Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

/Archive1

More Refs

The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [1]

Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" [2]

John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine [3]

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

Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims"[4] --Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument [5] --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. [6] --Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 [7] --Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 [8] --Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 [9] --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" [10] (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 [11] --Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [12].

"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)

"Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters" Independent Online, May 21 2007. [13] --Ronz 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding" Javno.com, 11 June 2007. [14] -- Ronz  16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia Pledges Renewed State Support for Study of 'Pyramids' Whose Existence Is Doubted by Scholars" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 July 16 2007. [15] --Ronz 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

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)

I am responsible for the adding of the french website (irna.lautre.net) in the external links on March 4th (I had forgot to log in). Ronz says : "nice article and well researched, but self-published and a blog by non-notable author as far as I can tell" : I came by this site while looking for some new information about the pyramids ; I do not know who the author is, but I thought that it was a well done synthesis on the geology. Sorry if it was against the rules, I often read Wikipedia but it is the first time that I try to contribute... Ilinka Z 14:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page):

I just wanted to ask you a question about the policy concerning the external links in the page about the bosnian pyramids. You removed the link I have put there, saying that it is a blog by a "non-notable author". Well do I understand the need for reliable sources, but I thought that the fact that the article itself is based on reliable sources, and provide reliable documents like geological maps, could do; and I see that there is a certain number of anonymous blogs mentioned in the links on the bosnian pyramid page. So I am not sure what the policy really is, and I would not like to make mistakes again. Thank you for your explanations - and sorry for the bad english ! Ilinka Z 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

--Ronz 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

http://irna.lautre.net should definitely not have been removed and I am restoring it. I'm sorry I didn't add it much earlier. Just because someone doesn't know the author is no reason to remove it (and I don't think that was the reason). If it should be removed then definitely butterflies and bunnies should be removed, and maybe others!Dougweller 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the talk page of Ronz :

:::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)

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)

I have found that : [[16]], [[17]] and [[18]]. It seems to me that the original texte in bosnian is this one : [[19]]

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)

bosnian-pyramid.net has been added a couple of times. I've removed it because it seems inferior to the links we have. As a blog, the author should be an authority per WP:EL. We're making an exception with this article because it's so difficult to get current information in English. This doesn't mean we should list every blog though. I don't see this one keeping very current, nor offering anything that the others don't. --Ronz 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 just made a similar edit, removing http://antipyramidwebring.blogger.ba/ and http://apwr-central.blog.com/. I've reverted it, per my points above. APWR Central is doing a great job of providing quality, up-to-date information. The value of the AntiPyramid Web-Ring is questionable though. --Ronz 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also List

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)

Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

• One further point. This list, when it includes the disputed assortment of pyramids, becomes a fine example of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Hiberniantears 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

About Visoki thing...

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)

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)

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)

Controversial?

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)

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)

Feature article candidate?

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)

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)

I started a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bosnian_pyramids --Ronz 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no pyramid - Majority viewpoint? Scientific consensus?

Do we have enough sources now to rewrite the article from the viewpoint that the scientific consensus is that there is no pyramid? Enough to rewrite from the perspective the viewpoints of the foundation and it's supporters are a minority?

The implications being that information from the foundation should not be given much weight except when supported by secondary sources. Currently, the article is still written from the perspective that the foundation's viewpoint is very important, even though we agreed that they are not a reliable source of information. See WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. --Ronz 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. The article is about a "pyramid" in the same way Atlantis is about a "vanished continent". It must, by definition, give greater weight to lunatic fringe theories, because that's what it's about, and that's what what makes it interesting and notable. Otherwise it's just an article about a non-notable hill in Bosnia. --Gene_poole 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, but not relevant to what I was asking. Even if the article was rewritten, it would still about the claims of there being a pyramid. --Ronz 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be my reading of WP:WEIGHT. At the moment the article seems to bend over backwards to treat the pyramids seriously. Artw 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's because early on the only information we had was from the foundation, whose viewpoints were being given considerable support by the media due to the foundation's pr campaign. --Ronz 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In its present form the article comprehensively debunks the "pyramid" claims. It's completely awash with referenced statements showing those claims to be utter nonsense. Where, exactly, does it "bend over backwards to treat the pyramids seriously"? --Gene_poole 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now we're back to my questions and WP:WEIGHT. The article gives a great deal of weight to the foundation and early news reports based upon foundation press releases. If we agree that the majority viewpoint or scientific consensus are that there are no pyramids, then we've given undue weight to the foundation and these early reports. --Ronz 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The ONLY people saying there is a pyramid in Bosnia are Osmanagic and his foundation. We cannot possibly discuss the subject without including their claims or discussing news reports about those claims. Those claims are the only reason the vast majority of people have ever heard about the "Bosnian Pyramids". Simply expostulating the claims does not give them undue weight, as their presence is absolutely fundamental to understanding the subject of the article. --Gene_poole 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting through. I'm saying the article should give less weight to the foundation's reports and viewpoint. For example, see the Chronicle reference I added above: [20] (looks like it's still available in cache form).

For example, I think the "Research program" section should be reduced to what we can find discussed in reliable sources independent of the foundation. My reasoning is twofold: First, the weight issues mentioned above. Second, now that we have more references available, we should start relying more on secondary sources and less on primary ones. --Ronz 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're getting through loud and clear. My point is that it's quite valid to quote Flat Earth Society publications or websites in an article about the Flat Earth Society. Same goes here. By all means quote supporting secondary sources to provide verification of the Foundation's claims - but there's simply no problem quoting primary ones, because that's what the article is largely about. --Gene_poole 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Sorry, but I still don't think we're communicating. You seem to be misunderstanding my perspective despite all I've done to explain it. Perhaps you should explain yours better, maybe by providing more examples?

I'm not saying it's a problem quoting primary sources.

I'm not disagreeing that the article is largely about the claims of the foundation.

I'm saying that we have many secondary sources now, and that they indicate we should change the weight we're currently giving to the claims by the foundation. --Ronz 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What It Should Be

I still think at the end of the day, this article really should not be anything more than this:Hiberniantears 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

43°59′33″N 18°10′21″E

File:1973 Visoko.jpg

Visočica overlooking Visoko, photo taken in 1973

File:Visoko6.jpg

Visočica overlooking Visoko, today

A site known as Visočica hill, in the Bosnia-Herzegovina town of Visoko, northwest of Sarajevo, 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. However, scientific consensus holds that the hill is neither a pyramid, nor man-made.

The 213 metre Visočica hill, upon which the Old town of Visoki was once sited, has a generally symmetrical pyramid-like shape when viewed from certain angles. The idea that it constitutes an ancient artificial edifice was publicised by Houston-based expatriate Bosnian author and metalworker Semir Osmanagić, whose subsequent excavations at the site have uncovered what he claims to be a paved entrance plateau and tunnels, as well as stone blocks and ancient mortar which he has suggested once covered the structure. Osmanagić has claimed that the dig involved an international team of archaeologists from Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland and Slovenia, however many archaeologists named have stated they had not agreed to participate and were not at the site. The dig began in April 2006.

Interpretation

Semir Osmanagić's claims, widely reported in the mass media, have been challenged by a number of experts, who have accused him of promoting pseudo-scientific notions and damaging archaeological sites with his excavations. Penn State University Professor Garrett Fagan is quoted as saying "They should not be allowed to destroy genuine sites in the pursuit of these delusions[...] It’s as if someone were given permission to bulldoze Stonehenge to find secret chambers of lost ancient wisdom underneath."

File:Dolinapiramida.jpg

Locations of the Pyramids of the Sun, Moon and (Bosnian) Dragon, according to the hypotheses of Semir Osmanagić

Osmanagić has named Visočica hill the "Pyramid of the Sun", while two nearby hills, identified from satellite and aerial photography, have been dubbed the "Pyramid of the Moon" and the "Pyramid of the (Bosnian) Dragon" (and another two, one named the "Pyramid of the Earth", have been mentioned in reports). Newspaper reports have quoted Osmanagić as claiming that they were constructed by ancient Illyrian inhabitants of the Balkans as early as 12,000 BC. But in an interview with Philip Coppens in Nexus (April-May 2006), Osmanagić attempted to clarify his previous statements, stating he was misquoted: he does claim that they were most likely constructed by the Illyrians, who he claims lived in the area from 12,000 BC to 500 BC, and that the pyramid was therefore most likely constructed between those two dates - not in 12,000 BC. In an interview with Vesna Peric Zimonjic, appearing in the Belgian newspaper De Morgen, he refused to date the structures:

Osmanagić, who has also published under the name Sam Osmanagich, is the author of a book entitled The World of the Maya that presents a global pseudohistory involving Atlantis and Lemuria, and concludes:

The Maya inherited knowledge from their ancestors at Atlantis and Lemuria (Mu). Cities were planned and built around the main square toward which the pyramids and temples were turned. They communicated with the movement of the Sun and the paths of other heavenly bodies... Many cultures around the world, from India, Sumeria, Egypt, Peru, the Indians of North and Central America, the Inca and the Maya, call themselves the 'Children of the Sun' or the 'children of light.' Their ancestors, the civilizations of Atlantis and Lemuria, erected the first temples on energy potent point of the Planet. Their most important function was to serve as a gateway to other worlds and dimensions.

Osmanagić's concept is similar to that popularized by William Perry and Grafton Elliot Smith in their book The Children of the Sun (1923). Smith and Perry suggested that all ancient civilizations could trace their history to ancient Egypt. Their work represented a school of thought known as diffusionism, also represented in the scholarship of Gustaf Kossinna. However, Osmanagić adds to this a belief in the lost continents of Atlantis and Lemuria. Smith and Perry's theories of hyperdiffusionism have been rejected on the basis of subsequent research and models concerning Atlantis and Lemuria are not taken seriously by the majority of professional archaeologists and historians.

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."

Enver Imamovic of the University of Sarajevo, a former director of the National Museum of Sarajevo, concerned that the excavations will damage historic sites such as the medieval royal capital Visoki, said that the excavations would "irreversibly destroy a national treasure".

In a letter to the editor of The Times on 25 April 2006, Professor Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, referred to Osmanagić's theories as "wacky" and "absurd" and expressed concern that insufficient safeguards were in place to protect Bosnia's "rich heritage" from "looting and unmonitored or unauthorised development".

According to one source, on May 8, 2006, members of the Geological team investigating Visočica on behalf of the Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation held a press conference in Tuzla to present the results of their research. The academics, from the Faculty of Mining and Geology at the University of Tuzla and led by Professor Dr. Sejfudin Vrabac, concluded that the hill is a natural geological formation, made of classic sediments of layered composition and varying thickness, and that its shape is a consequence of endodynamical and egsodynamical processes in post-Miocene era.

According to Professor Vrabac, who specializes in paleogeology, there are dozens of like morphological formations in the Sarajevo-Zenica mining basin alone. The Geological team report on Visocica, based on the data collected in six drill holes at 3 to 17 metre depths, is supported by the Research and Teaching Council of the Faculty of Mining and Geology, as well as the Association of Geologists of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In June 2006, Zahi Hawass's name became linked to the excavations as recommending an expert, Aly Abd Alla Barakat, to investigate the hills. Upon being contacted Hawass denied any involvement, accusing Osmanagić of "giving out false information".

The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation has said that Barakat inspected the hills and stated, "My opinion is that this is a type of pyramid, probably a primitive pyramid." So far no report has appeared from the foundation confirming this. Osmanagić also invited geologist and alternative archaeologist Robert Schoch to visit the site. In a preliminary report he concluded that there were natural geological explanations for all the features claimed to be artificial by Osmanagić. In the case of the tunnels he further added:

The much-touted “ancient inscriptions” seem not to be ancient at all. I was told by a reliable source that the inscriptions were not there when members of the “pyramid team” initially entered the tunnels less than two years ago. The “ancient inscriptions” had been added since, perhaps non-maliciously, or perhaps as a downright hoax.

The foundation has described such comments as "ill-intentioned" referring to "irrelevant and completely incorrect facts". In return Dr Schoch's website documents "extreme damage being done by the way the excavations are being performed," and accuses Osmanagić of launching "a deliberate smear campaign."

Intro

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. [21].

Thoughts? --Ronz 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently: "The idea that it constitutes an ancient artificial edifice was publicised by Houston-based expatriate Bosnian author and metalworker Semir Osmanagić, whose subsequent excavations at the site have uncovered what he claims to be a paved entrance plateau and tunnels, as well as stone blocks and ancient mortar which he has suggested once covered the structure. Osmanagić has claimed that the dig involved an international team of archaeologists from Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland and Slovenia,[1] however many archaeologists named have stated they had not agreed to participate and were not at the site.[2] The dig began in April 2006."

Per WP:LEAD I think we need to summarize the main points of the article more. This currently highlights the early claims and controversies. It should also include and emphasize the consensus viewpoint that there are no pyramids.

How about replacing the introduction of Osmanagić with that from The Chronicle, "a Bosnian-American metal-shop owner in Houston and self-described 'alternative historian?'"

This is probably a good point to introduce the foundation as well. --Ronz 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Foundation's history and plans

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)

Think about it

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)

Dilip rajeev 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for your soapboxing. --Ronz 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Don't want to admit they're pyramids

because whites would have built them.