Talk:Nabta Playa

Older discussions

The information in this article, some of it contributed by User:4.241.219.41, does not reflect mainstream archaology. I do not apply "Disputed tags." If I did, this would be a candidate for one. Much work is needed here, by a level-headed knowledgable editor. --Wetman 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Wetman, and I do apply tags. See User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee for my reasons. — mark ✎ 19:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have applied the totallydisputed tag to the article, persuant to above and the ongoing RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason that the article specifically needs to adhere to mainstream archaeology. In fact, forcing it to would represent a distinct POV pushing. It should include whatever content possible that is verifiable, not original research, and presented in a neutral manner. KV(Talk) 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I also do not see any changes that he's made other than some renaming of titles and the removal of one word. KV(Talk) 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The last 2 sections of the archaeoastronomy is nothing but esoterical speculations which ought to be erased. Siffler 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those "speculations" are what makes it notable, and must be included as per WP:NPOV. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they shouldn't be included. KV(Talk) 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The distances to the nearest stars were measured beginning in around 1835. If someone pretends that this had been done already several thousand years before, he should at least give some indications to the method applied. If not, then this ought not be included in a general encyclopedia. Siffler 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states "they matched the distance of the stars from Earth on a scale of 1 meter = .799 light years within the our margin of error for the astronomical distances we have today." It does not state that they do absolutely represent that. That is left up to the reader. Is what is stated a fact? Yes. Are there reputable scholars who believe that it does represent that? Yes. Do we know exactly how? No. Why don't we know? Because it is prehistoric and the only thing from that age in the area that seems to have survived is the remnants of some camp fires and giant stones. If the article stated that they did it by using equipment that is equivalent to modern equipment, there is not enough proof of that and there would be a problem.

WP:NPOV clearly states "Let the facts speak for themselves". It also states "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." There is no need for the scientist to express the methods used, the facts remain that there is a high level of correlation. Should we leave out any reference to the miracles of Jesus just because the methods are not explained? Certainly, they should not be proclaimed as simply truth, but they should not be ignored because they are not reproducable with 1st Century technology to our knowledge. KV(Talk) 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked for original papers of the astrophysicist Thomas G. Brophy related to Nabta Playa. The only peer-reviewed contribution I could find was written together with his long-time collegue Paul A. Rosen: Thomas G. Brophy and Paul A. Rosen: Satellite Imagery Measures of the Astronomically Aligned Megaliths at Nabta Playa, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5(1) (2005) 15 - 24 http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/Issues/Past%20Issues/Volume%205%20No1%20June%202005/BROPHY.pdf I can find no mention of star distances in this article. According to GOOGLE, there exists an earlier book The Origin Map (which is, curiously not registered in the on-line catalogue of the Library of Congress). Might-be, there can be found his hypotheses like star distances. Siffler 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if any of this information is presented improperly...I came across a movie series called Magical Egypt Episode 3: Descent which contains a video interview of Thomas G. Brophy discussing a model of Nabta Playa. I also found that Google has scanned portions of Brophy's book Origin Map--Malig 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Brophy & Rosen satellite imagery article

I couldn't get the pdf, but the html version is still at [1]--Doug Weller (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

User:Mathilda37 added the following sentence to the Early history section: "The population appears to have consist of phenotypically varied Saharan and Nile valley people. Cranial analysis of slightly later populations nearby have shown the population to have been intermediate to ancient Eurasians and East Africans, the result of numerous back migrations from Eurasia into North Africa since the Pleistocene.", which was altered by 75.18.169.96 to: "The site was excavated by Fred Wendorf and John (Kim) Malville. Human remains were found at Nabta, but only the jawbone was left available to Wendorf to examine, the rest being confiscated by the Egyptian museum in Cairo. The study of this jawbone led Wendorf to conclude that the Nabtians were of sub-Saharan descent.". Both of these statements are unreferenced and evidently POV-pushing, but on the other hand they are not trivial. I removed them for now, but could someone more knowledgeable on the subject check out whether they contain any elements of verifiable facts? --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

References/Cited Sources

I don't believe that a college student web page is a valid and reputable source for citation. Most of the info in the article is cited there. Please add citations from reliable sources (e.g. news articles, websites that solely operate in the field and are well credited, etc.).