Talk:Baigong pipes
 | China Stub‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Paranormal Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Location Description
The original description of "40 km southeast of Delingha City" had no sources, and conflicted with this source: Chinese Scientists to Head for Suspected ET Relics That article states it's "40 kilometers to the southwest of Delingha City". That's why I changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.177.62 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Old talk
If anyone has any further info on this I would love to hear it. I have searched as best I can but can find nothing - positive or negative viewpoints welcome - plesase come forward. Davkal 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That "Anonymous" guy seems pretty knowledgeable... ^_^ 64.90.198.6 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- There's quite a bit available in Chinese. Just Google for 白公山 外星人 (Chinese for Baigon Mountain alien) and hit the translate button.
- Be aware that, when citing names, the the first word in a name will be the family name, and the second-third words will be that person's first name.
Wiki is citing: "Chinese Scientists Head for Suspected ET Relics" as factual support??? Seriously? So we can go to conspiracy, etc sites and use them as source???
Pseudoarchaeology
I'm not sure this article needs that link in it; I see no reason for crying pseudoarchaeology given the content of this page. I'm sure there may have been or might be outrageous claims as to the nature and origin and use of these pipes, but this article states absolutely nothing in that direction. I am half tempted myself to make up some supernatural theory about them and insert it into the article merely to justify its being placed among such apocryphal theories.
- The article is indeed a bit boring as it is now, isn't it? Anything to improve its entertainment value would be greatly appreciated. Wikipeditor 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've no idea which pseudo-archaeology you are referring to, although it may have already been removed. I find it perplexing a UFO explanation is offered, but the more likely 'an unknown civilization, possibly in a period pre-historic, built them'. Or even an already known civilization built them and didn't leave records for some reason. 81.79.210.120 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Excessive fingerquotes
Maybe we've gone a bit overboard on the "'s in the article. It's a bit "distracting" when every "other" word is "quoted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.149.81 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Aggreed, they don't serve an obvious purpose. You want to say something, say it. Stop using quotes to try and imply something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.236.100 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I know what they are!
Obviously an ancient Chinese form of Internet. Octane [improve me?] 27.12.08 1738 (UTC)
How's that investigation going?
The Investigation section was written in past tense but doesn't seem to have any facts other than was was supposed to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like the mystery was already solved. The article should be updated to reflect this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Why no pictures?
I think there should be at least 2 pictures, one old known picture of the pipe in stone from top and other one from CCTV picture where one clearly can see its a pipe not "pipe" does not matter if its natural or man or "alien" made imho(one of the many links [1] - just ignore the talk OOPart). Im sore there is also better quality pictures available if one looks. Waffa 14:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)