honest opinion of the man. Hiberniantears 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been a problem with the article from day one: most of the information is coming directly from press releases from a foundation that is making false and fraudulent claims. How do we indicate the people involved, most notably Osmanagić, are charlatans while retaining a NPOV? When did reality become a point of view that had to be balanced with the claims of conmen, charlatans, or the deluded? I've already stated my position on Talk:Semir Osmanagić. --Ronz 23:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Both of you seem to be of the impression that it is the job of wikipedia to Expose the Truth about SO, rather than simply reporting accurately what third party sources are saying about him. Imagine if people tried to do the same thing to, say, the Jesus article, or the George W. Bush article. In fact, they do; frequently. And they are reverted, counselled and eventually blocked if they persist in misinterpreting the nature of wikipedia. — JEREMY 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather, I'm concerned that wikipedia is doing exactly what the conmen want, ttreating them with undeserved respect and credibility. Wikipedia is perpetuating and reinforcing a hoax. --Ronz 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a problem so I've been reading the guidelines, particularly the Verifiability section.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

My emphasis. The section is entitled "Verifiability, not truth".
The claims that he is an archaeologist are in what would otherwise be called credible sources: The BBC, AP and Reuters. It's lousy and lazy, but those are the reports. I think the Graham Hancock entry might be a useful guide. In this sense I'd say that Osmanagić statements can and should be reported - even when they flatly contradict each other - along with the views of Bosnian archaeologists and foreign archaeologists and leave it to the reader's intelligence to decide if Osmanagić's claims are reliable. If a reader genuinely thinks that the Bosnian Pyramids were built by a civilisation with the aid of aliens from the Pleiades, then a line stating he's a pseudo-archaeologist probably isn't going to be persuasive. Further the entry might be used by people not to see if the pyramid exists, but by people who know this is nonsense but want to see what Osmanagić is saying about the pyramid.
A compromise could be to add in a sentence:

Osmanagić began investigating the pyramid after 15 years of study in Latin America (ref: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/04/19/experts_find_evidence_of_bosnia_pyramid/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News) which, he claims, has enabled him to identify which extra-terrestrials built which the pyramids (ref http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/WM.htm#12). His theories have been rejected by professional archaeologists as "wacky" and "absurd" (ref http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2150036,00.html).

after "...covered the structure." and before "Osmanagić has claimed that the dig..."
This way if you're inclined to believe that there's a big conspiracy to keep the truth of humanity's celestial past from the public, it establishes Osmanagić's credentials as a like mind. If you prefer a more scientific view of the past then it also indicates Osmanagić's position.
Having said all that I'm not sure the sentence is necessary. The Osmanagić's interpretation section needs re-writing, but I think simply stating the variety of Osmanagić's claims makes it plain that the "facts" shift on a regular basis. --Alunsalt 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I also think Semir Osmanagić needs cleanup (his claims of having archeological expertise are inappropriate for the lead). The lead here should have the early pr from the foundation removed (the foundations claims, "focus of international attention", etc). This should allow the "balancing" against the foundation's claims to be removed or moved into the interpretations or criticisms sections. --Ronz 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

this makes a mockery of wikipedia.

This page needs to be brought into line with the truth about the "pyramids".

At present articles like this make a mockery of wikipedia.

Hi I don't know how to sign my comments really but yes I am not responsible for what's written here above, I do however see that persons point, the article at the moment does give one the impression that there could possibly be a pyramid there. There is however obviously no pyramid to be found there, when I first heard the news of a pyramid in Bosnia I thought that it was sorta exciting but it's just BS, a mistake, a hoax a fuckup who knows. Either way this article should tell it like it is, there are no pyramids there. (Signed by me or something)

The article in it's present state is a great example of what Wikipedia is supposed to do - document information that is both factual and NPOV. The article makes it abundantly clear that Osmanagic is a crackpot and his theories completely nuts, and this is fully referenced. How this "makes a mockery" of Wikipedia is for you to explain. --Gene_poole 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha.. 'crackpot'... gold. Stop The Lies 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

current photos needed of excavations

See http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery.html for more up to date images Polymorph 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

End of excavation

... scheduled to finish by 2012 in order to break a cloud of negative energy, allowing the Earth to receive cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy ...

I see there's a reference to back this up, but it's in Slovenian. Is there an English article that states the same? Or can someone familiar with Slovenian confirm the accuracy of this? -Kfor 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The magazine it links to is a monthly called "Mysteries", a "Slovenian-Croatian magazine for paranormal phenomena". The line in question comes from something Osmanagić says in the interview:
"We are breaking a cloud of negative energy. It has to be done before 2012, so we can receive the historical influence of the cosmic energy from the cosmic center of our galaxy. We will not allow apocalypse happening to us in a few years. We have a possibility that we can use. Or not, since we are blocked – if it should continue that way and we do not use it, we would stay blocked…" http://bosnian-pyramid.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=235
The sentence most definitely doesn't belong as it currently is: at the least, it should be clearly stated in a seperate sentence (and likely not the introduction) that it's Osmanagić that said it needs to finish to "break a cloud of negative energy". FireWorks 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the intro still deserves wikification: removal of the flamboyant writing that came from the early pr pieces, and moving the actual claims into the proper sections of the article proper. Two different people have removed the "negative energy" claim, which should be moved into the Osmanagić's interpretation section. --Ronz 03:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the Negative Energy Cloud into Osmanagic's Interpretation. I've also replaced the according to some commentators with according to Osmanagic as he is the only person who has located the negative energy cloud. Credit should be awarded where it is due. --Alunsalt 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

More Refs

The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [11]

Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" [12]

John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine [13]

(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)

Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims"[14] --Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument [15] --Ronz 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pyramid No More: Sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell report from Bosnia", Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006. [16] --Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 [17] --Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 [18] --Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 [19] --Ronz 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"An open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina" [20] (Haven't found other copies of this letter as yet) --Ronz 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Come see the pyramids ... in Bosnia?", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2007 [21] --Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [22].

"It is not possible that those are pyramids," says Mark Rose, of the Archaeological Institute of America, who organized a petition asking Unesco, the United Nations' education-and-science agency, not to send a proposed expedition to the site. "Every major media outlet that initially covered this story got it wrong. It's clearly crackpot stuff, but apparently nobody bothered to check the story."

But as pyramid mania has grown, spread by credulous accounts, those who have expressed skepticism have been savaged in the Bosnian news media, deluged with hate mail, even labeled traitors to their nation. Many observers now see the debate in stark terms: Will a pseudoscientific project, even one that serves to restore Bosnia's wounded pride and dignity, win out over peer-reviewed archaeological research?

Unesco does not intend to send a mission to Visoko, says Mechtild Rossler, of the organization's World Heritage Center, in Paris.

--Ronz 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I don't see value in:

  • moving the "Atlantean connections" section out from under "Osmanagić's interpretation", since the both are Sam's interpretations.
  • moving the "Other interpretations" section out from under the "Interpretation" section.
  • replacing "Other interpretations" with "Dismissions of Osmanagić's claims", which seems to be a POV violation from my perspective as well.
  • placing the two sections of images ("Pyramid of the Sun" and "Pyramid of the Moon") under the "Research program" section.

--Ronz 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All of "Other interpretations" are dismissions of Osmanagić's claims, so why should they be called in other way?--Panarjedde 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think it creates POV problems, and it is contrary to the previous discussions above on how to present a proper POV for this article. Osmanagic seems, after a year of making them, incapable of making coherent and consistent claims. Further, real scientists have examined the evidence and given their explanations of the evidence. Claiming that it's Sam's claims vs dismissions of those claims ignores the fact there there is actual evidence that requires interpretation, and actual expertise required to make logical and consistent interpretations. There's real science here, no matter what Sam may say or do. --Ronz 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What POV are you talking about? If a section lists all the positions against Osmanagić's claims, it is POV to call it "Other positions"!
Furthermore, I am not aware of any "evidence". There are claims and debunkers. Easy like that.--Panarjedde 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
And I'm saying that your point of view, the pov you're promoting with your edits, is that this is simply an issue of "there are claims and debunkers." If you don't understand what evidence is there, as detailed in the article and in this discussion page, then we're not going to make much progress resolving this. However, playing devil's advocate a bit, why not instead rewrite the entire article around the scientific evidence, how that evidence indicates there is no large man-made pyramid-like structures, and how Sam ignores all this evidence? Or perhaps we can settle it another way - what can you cite to favor your changes? --Ronz 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What can I cite for my change? (1) the fact that all of the opinions in "other interpretations" are against "Osmanagić's interpretation", and (2) that all of the supporters of those opinions are by far more authoritative than Osmanagić in their fields. So "Debunking" is much more appropriate that "Other opinions".
It is my understanding (but this is a completely different matter than the changes I proposed) that none of the claims of Osmanagić have been confirmed by independent and authoritative sources. For this reason, I would clearly state in the article that this is a hoax. But this is a different story.--Panarjedde 01:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If one section lists Osmanagić's claims and the other lists all the other positions then "Other positions" seems a plausible heading. Using the term 'debunking' puts the POV that the pyramids are a lot of rubbish, which I absolutely agree with, but it is POV because it's saying the majority scientific opinion is correct. It's annoys me greatly but check the FAQ on pseudoscience:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Using the heading debunking is asserting (correctly) that the claims are false. It's one of those areas that shows Wikipedia isn't perfect, but if we ignore it then there's no defence when a New Age Wikipedian comes along and re-writes the entry to their point of view. The easiest way to show that Osmanagić is a crank is to baldly state the facts and assume the reader isn't a fool. It's more persuasive if the reader is allow to come to their own opinion rather than being told what it is. The sort of reader who is a fool isn't going to be swayed by any facts. --Alunsalt 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The "pyramid" after one year

(Anyone know why I can't see the references? Do others have this problem?) - It's the gallery tag that's causing it.

It's now almost a year since the pyramid pr started. Early on, the sources available were few and poor. I think we have enough available sources now that we should at least discuss this article's reliance on poor sources, and what changes should be made now that many better ones are available. Minimally, I think the article could contain a section critical of most media about the pyramid, citing the multiple sources that have published such media criticisms. Additionally, I think it's worth considering adding something about this being a hoax designed to increase tourist revenue and influence politics across Bosnia, again citing the multiple sources available. --Ronz 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a natural hill with man-made structures on it

Osmanagić and APBPSF have been playing with weasel words, making an issue of whether or not the hill is man-made or natural. Everyone knows that there are man-made structures on the hill. Man-made structures do not make the hill into a pyramid. Please don't fall for this simple ruse. --Ronz 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources

I'm proposing that we stop treating Osmanagić and APBPSF (Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation) are reliable sources. If needed, we can summarize all the evidence. If the source for material is Osmanagić or APBPSF, we should look for other reliable sources before incorporating it, otherwise it should not be added to the article. For example, there are claims that Aly Abd Barakat thinks portions of the hill are man-made, but we have no reliable sources confirming this and more importantly we have no sources that confirm if Barakat thinks there is a pyramid or just other man-made structures. --Ronz 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. It's been demonstrated that Osmanagić is not a reliable source with fabrication of experts who turned out not to be on site. However, because this is a fantasy concocted by Osmanagić there is a need to report what he says and the official site is as reliable as anywhere else for that. --Alunsalt 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We need to report what Osmanagić claims about the situation. We need to be cautious and find other sources when the source is unclear (because the source is almost always an APBPSF press release) or when the APBPSF makes claims about others' actions, claims, or credentials. --Ronz 23:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article cited in British Archaeology

Those working on the article might like to know that it was mentioned as further reading in an article on the "pyramids" in British Archaeology magazine (issue no. 92, Jan-Feb 2007), in an article written by Anthony Hall, President of the European Association of Archaeologists, who it seems found himself involved in the furore. Shimgray | talk | 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since that time, the number of "pyramids" in central Bosnia has multiplied considerably. The Visocia hill is the "Pyramid of the Sun"; apparently there is also a "Pyramid of the Moon" and a "Pyramid of the Bosnian Dragon". A Wikipedia article provides useful information on the development of the story ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_pyramid_claims/Archive_1&oldid=1049175466"