Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

neutrality ??

It has become very clear that this topic has been "burned". Moderators and Wiki experienced editors exist by the grace of continuously questioning themselves in their neutrality. i.e. verifying if additional information has been disclosed since the last "consensus" has been made on a topic.

My edits were added after having verified recent information (i.e. just a few days old) that is generally available to the public. It is up to the readers of the lemma to decide what information is "the truth", it is the task of Wiki and its editors to present all versions of the information as neutral as possible. What the personal opinion is of an editor should have no bearing on an article or his edits....

The argument "Not reliable sources" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SterreHart) apparently is a stronger argument than photographs and video footage taken on-site..... I feel sorry for the quality of Wikipedia. SterreHart (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The requirement for reliable, published sources is a core principle of Wikipedia and will not be compromised. Please re-read WP:RS, which are not trumped by "recent photographs and video." Acroterion (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is up to the readers of the lemma to decide what information is 'the truth'.." Nonsense. We follow WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE to create neutral articles. We don't outright ignore expert opinions and scientific concensus, nor place it on par with opinions of those who are unreliable or with uninformed original research. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the edits made by SterreHart, the “verified recent information” apparently consists largely of a Youtube video, Virtual Light #4 ~ Sandie interviews Dr. Semir (Sam) Osmanagich ~ June 2013. The interview is largely Osmanagich pontificating on his personal views about the origin of Visočica hill and rehashing material that has been repeatedly discredited as discussed and documented in great detailed on the Le site d’Irna. For example, this video repeats claims that the local bedrock that comprises Visočica hill actually consists of “artificially made binding type material such as cement” as SterreHart wrote. This claim was made by Joseph Davidovits, who also claims that the stones Egyptian pyramids consists of blocks of man-made "geopolymer stone." The consensus of mainstream geologists and archaeologists, who have studied both the Egyptian pyramids and Visočica Hill, is that his arguments completely lack in any scientific validity and supported by largely people lacking the required expertise as discussed in A concrete tale.

The video presents only Osmanagich's opinions and interpretation without anything solid to back them up. This includes blatantly silly and pseudoscientifc claims about Visočica Hill that include “Ionized atmosphere in tunnels (negative ions) relieves physical maladies” and “28 kilohertz frequency is projected from the top of the pyramid but not from anywhere else in the area” as summarized by the website and levitating bowls. This video is completely lacking in the detailed and scientifically vetted material needed to verify these claims and qualify it as a verifiable and reliable source. In fact, the interview is part of the religious web site “For Spiritually Evolving Humans” that is run by the Virtual Light Organization Paul H. (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't seen anything yet until you read Mr. Osmanagić's personal page where Ronz (I'm beginning to wonder if that's Osmanagić or one of his employees) portrays the man as a distinguished scientist, and he's done it craftily over a period of several years. So now it reads as if Mr. Osmanagić is "an anthropology professor" and a member of "Russian" (by name only, not national status) academy of sciences, which is in fact a private company called academy. Then, his thesis adviser is portrayed as an anthropologist, but anthropology is offered neither at the University of Sarajevo nor the American University in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The adviser's own faculty page describes him as a professor of ideology (Marxism!) who has never written a single paper on the Mayas. Still, this man gave a PhD to Mr. Osmanagić for a thesis about the Mayas! I tried to clear up those issues on the personal page, but Ronz has simply deleted it all, while accusing me of edit war on my Talk page, although days have passed between those (only) two edits by me, with a proper discussion (see above) in the mean-time. Now how weird can some Wikipedians get. Ideabeach (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tendentious editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GREATWRONGS#Righting_Great_Wrongs

"what matters is not truth but verifiability."

BeLIEve it and do as you are TOLD. 82.127.43.154 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Solipsist-Authoritarian

"Bosnian pyramids" instead of Bosnian pyramids

I added quotation marks. The first sentence says those are natural formations. As such, they can't be called pyramids as that would imply they were man-made objects. I'll try change it throughout Wikipedia, but if I miss some please let me know, or change it yourselves. No discussion is required for obvious blunders. Ideabeach (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Move to rename the article from 'Bosnian pyramids' to 'Bosnian pyramids hoax'

I added a European Association of Archaeologists Declaration signed by seven leading European mainstream archaeologists calling the case a hoax. I put it in the Controversy section, which I renamed to Hoax. This is official view by mainstream science. Accordingly, I move to rename the article, from Bosnian pyramids to Bosnian pyramids hoax. Ideabeach (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammatically it would need to be "pyramid". — kwami (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So then Bosnian "pyramids" hoax? Ideabeach (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pyramids" in the plural is incorrect. It should be "pyramid hoax". — kwami (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid hoax does sound better, thanks. Ideabeach (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we're taking the EAA statement as scientific consensus. We've some experts that monitor these articles and I'd like to hear their opinions on this.

I'm not sure that we should say this is a hoax, based upon EAA statement, or any of the other reference, as changed with these recent edits. What do others think? What other articles do we have that use "hoax" in this manner under similar circumstances? --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Where might we find those other experts? Shouldn't we work with what we have? It beats the purpose if we had to conduct our own polls, solicit second opinions etc. It seems to me that you have a problem with the fact it's the EAA that issued the statement. Personal problem, even? Also, why did you revert all changes I made to Semir Osmanagic article? For instance, his mentor is really a marxist/ideology professor as can be seen from his official faculty page (use an online translator if you don't believe), not anthropologists, and he never published on the Mayas. In spite of this, Mr. Osmanagic claims to be an anthropology professor, and expert on Mayas even. I think those are very important issues that must be noted in his main bio article as they expose him as a crook and his whole ordeal as a hoax, adding to the famous Declaration by the seven distinguished scientists that you keep downplaying for some odd reason (yet you remain anonymous). Are you some acquaintance of his, or are you him, perhaps? I'd like to ask you to please revert those reverts yourself, as your action doesn't make sense. Ideabeach (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait and see who responds. I've asked if Dougweller (talk · contribs) would take a look at this discussion.

Please review WP:FOC and WP:BLP in the meantime, and consider editing your comments about Osmanagic so they don't violate BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just did, thanks. I can't see that my comments violate BLP. In summary, I merely pointed out the fact that Mr. Osmanagić is a member of a private Russia-based company called academy, not the Russian Academy of Sciences. Why not mention this? The way it is now on his bio page, it appears that he is a distinguished scientist. Which he is not, for example a EAA Declaration calls him a hoaxter. I also pointed out that his thesis adviser is not an anthropologist though Mr. Osmangić claims to be a professor of anthropology. Also, his adviser (according to that adviser's own faculty page) is a professor of ideology such as Marxism, who never wrote a single paper on the Mayas yet he dared endorse Mr. Osmanagić's thesis on the Mayas. I call fraud, corruption, or whatever... just not a merit-based thesis, obviously. Ideabeach (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not one of those experts, but... in response to on Ronz' last question, the answer has to be "very few". Most (though not all) the article titles linked in our List of hoaxes don't describe their topic as a hoax; on the proposed retitling in general, I'm guessing that unless a hoax is legally proven (which would require the acceptance of expert testimonial - in this case, that of the EAA - in a court of law), we should use the neutral term. I don't think we should submit the so-called "Bosnian Pyramids" to an editorial trial. We're still in the realm of allegation and controversy, preposterous though it might seem, and the article should reflect that. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is against, and the EAA signatories describe this as a "cruel hoax"; the article should say so, in quotes. In fact, I believe it already did, before the recent changes were made; MOS issues aside, we really don't need all that bolding. Our article on Piltdown Man deals with an outrageous and blatant hoax; before that particular fraud was exposed, many supported it as a genuine "missing link". So in that article, we have a narrative giving the salient features and development of the case, including the exposure of the find as a hoax and the ruin of several careers and reputations. No need to over-egg the pudding. Compare also the article on the Kensington Runestone, and its categories. The local (Kensington) community seems to believe in the authenticity of the stone. Many propagators of falsehoods sincerely believe them to be true; and in most cases, any amount of scientific reasoning will probably fail to shift a sincerely held belief.

One of the difficulties with these "Bosnian Pyramids" is the sheer whackiness generated from natural geology, wishful thinking and thin air. All those writings and doings seem to have been ignored by the scientific community as "mostly harmless", simply not worth the rebuttal until a legion of untrained enthusiasts and True Believers started to strip, tunnel and generally hack away at the site, placing the hill's real archaeology at risk. So whether or not the EAA's statement represents scientific consensus on an incredible heap of pseudoscience seems moot. Haploidavey (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

After this many years, one would think that the pyramid (if there) would be visible to the naked eye by now, or in some segments along the edges at least. All the digs concentrate everywhere else but along the edges?! What court do you need to tell you that pseudo-science grew into a hoax, other than the "court" of mainstream scientists who see and weep over devastation this man is doing to truly magnificent sites around that valley of the kings? Why is this guy receiving "special care", seven years on, as if he's some sort of a precious box filled with china, instead of the usual treatment given to all pseudo-scientists across Wikipedia? Imagine if all the whacky physics theories were given "neutral" treatment as you propose here, and are shown side by side with mainstream theories? Evolution and creationism, side by side? Let's be reasonable here too. It's sickening to see some trying to portray this man as a distinguished scientist, by simply deleting all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ideabeach (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no pyramids. That's clear, and the article presents that viewpoint with appropriate weight.

Where are we representing him as a distinguished scientist? I don't believe we are. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just look at his personal page, which couldn't be more biased in favor of his purity as allegedly a distinguished scientist. Want proof? The personal page states he's a member of some Russian academy, but fails to report what kind of "academy" that is. I put quotation marks because it's not the Russian academy, but a private company called academy. That's boasting, pure and simple, as it introduces only his side of the academy detail. Then, the personal page states some facts about his thesis supervisor, but fails to report all relevant information on the supervisor, such as the fact he never published on Mayas, and that he specializes in ideology (Marxism), not anthropology that now Osmanagić claims to be a professor of, etc. Much like when you were pushing the EAA Declaration under the carpet as well as belittling it (you're still doing it here in talk pages) for way too long. You do have the proper references to supervisor's faculty homepage in my edits of the personal page, but you deleted those together with the edits. Ideabeach (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's all WP:OR. Given we're discussing a person, WP:BLP applies. Since no new references are being offered, nor any are being disputed in any manner, there's little we can do that wouldn't be subject to immediate deletion.

Original research? Now that's a serious misquote of Wikipedia regulations. As for the WP:BLP argument, look far below where four people (including myself) tell you that WP:BLP doesn't apply as this whole ordeal is a hoax, pure and simple. The seven reputable archaeologists calling it a hoax surely is worth more than whatever you a loner say. So I move again to add hoax to the title and clarify Mr. Osmanagić's personal page so to include complete information on the "Russian academy" and his thesis supervisor i.e. the fact the supervisor isn't an anthropologist and that he never published a single paper on the Mayas, according to his own faculty page. Can't think of a more faithful reference than that. Ideabeach (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you'll go through the talk page history, you'll find lists of potential references. It might also be worth discussing whether or not at least some of the material from http://irna.lautre.net/ might be pass WP:RS. -Ronz (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the label of "hoax", we should follow general consensus on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus, both here and in form of the EAA Declaration. I mean, do you see anyone besides you who's not thinking it's a hoax? Ideabeach (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus; Kwami, below, has reservations, and I do too. If anything, it violates WP:COMMONNAME -- pretty much all relevant sources refer to it as "Bosnian pyramids". I'm rather wary of the approach, so common in articles about pseudo-science, where we tutor our readers by slapping words "pseudo-science", "hoax", "controversy" in every other sentence. Interested neutral readers will quickly discover that the thing is a hoax, and there's nothing we could to to convince proponents of conspiracy/alien/UFO/bioenergy/you-name-it theories anyway. No such user (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course we have a consensus, just as the archaeology community has a consensus, namely the EAA Declaration that you've been pushing under the carpet, and won't discuss here, misquoting Wikipedia regulations instead. There is no reason why Mr. Osmanagić should be receiving a special treatment or why his pseudo-science should enjoy protection as if he's some sort of a "distinguished pseudo-scientist", which is an oxymoron of course. He's trying to pull a hoax, scientists practically unanimously called a hoax, and that's that. No Wikipedia regulation (even if you weren't misquoting those) can change the facts. Again, you should answer the question: are you him (Mr. Osmanagić) or paid by him maybe? I don't see any other explanation as to why anyone in their right mind would push so hard for us to confuse this man for a scientist. You're obviously forcing your own POV by stating that pseudo-science should receive the same attention and be given the same chance at Wikipedia as science. Really? Why not list all the alternatives to all the generally accepted scientific theories and knowledge then? Be careful of a serious precedent as you're pushing your POV. Ideabeach (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I actually wrote, or are you just throwing gratuitous insults and POV-pushing accusations based on what you thought I wrote? Let me rephrase in shorter terms so you might actually understand my position: the scientifically proven fact that it is a hoax is not a sufficient reason that our article title must include word 'hoax'. No such user (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What a nonsense, an encyclopedia that does not reflect scientific truth? That's just not worth commenting. While you seem angered for some reason, let's just stick to the facts. Science says it's a hoax, and by golly Wikipedia will say the exact same. Ideabeach (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to rename the article; this book also calls it a hoax. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm sure these are a hoax. I thinki the article makes it clear also. There are a couple of issues here. Would such a change violate WP:NPOV? And if we call it a hoax we are calling Osmanagic a hoaxer (it's my opinion that he is), but can we do that without violating WP:BLP? Maybe we have to answer the 2nd question first. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP doesn't insist that we can never imply anything bad about anybody; it just underlines the need for good sources (and careful wording to keep in line with what sources say). In practice, editors tend to apply that principle more often to negative claims about living people (Alas, we seem to have millions of unsourced positive claims about real people). For this article, if sources say that the pyramids are a hoax, it's reasonable for us to call the pyramids a hoax. Any implicit slight against Osmanagić is already in the sources; we shouldn't be adding anything new. I'd oppose a direct statement that "Osmanagić is a hoaxer" unless we had strong sources which said that directly. bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

For Piltdown, there's no need to call it a hoax in the title because no-one claims that it's real. But in this case we do have people continually pushing this as fact. I'm not sure we want to add "hoax" to the title, but it could be a useful response to chronic POV edits. If we were in 1953, we might want to add "hoax" to the title of the Piltdown article too. It reminds me of the importance of insisting on having the word "pseudoscience" in the lead of astrology. — kwami (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, the EAA Declaration is more than sufficient to rename the article as suggested, and to clarify the Mr. Osmanagić's misleading bio page. I was stunned to see that something as heavy-weight as the EAA Declaration was pushed under the carpet so craftily, a mere couple of years since the story got under the spot light. We just have to approach archaeology as we would any other science, it's simple as that. I've had enough of these mind-games by Ronz who pulled the same tricks back in 2010 except he then called it "premature" to rename the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#Bosnian_Pyramid_Hoax. Ideabeach (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions on renaming this article:

• Talk:Bosnian_pyramids/Archive_2#Page_move
• Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#Bosnian_Pyramid_Hoax

--Ronz (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I also think "Bosnian Pyramids Hoax" is a better title for the article. "Hoax" does suggest intentional trickery, but "Bosnian Pyramids Nationalist Delusion" would be even more defamatory even if more apt. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put, thanks for the support Dr. Rundkvist! It's always nice to see a scientist (and archaeologist in this case) contributing to a discussion like this. Science says it's a hoax, and by golly Wikipedia will say the exact same. Ideabeach (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so after many years of dragging this thing around as semi-legit, I now renamed the page. The new title reflects consensus amongst editors as well as scientific community - the European Association of Archaeologists Declaration in particular. I am going to clarify Mr. Osmanagić's personal page as well. Ideabeach (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Osmanagic's standing with regard to the archaeological professional community can probably be deduced from the fact that he claims in one of his books that the Maya Indians are descendants of aliens from the Pleiades. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Rundkvist. After years of watching this nonsense metastasize, I decided I should do something. But I never imagined in a million years that I would have to fight this hard to make Wikipedia reflect scientific consensus. Ideabeach (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The local and wider consensus is against such a rename. Take it up with an RfC or noticeboard discussion per WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That does seem to be the consensus here. I'm moving it back. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The consensus is reaffirmed below in the Ronz's new section also. Ideabeach (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please review WP:DR and WP:CON.

I can review the policy points that are not being addressed if needed. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at FTN, focusing what I believe is wide consensus against such titles. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A neutral pointer to the ongoing discussion would have been better, rather than starting a new discussion in another forum with just your viewpoint (smacks of forum shopping). That being said, 1) to call the article "Bosnian pyramids" implies that they are, in fact, pyramids. Were this a formal name (i.e. "Bosnian Pyramids", like "Mystery Hill") then that wouldn't be an issue, but as the name is descriptive ("Bosnian pyramids"), it needs to describe the scholarly consensus and not just the fringe claim. I am not sure "hoax" is the best way to describe the claim (I am a little afraid something is being lost in translation here, that it is the marketing of the claim that is being called a hoax, rather than the 'pyramids' themselves (i.e. that someone intentionally modified these hills to look like a pyramid just so that they could be claimed as such). Clearly the scholarly consensus is that the whole thing is simply made-up, groundless, irresponsible, unscientific fringe nonsense, but maybe not a hoax, per se. Still, calling it a hoax, which at least in some interpretation of the word is accurate, is better than calling them pyramids (which is inherently POV as it accepts the claim as reality). 2) given that you are the only one arguing against the change, it is dubious to suggest that local consensus is for it to remain under the name "Bosnian pyramids". 3) My own view is that the whole article is an unnecessary fork. I was going to suggest that a more neutral name be used, by simply describing the geographical feature, but we already have that page, Visočica hill. That page is not so long that the pyramid claims need split off of it, and I would say all this material needs to be merged into that article, and addressed in a manner similar to how the 'Face on Mars' claim is dealt with in the article Cydonia (region of Mars), and not in a separate article on the Face claim. Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your first point, that the name asserts the pyramids are actual. We do not need the word "hoax" in the article title, even though a hoax is proven to be present. Representative hoax articles which do not have "hoax" in the title are named Ica stones, Piltdown Man, Bananadine, Fiji mermaid, Drake's Plate of Brass, Cardiff Giant and Calaveras Skull. Your second point falls away if anyone other than Ronz takes his position (which I have.) Your third point is a valid merge discussion but has no bearing on this move discussion. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet. I think the comparison with Cydonia is worth discussing, as well as finding better titles per WP:COMMONNAME. Note that because this article is about the claims of five different hills all supposedly being pyramids, this article isn't a pov-fork, nor does it appear a simple merge to Visočica hill would be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

At least judging from the content of this article, most of the discussion has been about this one hill, and that the same claim has been made about other hills as well can be made as an aside. Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, most of your examples aren't relevant. The Ica stones are stones. Fiji mermaids is not a problem, since all mermaids are mythical so there is no need to distinguish this claim from a 'real' mermaid. All of the others are (at least presented as) formal names in all caps, not simply descriptive as is the case here. You joining in this does not suddenly make the consensus in favor of the name Bosnian pyramids, which is what Ronz was suggesting (although it may make it closer to 'no consensus'). As to your cavalier dismissal of my third point, is it more productive to have a discussion directed at finding the best solution to the problem, or must each individual possibility be debated in sequence? Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. We should follow WP:COMMONNAME, correct? If you want to look at how titles of hoaxes are handled, I refer once again to List of hoaxes. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is very much the point. To call them pyramids when they so obviously are nothing of the sort is itself misleading in the extreme. It's not like this is about something with a well-established common name. A whole theory about ancient civilizations got made up based on nothing but the superficial similarity of some landforms. That doesn't make 'Bosnian pyramids' the common name for the landforms. We don't have an article named "Face on Mars" even though that is the broadly popular name for the landform, in part because the scholarly consensus is that it isn't a Face on Mars and the use of that name is too deceptive. I actually don't think hoax is perfect in the name, because nobody is claiming that the landforms are hoaxes, intentionally doctored to look like pyramids, but rather the 'project' that is being called the hoax. Still, to just 'drink the Kool-Aid' and call them pyramids is to seriously mislead. (A look at List of hoaxes, while showing that most of them are not called such explicitly, also shows that a dozen or so of them are called that, so its not like its verboten.) Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Bosnian pyramids without prejudice. I just realized that the article was recently moved from Bosnian pyramids, ostensibly because there was consensus to do so. The discussion below shows there isn't. So, the "no consensus" here ought to default to the original name. That being said, I understand that there is a general sentiment that there may be a name more people feel reflects the validity of the concept discussed in the article. I've noticed that there have been some article names thrown around under #Discussion of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, etc., for example. However, that section is so confusing, given that it was started midway through this process and given people have changed their minds within it (so it's unclear what people prefer now). So, if it appears another name is floating to the top, I suggest initiating another move request. Or, if it seems extremely clear that there's consensus for one name, you could just move it there. I wouldn't suggest the latter though, given how well that worked the first time. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Bosnian pyramid hoax → Bosnian pyramids – The article should be returned to its state prior to the recent disputed move. The name of of the article does not need to contain the word "hoax" even though the fact of the hoax is well-established. The most common and simplest possible name should be used for the article. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"even though the fact of the hoax is well-established" is disputed. I ask it be struck. I've started a discussion on the topic below. --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - calling these hills pyramids in an unqualified manner is inherently POV. This is not a generally accepted common name for these topographical features, just a fringe claim of what they represent. I still think a merge is the way to go (see above). Agricolae (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable sources call them various things: "Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids", "Osmanagich's pyramids"[1], "Bosnian 'Pyramids'", "supposed pyramid"[2], "Bosnia pyramid story", "Bosnian pyramid story"[3], "Bosnian pyramids"[4], "Pyramid in Bosnia"[5], "Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun"[6], "Bosnia pyramid"[7], "Bosnia pyramid"[8], "Bosnia 'Pyramid'"[9] "Bosnia pyramid mystery"[10], "Bosnia's Pyramid of the Sun"[11], "Bosnia pyramid claim"[12]. When I look at these various terms, I see the thread running through them is "Bosnia" or "Bosnian" "pyramid" or "pyramids". Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To take a headline like "Experts nix Bosnian pyramid claim" as a basis for the commonality of calling them Bosnian pyramids is just plain deceptive. Many of these call them "Bosnian 'pyramids'", which is a different thing entirely from "Bosnian pyramids". I can cite you numerous examples of newspapers referring to the "flesh-eating virus" but we don't name a page that, because it isn't a virus, no matter how many newspapers call it one. We call it Necrotizing fasciitis. Agricolae (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose use of hoax in title - while I like the suggestion that we should pursue finding a better name, it appears that "Bosnian Pyramids" meets WP:COMMONNAME. I agree that there are POV problems with using "hoax" in this manner, possibly BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, you might want to rephrase your vote, to avoid confusion. You support the proposal to move the page back to Bosnian pyramids. Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's get a neutral RfC together first. The discussion was to rename the article to include "hoax" in the title. It's more than a little inappropriate to create an RfC worded as it is, and with claims that don't appear to follow from the sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The original discussion (never formalized into an AfC) was to move it to 'hoax', and it was eventually moved that way against your objections (and reversion). Now Binksternet has formally proposed to move it back, and you just voted Oppose on Binksternet's proposal, even though it would give the page back the name you have been favoring all along. Is that really what you want? Agricolae (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and let's not waste time with minutiae. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I am just trying to help you out. For the past two weeks you have argued for Bosnian pyramids and you just Opposed a proposal to give the page that name. Fine, vote against yourself then. Agricolae (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from context that Ronz supports the requested move. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A context that may not be evident to someone doing a quick close by scanning for 'Oppose' vs 'Support'. (No, that's not how someone is supposed to do a close but it happens.) I never expected this level of opposition to the suggestion that by avoiding this potential confusion, one would be doing oneself a favor. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - A title like "Bosnian pyramids" is fit for a page that dealt with genuine pyramid-like human-made constructions once used as tombs or temples. This is not the case here. "Bosnian pyramids" is obviously far too reminiscent of "Egyptian pyramids". The so-called "Bosnian pyramids" have been declared a stretch of the imagination by professional geologists and archaeologists alike. To the scientific community, calling flatirons pyramids is nothing short of a hoax. --Elnon (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a thought, Bosnian flatirons. Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Something like that should work. I wonder what local geographical regions we might consider rather than "Bosnia." --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In the description, they are referred to as 'near Visoko', so "Visoko flatirons"? Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We do have a source stating they are all flatirons, and they are all near Visoko. So if we ignore the sources with regard to WP:COMMONNAME and the resultant POV problems... Still, we've no idea if there are other flatirons in the area, and we really should have at least one source on the local geography if the article is going to be about local geographic features. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME has nothing to do with it, nor is there a POV problem in not calling them pyramids. There is no "if" about it. The article is about geographic features. We may not have any idea whether there are any other flatirons in the area, but then again, we have no idea if there are any pyramids in the area either - oh, wait, we do. There are no pyramids in the are, none at all, and that is the POV problem here. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: "Pyramid hoax" is easily confused with "pyramid scheme", as well as being non-neutral, and should be avoided. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it non-neutral? If our sources state that it's a hoax, then it's neutral for us to state that it's a hoax. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources is someone named Semir Osmanagić. Does he refer to it as a hoax? Using the word "hoax" is not only a declaration that the idea is incorrect, but that it is deliberate fraud. May I remind you of the WP:BLP policy? Calling it a "claim" or "theory" or "concept" seems OK, but calling it a hoax does not. Has any court officially declared it a hoax? Personally, I suggest "theory". Theories can be correct or they can be incorrect. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Semir Osmanagić does not call it a hoax, nor would one expect him, as the central proponent of the project that has been called a hoax, to himself call it such. It has not been declared a hoax by a court - court's don't tend to be involved in determination of cases of scientific fraud. It has, however, been called a hoax by the European Association of Archaeologists. 'Theory' is not just a word for anything that could be right or wrong, any outlandish claim. Agricolae (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Agricolae, some of your comments here and below give me the impression that you're trying to use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's not our responsibility to pass judgment on this notion. If you prefer "concept" or "hypothesis" to "theory", that's fine, but I think you're bordering on using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case I have not made my position clear. I am not trying to SOAPBOX anything (and there is a certain irony in suggesting that I am trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS when with regard to the specific proposal I am in favor of no change, to leave it as it is). I am suggesting that the original amateur archaeologist made a claim, calling them pyramids; that the immediate media response, as it usually is, was to credulously parrot the press release in calling them pyramids; and that subsequently every expert that has looked at them and most reliable sources have reported that they are not pyramids. This in no way establishes a formal name for the objects as pyramids. All the time scientists (and non-scientists) float trial balloons in this way, they get picked up by the media but are then shown not to be as claimed. It is part of the scientific (and unscientific) process but doesn't establish a formal common name for phenomena (the Denisovan was originally floated as X-Woman, but you don't see that any more, do you?). 'Landforms that aren't pyramids' is how they are now being described. As to 'theory', it is a word with a very specific meaning with a whole lot of baggage associated (e.g. Theory of Evolution). While sometimes it gets thrown around inappropriately and it sticks, we need to be more precise if we are coming up with an alternative name for this page. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

'Bosnian pyramid claim' would seem to be the best option if 'hoax' is considered not neutral (even if accurate) while there is still some need to have "Bosnian pyramid" somewhere in the title (neither of which judgments I necessarily agree with). Agricolae (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked Wikipedia policy about "claim" (at WP:CLAIM), and it is listed as an example "word to watch" for non-neutrality "implying a disregard for evidence", which I think is exactly the issue here, so it does not seem neutral. I think the best candidate may be 'concept'. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Concept" is not really spot on - it has much more the connotation of a mental construct, an abstraction, a formulation. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was also somewhat confused with the current title because the phrase "pyramid hoax" carries the meaning of pyramid scheme to me. Maybe it's just me. In any case, WP:POVTITLE seems to apply. Weak support. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not just you. I made the same comment above (perhaps not as clearly). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move – Removing "hoax" is misleading. --Article editor (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Simpler. If you think it's misleading to omit "hoax", I suggest that you open an RM for Piltdown Man. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move – Archaeology has already reached consensus by calling this nonsense a hoax. So Ronz, as I already told you on my Talk page where you falsely accused me of edit wars: stop lecturing everyone, and stop being so unreasonably stubborn. Your categorical "No" only harm your case, if any. This whole thing looks like you're campaigning against mainstream science. Do you even know who it is you're fighting? Seasoned, distinguished senior scientists of the European Association of Archaeologists, then Wikipedia's own archaeology editor Dr. Rundkvist, and so on! Besides, it looks like you have lost the ballot vote here as well. Both science and public have had their say. Live with it. Ideabeach (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move. We can't really know whether Osmanagic is delusional or a hoaxer. But we do know that all professional archaeologists consider his ideas about the hills of his native country to be unfounded and his fieldwork methods poor and destructive. Bosnia is a country with a rich and fascinating archaeological record. But pyramids are not part of it, and I think the title of this article should reflect that. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  That's original research, and making such claims within the article would violate NPOV and FRINGE. Granted, there are no pyramids. But do we label it a hoax? The broad consensus for other articles is that we do not. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Dr. Rundkvist is a Wikipedia archaeology expert. We are lucky to have his long-term expertise for free. To call his expert opinion on a topic of his expertise in which he has no personal interest an original research, is an insult to put it mildly. Or do you think we should trust you, a non-expert with unknown personal interests in the whole affair? At any rate, this is the second time I catch you falsely accusing editors. Before that, you accused me of edit war after only one reversal. Secondly, consensus is established on a case-to-case basis, not as some sort of average from broader consensuses on unrelated topics across the Wikipedia. And you lost in this case. Now please return the EAA Declaration section's title back to what it was before you renamed it while voting was still in progress. Reason: in the meantime, the vote turned out to be overwhelmingly against your proposition. Ideabeach (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  I'm afraid those viewpoints directly contradict WP:OR and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not sufficient to cite a rule as a proof that something or someone violates that rule. Burden of proof is on you, so you either show how exactly something or someone violates a rule, or stop misquoting rules by citing them in general. Ideabeach (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support While the topic certainly appears to be a hoax, and indeed some sources label it as such, I'm not convinced enough reliable sources have explicitly referred to it as a hoax. I'd rather err on the side of caution and move back, though I'm not particularly unhappy with the current title either. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A Declaration by EAA, calling it a hoax, is not reliable to you? Please... Ideabeach (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, etc.

Please explain why WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply in general, and how the actual sources justify any name being proposed.

It might be helpful to refer to Baigong Pipes, Bimini Road, Dendera light, Gympie Pyramid, and Piltdown Man. I suspect we can find other relevant examples in List of hoaxes. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because this is not the common name for that set of flatirons, just what one person would like to pretend they are. Piltdown Man is the name under which that item is known to history. Same with the Bimini Road: that is now the name of the landform, which has been called by that name for decades. With rare exceptions, these flatirons are called pyramids only in the credulous initial reports and only then as a description and not as a common name. And they clearly aren't pyramids, so the description is no longer viable or accurate. If this hoax happens to get picked up by the 'little blue people from outer space brought civilization to the world' crowd and they start calling them The Bosnian Pyramids then the name would be viable, but is not the case, at least not yet. Since it is then descriptive and not a formal name, then we should choose a simple name that is not inherently deceptive and POV, as it would be to give an unqualified description of them as pyramids. Agricolae (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps we'll have to follow WP:TITLE more generally.

Note "pyramid" is not inherently deceptive, as it is a description of a shape. Still, I'd rather not use it if we had other options. However, all the sources use it. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yonaguni Monument is another example. It would be extremely helpful if editors found examples to support their interpretation of relevant policies and their proposals. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Face on Mars! It would be extremely helpful if editors didn't play WP:ICANNTHEARYOU. Agricolae (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

Cydonia (region of Mars) is an interesting example. Would I be wrong to assume that most of the press about it referred to the "face" rather than "Cydonia"?

Of course pyramid describes a shape, so it's not inherently deceptive. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So far, no one has started excavations on Mars, or otherwise tried to make money off of Cydonia. So no reason for scientists to call a hoax. Obviously, the EAA and many other scientists simply played their role of socially responsible thinkers by calling Mr. Osmanagić's endeavor a hoax. Ideabeach (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's certainly been called a hoax, and certainly been used to make money.

We write articles around sources, following Wikipedia's policies. We don't simply make things up, nor do we ignore sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I love how you love to overuse the word "Nonsense", speaks volumes about you. Lack of arguments forces you to enhance your posts like that, and it's understandable. Did you notice the keyword excavations in the above? Mars... excavations... joke... get it? No? Oh, well. In any case, who is "we"? Do you represent Wikimedia Foundation, perhaps? I didn't think so. Ideabeach (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd assumed that no one would think it is worth discussing excavations on Mars.

That leaves the hoax and money claims, which are nonsense. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course they make no sense, since excavation was the keyword. Excavation... on Mars? Joke? Oh well... Anyway, you keep forgetting it wasn't me who declared it a hoax, seven most reputable European archaeologists did. Besides, you again missed the crux: the EAA and many other scientists simply played their role of socially responsible thinkers by calling Mr. Osmanagić's endeavor a hoax Ideabeach (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, you can't have it both ways, to condemn musings about what behavior would be extremely helpful in other editors, immediately after you mused about what behavior would be extremely helpful in other editors.

The people using the word 'pyramid' mean something very specific and it is not the general shape. To pretend that since the word 'pyramid' can also refer to a general shape its use here is POV-neutral is ignoring the fact that just as every source is using that word to refer to a man-made structure, so it is most likely to be interpreted by a reader. I tried above to come up with an entirely neutral alternative and you dismissed it out of hand as having (never explained) POV problems. Agricolae (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"One may conclude that the human hands modified this hill to give it a more regular/geometrical shape (artificial pyramid)"

"However, in 2010 he released a report in which he clarified that he does not claim it is a man-made pyramid, but rather that he uses the term for any feature, natural or artificial, which is a geometric pyramid." --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great. The Aquatic Ape Theory strikes again! (For context, originally proposed that humans spent a significant period of their evolution as an aquatic organisms and evolved various adaptations to this aquatic lifestyle. With a body of evidence refuting that such a period existed, 'aquatic' is being redefined by supporters as just meaning that they might have gotten a little bit moist from time to time and they occasionally ate sushi.) Even if the proponent has changed his tune, the sources are using pyramid specifically (hence they have begun qualifying it by calling it a 'pyramid claim' or putting pyramid in quotes. They are not challenging its geometrical shape, but whether it is what people will immediately think of when they see that word). Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So we've established that "pyramid" can refer to the shape, it is sourced with respect to the topic of this article, and is actually used within this article.

I'd rather not use "pyramid."

How about we go back to trying to find alternatives like "Visoko flatirons"? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And why not 'Bosnian "pyramids" ' with pyramid within quotation marks? people looking for information will search for "bosnian pyramid", not for Visoko and "flatiron".Ilinka Z (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Are there any articles with such titles? GA or FA articles? --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of quotation marks in that way (as "scare quotes") is generally discouraged by policy. Please see WP:ALLEGED. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not 100% sure I was reading that policy statement correctly. Please consult its wording for yourself. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We'd be using the quotes to indicate they are a label rather than real pyramids. I don't know if it's appropriate though. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What objections do we have to renaming it "Visoko flatirons", changing the lede enough to make it clear that the article is about the pseudo-archeology? --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

An article about a real-world geological formation should not deal mainly with a discredited archaeological hypothesis. That would be like the article about Lapland dealing mainly with Santa Claus and his toy factory. I would be happy if an article about the Visoko flatirons contained one or two sentences about Osmanagic's ideas, including the fact that they are not believed by professionals. Is anybody here knowledgeable enough about hills in the Bosnian countryside to write that article? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is all there is to write about - I found a geologist being quoted that they are geologically mundane - not even worth studying (not true paleontologically - their potential interest there was expressed in Science magazine - there may be something usable in that Correspondence, which talks a little about it being an ancient lake-bed and having strata with fossil angiosperms and perhaps even vertebrates). WEIGHT determines that we mirror coverage, and unfortunately coverage has been almost exclusively of the 'are they or aren't they' type, and not about the landforms themselves. Agricolae (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I share the concerns, but if you've been following the discussions on titles of similar articles, that's exactly what we do. We don't use "hoax" in titles except in rare cases which no one has bothered to examine in detail. We instead title articles around per WP:TITLE. Perhaps you could refer the the pertinent parts of WP:TITLE that you feel apply here? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Except in that case Mr. Osmanagić (and his Wikipedia editors?) wouldn't be making any money now would he. Wikipedia sure can be a source of income as combined with Google when you're trying to sell something as ridiculous as "Bosnian pyramids" and you have Wikipedia pages that do their best to portray it as a legit affair and you as a distinguished scientist. Just look at how Ronz now craftily reworded the section entitled "hoax" (that is mainly about the EAA Declaration) without discussion and even though he clearly lost the vote here. Hoaxters are always a few and they usually come in pairs or small groups, but they know their con art and use any means they can. Like Ronz's overuse of word "Nonsense" to whatever argument you present in order to enhance his lack of arguments, or his constant misquoting of Wikipedia regulations to impress the uninitiated. Ideabeach (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How would everybody feel about calling the article "Osmanagic Pyramid Hypothesis"? (And Ideabeach, I suggest you take a look at Ronz's contribution list and apologise to him/her. Ronz is wikilawyering a bit which I personally always find annoying, but your insinuation that Ronz would be making money off of the pyramid silliness is absurd. Assume good faith!) Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This would work for me as their description as pyramids is inextricably linked to this one individual, and in so attributing, it removes the impression that this view is in any way accepted more broadly among the archaeological community. Agricolae (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems well considered all round. I hope others find it acceptable. Haploidavey (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems approximately perfect to me. However, I suggest thinking a bit about diacritics and capitalization. I think we should consider "Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis", "Osmanagich pyramid hypothesis", or "Osmanagic pyramid hypothesis". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely - I was just addressing the concept. "Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis", with redirects from the others. Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

At one time, the french article was called "Hypothèse des pyramides de Bosnie", it's a pity that someone put it back to "Pyramide de Bosnie"...Ilinka Z (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "Pyramid of the Sun" may have been a "hypothesis" in 2006 but it has long since stopped being such in 2013. Besides, I believe the word "hypothesis" should be reserved for the kind of scientific research that is conducted by professional geologists and archeologists instead of being applied to what pertains in reality to pseudo-archaeology performed by proponents of New Age theories on an unquestionable flatiron. --Elnon (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a no-win situation: if we call it a claim then that (it has been suggested) is POV because it implies it might not be true (um, yeah, that is the overwhelming scholarly consensus); if we call it a hypothesis, that is POV, implying it might be true. I don't know that there is a viable word in between. I would suggest, though, that we are not necessarily restricting the name to what it is now understood to be. The article title can be based on the 2006 proposal, just as we could refer to the aether hypothesis without suggesting that it currently has any validity. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally think "hypothesis" implies validity. I do think "claim" implies disregard for evidence (per WP:CLAIM), although it's far better than "hoax", which seems like direct accusation of fraud. I notice that "Flat earth hypothesis" redirects to an article simply entitled "Flat Earth", and "Aether hypothesis" redirects to an article simply entitled "Luminiferous aether". Those two examples would suggest our title could just be "Bosnian pyramids" or "Osmanagić pyramids"! I also personally think "concept" is fine. Or "Bosnian pyramids fringe theory". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We do have Pole shift hypothesis which isn't a redirect. I'm beginning to think that "Bosnian pyramids" does suggest they are real. I'd be happier with "Bosnian pyramids hypothesis" than the old name. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How about using the word "myth", in the sense of popular misconception, as in "Myth of the Bosnian pyramids", or simply adopting Osmanagić's own wording - "Bosnian pyramid of the Sun" -, whose outlandishness needs no further elaboration? --Elnon (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hypothesis, theory, claim... all imply scientific approach and methodology in the context of this kind of articles. As far as we know, Mr. Osmanagić is not an anthropology professor since the school he claims to be lecturing at offers no anthropology or archaeology major or a course. So far, no one has been able to verify his mentor's professorial title either, quoted by Osmanagić's page as "professor of the sociology of culture and history of civilization". So we can't give Osmanagić the same treatment as we would to a scholar. Instead, we must hold on to what mainstream scholars say about his project, calling it a hoax. Note they don't call him personally a hoaxer, although his prior undergrad and grad degrees are in economics and marketing. Ideabeach (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Theory, definitely; hypothesis, sort of (see below); but claim? People 'claim' to have been kidnapped by aliens and anally probed. People 'claim' to be the true king of England. People 'claim' that the Illuminati and the people with the Black Helicopters are running the world. People 'claim' that a piece of toast talked to them in God's voice. People 'claim' to have had the winning lottery ticket, but their dog ate it. 'Claim' doesn't imply squat about approach or methodology, just that the 'claim' isn't being given the benefit of the doubt. As to 'hypothesis', he is following the scientific process, in his own sort of way. He made a hypothesis - that those triangular shaped landforms were really man-made pyramids. That this was viewed as a scientific hypothesis by the media is clear enough from the coverage. He then tested his hypothesis by digging around the mountain. The manner in which he did so may be viewed as incompetent, misplaced, ill-informed and/or counterproductive by the experts, but on the most basic level it would qualify as hypothesis testing - the scientific method. Note though that it is critical that it have his name in the title to show that he and he alone views it that way. (And by the way, what degrees or job titles he holds have nothing to do with the evaluation of his methodology. It's irrelevant. People without such appointments/degrees can do good science, and some people with them are shockingly inept.) As to 'hoax', I have never been happy with it - as I interpret the main quote, what primarily is being called the hoax by the scientific community is his 'extraction of money from various sources to go play amateur archaeologist', not the original pyramid idea itself, which is usually portrayed as completely bogus, even ridiculous, but not a hoax. Even his excavations reforming the hill are depicted as over-enthusiasm and perhaps even self-delusion run amok rather than a hoax. The only thing I have seen that makes an actual hoax accusation about the site itself regards those inscriptions. (And to address Christian, no to 'myth'. Just no. When someone is claiming that these represent cultural-religious structures, the last thing we want to do is use a term which has cultural-religious connotations as 'myth' does. It will give people the false impression that there is anything cultural involved here, as opposed to just something someone simply made up 8 years ago.) Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A scientist's claim is not the same as some layperson's claim. When someone with a PhD claims something on a topic of his degree, and does it as eagerly as Mr. Osmanagić has been doing it, that implies a scientific hypothesis of course. Ideabeach (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Myth" would not be good here. To archaeologists, anthropologists, historians of religion, "myth" means "ancient religious story about the creation and maintenance of the world". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Hoax" & NPOV

As I've pointed out multiple times now, we have no sources that I'm aware of that discuss any hoax in detail, so I'm at a loss how we can title this article to include the word "hoax" without violating NPOV. The reliable sources that we have that use the label of "hoax" are few, and they use the word sparingly, and discuss the relevant matters conservatively. We should as well, otherwise we're not following the sources and cannot be presenting the label in a neutral fashion. Note that other than the recent title change, we have been conservative with it's use.

Shall we look at the sources one by one? Or perhaps that there are some sources that no one has yet brought up in these discussions that clearly justify labeling this as a hoax in general? --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• This book and the statement cited in note 5 are plenty authoritative. Why should its hoaxiness be discussed in detail? That they're not pyramids is discussed in great details, and those two pretty reliable sources call it a hoax. Do they have to repeat it more than a certain number of times before it sticks? 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  That book uses "hoax" once. The actual context is a note at the end of the entry stating, "The best summary of the Bosnian pyramid hoax can be found in an article published in Archaeology magazine (Kampschror 2006)."--Ronz (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  Right. A pretty unequivocal statement that it is considered a hoax, in what appears to be a pretty reliable source (published by Greenwood/ABC-CLIO), pointing to another reliable source. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  In what manner is it a hoax? Please quote from the source. You might want to look at the reference from the note here which doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. --Ronz (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  In the manner described in the previous seven paragraphs in that article. The article you link to is called "Pyramid Scheme". It's not a jump from there to "hoax", it's not original research or synthesis. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  That's WP:OR. More importantly, it's a POV violation. To repeat: the sources are being extremely conservative with their claims. Why is it that we should be different? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  To summarize a source without using their exact words is not WP:OR, else Wikipedia would be nothing but a WP:QUOTEFARM. The summary should be accurate and in goof faith, but need not use the exact same words (in fact, it shouldn't). As to a POV violation, WP:FRINGE says, "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, . . . should be documented as such, using reliable sources." Given the weight of the scientific community on one side of this argument, and its absence from the other, It is not POV to call it what it is. Agricolae (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  To summarize improperly, to give undue weight, or use terms in a manner that doesn't follow the sources would be a POV violation, and often OR as well depending on the situation.

  What justifies us being less conservative than the sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, hypothetically speaking, to not make a good faith summary would be a POV violation, but if you are arguing that, why invoke OR? I am struggling to follow the whole chain of reasoning here: the original source doesn't explicitly use the work 'hoax' so it would be OR to use that word because an inaccurate summary would be POV and POV can sometimes be OR??? If you think the summary is inaccurate, that is reason enough to question it without wielding policies as WP:BLUDGEONs. Given that we have sources from the scientific community explicitly calling the whole thing a hoax and a travesty, are we being less conservative? It is being called absurd and pseudoscientific. Agricolae (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  "He points out various boulders he says were transported to the site 15,000 years ago, some of which bear carvings he says date back to that time. In an interview with the Bosnian weekly magazine BH Dani, Nadija Nukic, a geologist whom Osmanagich once employed, claimed there was no writing on the boulders when she first saw them. Later, she saw what appeared to her as freshly cut marks. She added that one of the foundation's workers told her he had carved the first letters of his and his children's names." [13]

  "The best summary of the Bosnian pyramid hoax is in an article published in Archaeology Magazine (Kampschror, 2006)" Kenneth L. Feder, Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology, 2010 p. 46.

  Again, please WP:FOC

  I'm not concerned about whether the edits/proposals/etc are good faith. I'm concerned with what the sources actually say and how we write an article from them while following our policies and guidelines.

  I asked for quotes. I hope that some are forthcoming. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  Now you are questioning the entire article and not just the title? Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm not seeing even a hint here of consensus that it belongs in the title, nor that we should be making sweeping statements about their being a hoax. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Title discussions should go in the other section of the Talk page that covers the requested move, not here, since this is a different section. This section should be about the article content. There is nothing wrong with discussing the article content. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to focus the discussion on relevant policies, sources, and broader consensus. If we do not, then there cannot be any consensus. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is decided on a case-to-case basis, not as some sort of average from unrelated topics across the Wikipedia. Of course there can be consensus without "broader consensus" (whatever that meant), as there is a consensus established in a usual way here too: by voting. Besides, you put it up for the vote yourself, remember? And you lost. Ideabeach (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, consensus is not decided on a case-by-case basis, nor is consensus a vote. See WP:CON, especially the first paragraph and WP:CONLIMITED. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You are again misquoting (misunderstanding?) regulations. Broader consensus is needed in order to change policies and guidelines. Feel free to provide a policy or a guideline on hoaxes. As far as I can tell, there is none. Ideabeach (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself, but to me it is clear that the current title is not acceptable, and I refer specifically to the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. As I previously said, "Using the word "hoax" is not only a declaration that the idea is incorrect, but that it is deliberate fraud. May I remind you of the WP:BLP policy?" Wikipedia should not accuse someone of fraud. Moreover, my impression is that most reliable sources do not use the word "hoax". My impression is that most of them say they think the theory is incorrect, but "incorrect theory" and "hoax" have very different meanings. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but Wikipedia isn't accusing anyone of fraud but, as usual, citing relevant sources which, in this case, call it a fraud. And it's not just any source, it's Europe's seven most distinguished scientist, of the EAA. If I were in their shoes I would have called him a hoaxer too, given he holds undergrad and grad degrees in economics and marketing. Bur for some reason, those reputable scientists went only so far to call this specific project of his a hoax. Ideabeach (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just trying to figure out which discussions are part of the discussion of the requested move and which are not. I see that you moved this section under that one. That's fine. As a result, I struck through my comment about where the title should be discussed. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes he's shuffling discussions freely, so it seems he's trying to bury the above vote with some nonsense about "broader consensus" as an imaginary category that can't be measured. He lost the vote that he asked for, but he doesn't seem to like the sound of it. He's getting nervous for some reason, so he has already passed two false accusations: against me for an edit war after just one reversal, and against Wikipedia's own archaeologist Dr. Rundkvist for allegedly pushing original research on a topic Dr. Rundkvist is an expert for and has no personal interest in. There's something odd about Ronz and his passion for fighting science, which eerily resembles Mr. Osmanagić himself. Ideabeach (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to as "he" here, but I'm not especially interested in discussing editor conduct at the moment. I fully agree with Ronz's suggestion that we should try to focus on content. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You know I'm referring to Ronz's false accusations. Ideabeach (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to clarify Semir Osmanagić's personal page

Discussion to continue at Talk:Semir Osmanagić

Semir Osmanagić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ronz has hastily reversed my attempt (here and here) to clarify Mr. Osmanagić's personal page. Namely, the page is craftily written to portray Mr. Osmanagić as a distinguished scientist. So for example, and contrary to the first impression on the uninitiated audiences, he is not a member of the distinguished national Russian Academy of Sciences, but of a private company called confusingly similarly: Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. For some reason, Ronz doesn't like making a clear distinction between the two. Secondly, Mr. Osmanagić's claim that he is an anthropology professor is highly suspicious because: (A) the American University in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he claims to be lecturing in anthropology, offers no such course and is not science-oriented institution but a diplomacy one, and (B) his University of Sarajevo thesis adviser is not an anthropology professor but most likely an ideology (Marxism) professor, who according to his own faculty page has never published a single paper about the Mayas, yet he has endorsed a PhD to Mr. Osmanagić for a thesis on the Mayas. For some reason, Ronz doesn't like having Mr. Osmanagić's claim of being an anthropology professor clarified either. Based on the above demonstrated consensus by both scientific and Wikipedia communities (that the core reason this man has his own personal page was actually a hoax and that all subsequent claims by this man must be taken with caution to say the least), I hereby move that we clarify the man's personal page in the above manner also. The reason why I'm doing it in here and not at the personal page's Talk, is because Ronz originally proposed that we discuss the personal page edits in here also, and I agreed. Ideabeach (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Disrespectful just as I thought. Anyways, can you provide a reliable source saying that the American University in Bosnia and Herzegovina does indeed offer anthropology program or a course? Annual Calendar, at least? Because their list of Academic Majors lists neither anthropology nor archaeology in the lists of majors and courses (use the right-column menu to open Java tables with every single course they offer from undergraduate to doctoral, in all four undergrad divisions, both Masters divisions, and all three doctoral divisions). As far as we can tell, calling Mr. Osmanagić a "professor of anthropology" is his own claim or a webmaster's deed if you saw it somewhere on the Internet, which means unofficial and thus unreliable as well. Please provide a reliable source as I said, or remove his professorial title. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Regarding the Russian Academy of Sciences membership, that topic has been removed from the article (by Ronz). Does that take care of that problem? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I'd hope so. Seems like a waste of time to dispute content that is no longer in an article without first noting that the material has been removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Well, some of us may not log on as often as you on an encyclopedia which is supposedly ran by volunteers instead of 24/7 professional staff. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) The article should not directly comment about whether Osmanagić holds proper qualifications or actually teaches what he says he teaches or whether his thesis advisor was the appropriate kind of professor to supervise his claimed degree. That is WP:Original research, which is not appropriate. If there are reliable sources that say those things, the article can refer to those statements by reliable sources. But if there are no reliable sources, there should be no commentary. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC) The article should provide reliable sources on Repovac's professorial title as well. So far, we have no reliable sources that can confirm his title as Ronz stated it in the artice, of "professor of the sociology of culture and history of civilization". Repovac's personal faculty page is the prime source, more reliable than any secondary sources like the interview Ronz quoted, in which only the editorial subtitle calls him a "professor of the sociology of culture and history of civilization". His Faculty page doesn't state that at all. Ronz: please find a more reliable source than an interview's editorial subtitle. Those are always (without exception) a part of the normal editorial process in journalism, and you should know this if you want to reference newspapers properly. Editorials are entirely made up by the journalist or an editor. In other words, the Repovac's professorial title as you misquoted it in Mr. Osmanagić's article did not come from Repovac or his Faculty, but as far as we know it is the journalist's or editor's own interpretation. Please provide a reliable source or remove Repovac's title. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Please stop using this page to discuss disputes on another page that are unrelated to any dispute here. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC) You know I did it in here only to accommodate you, after you suggested we do it in here. (Was that another of your booby traps?) Of course, I have no problem with moving the discussion to his personal page's Talk, as the most appropriate avenue I wanted to take in the first place, but was diverted by you to come over here. If you care to check it out, I started a new section on his personal page's Talk. Ideabeach (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry I wasn't clear. While discussions here on how to label the pseudo-archeological claims with words like "hoax" are directly relevant to the other articles, that's as far as it goes that I can see. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Oh well. In case you missed it again on his Talk page, here I copy per your wish the latest update: All i'm saying is that a magazine's editorial subtitle can't be considered a reliable source. If the professorial title has indeed come out of the mentor's mouth during the interview (but we see it didn't), or can be verified on the mentor's Faculty page, I'd say leave it. The title must be removed until a reliable source is found that verifies his title. But somehow I doubt such a source will ever be found. Just look how pompous that title is, it reads like Abner Ravenwood's: "it is said that Ravenwood disliked the British for their "armchair anthropology" ". Now if that doesn't sound like Osmanagić, I don't know what does. The whole affair reads as if copied straight from the Marvel's original comic book. Except it's not as funny. Ideabeach (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I added a link to the University's page on Osamangic's talk page, Ideabeach must not have read it entirely, it calls him "Director of the Center for Archaeology: Anthropology Professor Sam Semir Osmanagich, Ph.D. in Mayan Studies" and has a long list of fringe subjects the center will presumably cover.[14]. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Oh I read it, but you didn't. Please see more at the Osmanagić's Talk. Ideabeach (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 07:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Bosnian pyramids → Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis – A lot of people are clearly unhappy with the current name and this was the compromise suggestion that seemed to garner the most (although not universal) support, so let's see. Agricolae (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

calling a delusion a hypothesis is unnecessary, and does not satisfy NPOV. If you want to change the name, there is Visočica hill. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have responded negatively to my invocation of WP:POVTITLE above. Yes, the name is biased, because the whole notion is biased. This happens all the time, and it's not supposed to be taken to imply that Wikipedia somehow supports the notion. It merely describes it under its most common name. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with applying POVTITLE is that its application isn't entirely straightforward. It draws a distinction between a name used by the source and a description applied by editors. What we are talking about here was a description (not a name) that has been used by sources but more recent reliable sources are now mostly describing it as a "pyramid 'claim'" or putting pyramids in quotes, rather than using the simple description. Agricolae (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

IIRC that's not a distinction POVTITLE makes, it refers exactly to those kinds of situations. Think Final Solution or similar. But more to the point, I don't think you're correct to describe the phrase "Bosnian pyramids" as merely a description - at least in Croatian media, that phrase has been consistently used as a name for this whole story from day one, regardless of whether they promoted it or mocked it. I don't know about elsewhere, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE: "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." Agricolae (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Calling it a hoax does seem to go a little far, even if we have some sources calling it that. The "pyramids" are clearly there, after all. "Hypothesis" does work better, as it's just a wild and false claim about the origin of the "pyramids", not fake pyramids (which is what "hoax" implies). SnowFire (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Note I've added a section heading so editors can easily find where "Osmanagic Pyramid Hypothesis" was proposed and the subsequent discussion: Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#Osmanagic_Pyramid_Hypothesis.3F. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  I changed that section heading to an anchor template tag. It will function the same way if someone clicks on it, but you should not modify the content of an archived move discussion like that. There was no section heading there while the discussion was happening. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  Much better. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support any move to a title that does not refer to them unequivocally as "pyramids". --Article editor (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning toward 'oppose'. I think the title should contain "Bosnian" and "pyramid", yet not flatly imply that they are pyramids the way the current title does. "Hypothesis", while technically accurate, has connotations of scientific legitimacy. Maybe s.t. like "Bosnian pyramid claims"? — kwami (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Roughly neutral, and a change of title doesn't really seem necessary: As with "Flat Earth", "Luminiferous aether", and "Global cooling", entitling an article with the name of a concept does not imply validity of the concept. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The pyramid thing revolves around one "alternative" author and his publicity efforts. Thus the article's title should refer to his name. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How is 6:1 NOT a valid vote for Wikipedia? I am reverting the title to Bosnian hill hoax

I was away from Wikipedia for a few days and upon returning, surprise surprise... A 24-year old user Tariqabjotu came to rescue of Ronz and reverted the page title after a 6:1 consensus (plus one weak vote) has been reached to leave the title of Bosnian pyramids hoax. Such title reflects the European Association of Archaeologists Declaration that explicitly calls the affair a hoax. Please refer to the above discussion which the same user has now marked in green. Did he think a trick of calling it "by default" and painting it with paint could actually override the 6:1 vote? Oh no, it can't. So I am reverting the title back to what it was. Anyone who has a problem with this thing being called what science and Wikipedians say should be called: please refer to the discussion and vote above, especially the craftily painted part. Wikipedia is about scientific truth more than pleasing students with weird ideas on what the world should look like. Ideabeach (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Mine, mine, I have just tried but now I'm unable to move the page back to the title as agreed by consensus amongst Wikipedians, which reflected the consensus in various scientific communities. So who is protecting Osmanagić? What a dark day for Wikipedia. 6:1. Truth doesn't matter any more. Ideabeach (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Workaround: I moved the page to Bosnian hill hoax. Enough BS. Ideabeach (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not 6:1. The proposer does not vote separately, as their act of proposing is taken to represent support. Likewise (and this is exactly why I tried in vain to get them to modify the way they expressed their position), Ronz wrote "Oppose use of hoax in title", which is actually support for a move from 'pyramid hoax' to simply 'pyramids'. A weak support cannot be dismissed simply because it is weak, and there was a 'Comment' that was dismissive of the 'hoax' name, so that's more 5/4.5. The Closer concluded that if there was no consensus for the proposed move, there must not have been consensus for the opposite move done right before the formal proposal was made, a perfectly reasonable decision falling well within policy. I wish the outcome had been otherwise, but part of participating in the Wikipedia community is respecting the outcome of such processes, or at least using proper procedures to try to get them overturned. If you think the Close decision was in error, then you should formally challenge the closure and not simply unilaterally negate the outcome. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Agricolae is entirely right. From a strictly procedural point of view, if an article is moved from A->B, and a RM is promptly opened to move it from B->A, and the result is "no consensus," then that no consensus should imply it be moved back from B->A to the previous stable title. Otherwise, this would reward "shooting first" and moving without opening a RM in controversial cases. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You two can try bury the facts under piles of nonsense as you attempted in the above, but 6:1 remains 6:1 for everyone who can add and subtract. Ideabeach (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Move protected

Sort it out - I've protected it against being moved again for 3 days. This move warring is unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Endorse protection: I was going to do the same thing. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

3 days is probably short given that some of the regular editors involved in these discussions don't contribute on a daily basis.

As a procedural note, if we do end up moving it again, the talk page archives shouldn't be overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, extended for 2 weeks, that should be enough time. If things settle down ask someone to unprotect it, I'm going on a break. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is total BS. To call an absolute amateur's hoax (to quote the EAA) a scientific hypothesis is like saying Dr. Josef Mengele was performing scientific experiments in Auschwitz. I mean, how dare you go against mainstream science and majority vote on Wikipedia so openly and laughingly? Some nerve! Ideabeach (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

We've got a header on the article that says its neutrality is disputed. Is it really? As far as I can see the article portrays the scientific status of the Osmanagic hypothesis correctly. I suggest we get rid of the header. What does everybody think? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. I was waiting on responses from Ideabeach (talk · contribs) and for Nickneachtain (talk · contribs) to take his comments to this talk page. Editors should summarize any remaining pov-related concerns here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

When will you revert the section title that was saying hoax and that you renamed without discussion? It now says mildly "Scholarly reception", in case you forgot what section it was. The EAA calling the case a cruel hoax should reflect on the section title. The EAA is the most relevant referee on the subject matter. Ideabeach (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Ideabeach

Whomever it may concern: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ideabeach and "Bosnian pyramids" No such user (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Title, again

I don't find the title debates overly productive, but I can't help myself finding that "Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis" is rather ridiculous. First, nobody calls it like that. No reliable source uses that phrasing. It does not lend itself to a good lead sentence [15]. In grammatical terms, it is rather awkward, with two adjectivized nouns acting as modifiers (why not proper possessive, Osmanagić's?). As Ideabeach pointed out, the subject is not even a valid hypothesis, i.e, it is not even wrong. Actually, I edit-conflicted with Tariqabjotu when he was closing the previous debate, and gave up after I found it closed. I think it is one of situations when people, finding a problem in every alternative, in the end pick up the worst choice (fixed-wing aircraft, anyone?).

I'm reluctant to open a formal WP:RM, particularly because the WP:POVNAME I favor, Bosnian pyramids, was moved away from (under reasoning that still escapes me), but I'd rather try to calmly discuss the matter in a less heated atmosphere than the last time. No such user (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It does strike me like moving astrology to astromancy because the former implies that it's a science. I'm not sure the title is the place to push a POV, even if consensus is that it's correct. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The POV-pushing alluded to would surely be to call those hills "pyramids"? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's what they're normally called, AFAICT. Calling them something else because we wish to make sure the reader understands they are not actually pyramids is pushing a particular POV. Of course, we need to push that POV in the text because it's the scientific consensus, but I'm not sure the title is the place to do it. Do we want to move Barak Obama to 44th President of the United States to counter Birthers? Is debunking FRINGE one of the components of TITLE? Should we rename extrasensory perception to claims of... because such a thing does not actually exist? How far do we deviate from COMMONNAME in order to avoid unscientific suggestions? — kwami (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that the hills are normally called Visočica hill etc. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's the nub of it. Perhaps Osmanagić's "Bosnian Pyramids" [sic] could be put in their place in a quite lengthy subsection of Visočica Hill - which would probably be an otherwise very short article. To put it another way, Osmanagić's "Bosnian Pyramids" are his deluded notions about several hills in the vicinity of Visočica. The "Bosnian Pyramids" have no material existence, they're a pseudoscientific idea. Haploidavey (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, but I rather doubt it. I personally have come across "Bosnian pyramids" far, far more often than I have "Visocica Hill". Anyway, the article is not about the hill, it's about the pyramids, even though they don't exist. Cf. Loch Ness Monster. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We have an article Visočica hill. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, so we do. Haploidavey (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And should the title of that be Hill or hill - we certainly need a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But that article is really unnecessary. All that the hill is famous for are the Bosnian pyramids 'theory' and the Old town of Visoki. We don't normally have articles about 213 m-high hills (distinguish Visočica (mountain)), and List of mountains in Bosnia and Herzegovina, listing only mountains higher than 1500 m, is terribly red-linked (many links are misdirected). It should be merged somewhere, but at the moment it is the smallest problem around. No such user (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So let's put the material about the hypothesis into the article about the hill, then, and make this article a redirect. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see several problems with that suggestion: 1) The hypothesis is about more than one hill, so saying something in an article about one particular hill would seem insufficient. 2) There's your own previous remark about "a real-world geological formation" versus "a discredited archaeological hypothesis". 3) Cutting this topic down enough to turn it into a small section appropriate to merge into some other article would be tough and would greatly reduce the depth of information that is provided. 4) I also think we should avoid beating up on this hypothesis too much. Our job is to provide information to readers, not to provide advocacy or the ultimate truth or to avoid giving prominence to things we don't approve of. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another source?

[16]. Maybe for his bio as well? Tera Pruitt has an article on this in [17] a recent British Archaeological Reports International Series report also.[18] which I/defaultAll.asp?QuickSearch=stefanou]. I've just bought this. Irna's site is always good for background.[19] Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting quotes by a former Foundation employee & archaeologist: [20]Bibbers (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this pseudo-science?

I say it is unfair to call Dr. Osmanagic's work Pseudo-science. It is real true scientific investigation and I wish people would not be unjust. The pyramid has tunnels, just as the Giza ones do. Much more digging could be done to locate chambers which have been found by geo-radar or whatever it is but orthodox science is hindering the work by its PREJUDICE. Thanks. 68.35.36.34 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC) P.Knoebel, Aug.23,2013

This is a forum to discuss improvements to the article, not discussing personal viewpoints on matters, nor for ideological battles. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps imperfectly articulate, I think that was a criticism of the content of the article. The very first phrase of the article currently refers to the subject as "a pseudo-scientific theory", and the article later repeats that theme further – and, under "see also", lists Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience. This person seems to disagree with that part of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is not a forum for discussing personal viewpoints. If they are something other, then not only do new sources need to be offered, they need to have such authority and weight as to fundamentally change the pov of this article. I think it's a safe bet that no such sources will be offered, and that what we're dealing with is simply an ideological battle. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

hoax???

dunno if any of u have actually visited the site... i have, 3 years ago when whole project was shot down. still i managed to see some of it. i don't have any references, archeological background or "sources" n even thou i know all kinda natural born shapes, colors n structures do exist, things i saw there with my own eyes just can not be natural. maybe someone has power of placing and hiding humongous fake pyramid with tunnels n all inside of mountains in order to create hoax. but how and with what machinery and so no one hasn't noticed??? we are talking ab so huge magnitudes n weight, n technology that's needed to move mountain sized objects just doesn't exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.89.82 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your hunches aren't a substitute for academic sources here on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Improved sentence

I am pleasantly surprised, that despite the year long bolloxing around that particular editors tried to entertain me with, that the sentence "Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there" has now, actually been replaced with a phrase (not dissimilar to the one I used in the edit I made [that threw some editors into a tizzy]) that is supported by the sources, which is, after all, what I was after, only having asked for provision of a quote or details per note 2 of V to prove me wrong no less than five times. Well done to those who eventually arrived at what I had done in 2010 on that line, whoever you were (even if it was the editor whose name may sound something like the common name for that alloy of copper and tin).--163.1.147.64 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

deleted

Garyduddingaucklandnewzealand (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New evidences 2013

I think it is about time to get a more updated and neutral sources. most of the links are from 2006, today it is 2013, and much more has been learned about the Hills (Pyramids)

Artificial Concrete Used to Build Pyramid Walls

Scientific Evidence Reports that Bosnian Pyramids Built Using Geopolymer Cement, a Man-made Material - Conclusive Proof of Authenticity of Bosnian Pyramid.

Quote - The New Era Times http://www.tnetimes.com reports that independent analysis from five separate Institutes of materials confirms that the Bosnian Pyramids contain high quality man-made concrete construction material eliminating all skeptical claims about the authenticity of the Bosnian Pyramids. Since it was discovered in 2005 by Dr. Sam SemirOsmanagich Ph.D., director of Center for Anthroplogy and Archaeology at the American University in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Bosnian Pyramid complex has been stonewalled by mainstream archaeologists until recent scientific evidence has made it impossible to deny the authenticity of this history changing discovery.

Apparently this is the proven facts of 2013 that have been verified by scientific analytic testing include:

Radio carbon dating shows the pyramid to be at least 24,800 years old.

Material Analysis shows that the structure is from man-made concrete.

There is an 8.000 kg ceramic block under the pyramid in the underground labyrinth.

An energy beam, electromagnetic in nature with a radius of 4.5 meters and a frequency of 28 kHz,has been detected and measured coming from the top of the Sun pyramid.

An ultrasound beam with a radius of 10 meters and frequency of 28-33 kHz has been measured on the top of the pyramid.

The pyramids are aligned with the earth’s cardinal points and oriented to stellar North.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10657023.htm So what do you guys think? 86.52.97.110 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Press releases are worth the paper they are printed on. When this gets into peer reviewed scientific journals then we shall quote them. Energy beams? This is all New Age stuff. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Terribly poor quality sources. No. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't radiocarbon date rock, or the supposed "man-made concrete". Have they even said what it is that they had radiocarbon dated? I've read the radiocarbon date was from "soil", and any organics found in soil are likely just remnants of dead plants. How does that implicate any human activity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.44.131 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

how about this for a source...

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/eng/latest-news/item/8855-the-carbon-dating-of-the-bosnian-pyramid-29000-years.html --85.157.89.82 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hoaxing is deliberate

We just had a change to the article calling Osmanagic's project a hoax. Now, a hoax is "a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth". An overwhelming scholarly consensus (to which I subscribe myself) agrees that the Osmanagic hypothesis is false. But I'm pretty sure that Osmanagic himself believes strongly in it. He ain't fakin'. So it's not a hoax. Am I right? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not privy to Osmanagic's intimate thoughts, but whether he genuinely believes in what he says or not, his claiming, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that what geologists identify as flat irons are man-made pyramids can certainly be construed as a fraud rather than a "concept" (of all ludicrous words) or "hypothesis". --Elnon (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No it can't. Fraud is just as deliberate as hoaxing, by definition. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A detail analysis of the cultural and personal dynamics associated with the Bosnian pseudo-pyramids can be found in:

Pruitt, T. C., 2012, Performance, Participation and Pyramids: Addressing Meaning and Method Behind Alternative Archaeology in Visoko, Bosnia. In A. Simandiraki and E. Stefanou, pp. 20-31, From Archaeology to Archaeologies: the 'Other' Past’. Archaeopress, Oxford, England. 105 pp. ISBN 9781407310077 Paul H. (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Another online publication is:

Pruitt, T. C., 2007, Addressing Invented Heritage: The Case of the Bosnian Pyramids. Unpublished Master of Philosophy dissertation, Trinity College, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, England. Paul H. (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Great find.

I can only access the latter of the two. It looks like some very nice research.

I don't keep up on when and how such references can be used. I expect that some here would know. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting thesis. BTW, for those who aren't going to read it, she is of the opinion that it is fraud, but that "pseudoarcheology" is a better term than "hoax", because a hoax is intended to deceive the academic community, while the pseudo-pyramids are intended to deceive the lay public by pretending to be archeology. But they do match the common understanding of the word "hoax", so I'm fine with that. The current title, with "hypothesis", is no good, because a fraud is not a hypothesis.

BTW, since this article is about the claim that these are pyramids, rather than about the hills themselves, shouldn't we give a little background on the claimant? That he's published books saying the Mayan are aliens from the Pleiades with technology from Atlantis? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

See my additions to the talk page of his BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to the phrasing used by Pruitt, as well as by Harding, "Bosnian pyramid scheme". This restores the common name (Bosnian pyramids), sidesteps the issue of whether it's technically a hoax, as well as removes the incorrect description "hypothesis". If this is objectionable, I'll make a formal move request. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion below. This was strongly objected to already in the previous move discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly interesting development

I am uncertain if this is sufficiently notable to be included in the article. There is currently a project on Kickstarter to create a model of these "pyramids" which has reached its minimum funding amount and will most likely be funded successfully in the next few days. The person in charge (Timothy G Moon) claims to be running the "archeological" dig, which may make it of some interest. 41.133.30.112 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if it gets a lot of publicity. I'm trying to find out who this Moon guy is - all I can find out is that he is from New Zealand. I find it hard to believe he is an archaeologist though. To quote him: "We know we are dealing with energy systems, energy systems beyond our current technologies." and "Radio Carbon dating on organic material recovered from the colossal pyramid has been dated at 29,200 years ago. "The dates we are getting back are consistent to our expectations" commented Timothy Moon (New Zealand) in charge of the archaeological project. "We are working at an horizon in knowledge, we know we have a structure from the time before, the time before the Ice Age when H.Sapien Sapiens were suppose to be archaic hunter gathers. Our discoveries turn this thinking upside down and will require a reexamination of human history. This is an unknown culture presenting highly advanced arts and sciences, technology capable of forming truly massive structures and we believe in that process demonstrating an ability to harness pure energy recourses".(sic) "An ability to harness pure energy recourses"? Really? I've never met an archaeologist who believed anything like that, nor read anything about energy transfer in any of the many academic books or reports on archaeology I've read. The C14 date may be accurate, you just have to believe that there is a pyramid there to believe that organic material found dates a pyramid. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for keeping such a close eye on this Dougweller. I guess that there's no reason to think the C14 date is not accurate, but the sample is listed as being 'soil deposit with carbonate', there's absolutely no reason to assume that a human being had anything to do with its presence in the soil. The 'construction material' it was supposedly below doesn't seem to be described in any further detail. There are plenty of naturally occurring materials in calcareous soils that have similarities to construction materials. PatHadley (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the accuracy (validity) of the radiocarbon date is unknowable without having detailed information about both the exact nature of the organic matter that was dated and the accessory data from the other analyses that are part of the radiocarbon dating process. In case of a radiocarbon date as old as 29,000 PB (C14), it is quite possible for it to be an apparent date from "dead" "fossil" organic material that is contaminated by modern carbon. More detail in addition to 'soil deposit with carbonate' is needed to evaluate this date as carbonates readily exchange old for modern carbon in groundwater and the certain parts of the organic fractions of “soils” are also quite problematic for dating as they can readily exchange old for modern carbon in groundwater. Depending on the specific type of organic matter that dated, it is quite possible that the 29,000 BP date came from “fossil” Miocene organic matter in the local bedrock that has been contaminated by the exchanged of modern carbon from groundwater. The problematic nature of dating of such “fossil” organic matter is illustrated by the repeated radiocarbon dating of fossil dinosaur bones by Young Earth creationists that, in one case, yielded apparent radiocarbon dates of around 22,000 to 38,000 years BP C14. Paul H. (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Moon, who runs the archaeological dig, is a record producer

See [21] "My back ground is in music management and copyright law, co-owner of indie record labels Pagan Records and Antenna Recordings and Director of Media Music Productions a music soundtrack company."

"Project Manager Archaeological Park 2011 – Present (3 years) Bosnian in Herzegovina I fly between New Zealand and Bosnia in Herzegovina managing the Worlds largest archaeological project. I currently have 450 volunteers from 32 countries participating in an International Archaeology Field School. My skills are varied from media to curating Museum exhibitions, operating technical laboratories, GIS technologies and actively involved in field excavations, artefact recovery, dating and identification. "

In other words, they couldn't get an archaeologist to manage and interpret the archaeology. That explains a lot. This should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm for keeping it out until we've sources that are not primary, especially given the BLP issues with him not being in any way qualified to make statements about the archeology. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought that he might be Bosnian, based on his English, but it's starting to look as though he might be a semi-literate native speaker. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, all I am suggesting is that we note that the person in charge of the archaeology is a music producer, with no comments about his being or not being an archaeologist. It is really irritating to see him called an archaeologist by the BP Foundation.[22]. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If Moon is relevant enough to mention at all, IMO we should say that he's "a music producer, not an archeologist". No need to hedge about it. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The BP Foundation is in business to promote a hoax. It has no credibility, and isn't a reliable source for much of anything. We're not here to detail all their mistakes, exaggerations, incompetence, deceptions, etc. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Readers should be able to come to this article and get a reasonably clear view of the situation, and that includes debunking some of the considerable claims that fool people who take their statements at face value. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami and Dougweller, to an extent. I think this is important enough to be mentioned, but briefly and directly. I don't want to go deep into debunking unless an independent source does so. bobrayner (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Section on the Foundation?

As has been suggested before, the article needs (the sources warrant) a section on the foundation. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that it's mentioned, it's obvious. It might be hard to find sources that aren't primary however. I'm not sure if the Foundation is mentioned in this.[23] I do know that [24] is an excellent source. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Another page to look at for leads is[25]. We can't use it but it might lead to sources we can use. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked in a long time, but there should be enough to establish quite a bit about them. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid scheme?

I think we're far into NPOV and possibly even BLP violations with the new name. Please provide the sources. What are the policies/guidelines specific to titles? How about revert back and discuss? --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see a dozen sources, as old as early 2007: "The great Bosnian pyramid scheme", by Anthony Harding. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back given the discussions on the previous move. It's no pyramid scheme as the name implies, and even "scheme" might be considered a NPOV/BLP vio.

Titles are often sensational in press. They are not in Wikipedia. Are their any sources that don't use it as a title, where the use of the words/phrases are actually justified? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Move request 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed by nominator – pretty clear that the connotations of pyramid scheme are objectionable. Relisting below w a modified name. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis → Bosnian pyramid scheme – This is the phrasing used by the fullest academic treatment on the subject, from the dept of archeology at Cambridge. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The current title is unsatisfactory on two counts: The common name is "Bosnian Pyramids", not "Osmanagic Pyramids", and it is not a hypothesis, but a fraud. We have debated whether or not it is a "hoax"; Puritt (2014) is of the opinion that it is not, because a hoax is designed to fool the academic community rather than the public, as in this case. Her phrasing, "Bosnian pyramid scheme", was also used by Harding (2006).

Some have raised BLP concerns, but since we have numerous RS's that this is indeed a fraud/hoax, using words to that effect is simply being honest, and is not a BLP violation. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as that name seems to be preferred by the strongest sources. Rather than BLP, I was concerned that the name was meant to be a witty allusion rather than purely descriptive; but still, if it's been taken up by multiple reliable sources rather than just being a single headline, I can live with it. bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Later comments about recognisability make a good point; I would be happy with something like "Bosnian pyramid hoax" as a second choice. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Since "scheme" is more accurate than "hoax" then I support it. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Per previous discussions. Its most definitely not held up by any sources, but rather just a clever phrase to sensationalize. I suggest taking this to NPOVN before continuing any attempts to change past consensus. Failure to address the NPOV concerns means there can be no policy-based consensus. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's held up by multiple sources. If not "scheme", then we're left with "hoax". Would you prefer that? — kwami (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed title has a POV problem. Opinions about the validity of the pyramid concept should be described in the article, but not in its title. The word "concept" might be OK, but using "scheme" would be an expression of an opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Pseudoscience, we're encouraged to call pseudoscience for what it is, and we use "hoax" in the titles of other articles. Hypotheses are scientific, so the current title is unacceptable. Do you have an alternative? — kwami (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the current title is OK – a hypothesis can be correct or incorrect. But I see what you mean about it. What about "Bosnian pyramid concept", as I just suggested above? I also wouldn't necessarily be opposed to your previous suggestion of 23 July – "Bosnian pyramid claims". –BarrelProof (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a problem here with recognizability, as the proposed title seems to describe a pyramid scheme perpetrated in Bosnia. Maybe the people who have used this phrase were trying to be clever, but I think we need to be clearer. I'm not opposed at this point to calling it a hoax, though. That's a claim we can properly source. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid hoax would be my second choice. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "hoax" has even more of a POV problem than "scheme". Opinions about the validity of the pyramid concept should be described in the article, but not in its title. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. As noted, referring to a 'pyramid scheme' in the title is liable to be confusing. Given the clear statements to that effect from qualified academics (e.g. the European Association of Archaeologists), I can see no objection to the use of the term 'hoax' in the title. There are no legitimate grounds to make concessions to purveyors of fringe nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Pyramid scheme sounds vaguely reminiscent of some sort of banking fraud, which isn't really the case here. "Osmanagić pyramid hoax" probably isn't a bad idea. 23 editor (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inaccurate: It's definitely not a pyramid scheme. Some writers may have been using that phrase because it's catchy, but it's completely inaccurate per the definition of pyramid scheme, and so such a title would be misleading. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move request 4

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bosnian pyramid claims. After a lengthy discussion failed to reach a clear consensus, the proposal for a neutral and non-judgemental title was unanimously supported by everyone who commented on it. Congratulations to all involved -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis → Bosnian pyramid hoax – This is how we present it in the lead, and is similar to the phrasing used by academic treatment on the subject — kwami (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The current title is unsatisfactory on two counts: The common name is "Bosnian Pyramids", not "Osmanagic Pyramids", and it is not a hypothesis, but a fraud. This is a violation of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Since people have objected that the phrasing used by Puritt (2014) and Harding (2006), "Bosnian pyramid scheme", is misleading (it's not a pyramid scheme), I'm proposing "hoax" instead.

Some have raised BLP concerns, but since we have numerous RS's that this is indeed a fraud/hoax, using words to that effect is simply being honest, and is not a BLP violation.

Other suggestions ("claim"? etc) welcome. Just as long as we don't call them simply "pyramids" and don't call them a theory or hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. POV title. There's nothing wrong with having a neutral title. It simply needs to have name recognition. Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis or Bosnian Pyramids is fine. A title cannot violate WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, especially if that's the WP:COMMONAME. This has already been discussed and closed here: Talk:Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis#Requested_move_1. Please close this and try to pay attention to what has already been discussed and decided upon. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your vote. You say it's okay to have a POV title ("hypothesis") because it's neutral, and say that the current name follows COMMONNAME? The current title is obviously not the common name, which is "Bosnian pyramids". — kwami (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support a move to either "Bosnian pyramids" or "Bosnian pyramid hoax", or "Bosnian pyramid [something else]. The current title is a bad compromise due to the controversy. It is also seriously misleading as "hypothesis" implies a valid scientific standpoint. We should follow WP:COMMONNAME and include "Bosnian pyramid(s)", and then either go for wp:concise for the shorter title, or wp:precise per the nomimator's suggestion. Bosnian pyramids claim would be the best option in my opinion, as though as it has been scientifically falsified and they are conclusively not man-made, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Osmanagić does not genuinely believe in his hypothesis and is a deliberate con-man and hoaxer, and is therefore the most accurate description. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Agree that "it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Osmanagić does not genuinely believe in his hypothesis". Also, if we really are revisiting this issue again, if the consensus is that, despite the WP:COMMONNAME "Bosnian pyramids", a word should be appended, "claim" is WP:NPOV, unlike the proposed words "hoax", "scheme", etc. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move. POV title. Lots of people believe completely insane things without being dignified with the term "hoaxer". I disagree with the notion that the word "hypothesis" implies a valid scientific standpoint. Even most hypotheses advanced by professional scientists get proven wrong. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: POV title. See previous comments. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. What exactly is a "POV title"? Surely "pov" doesn't mean closely adhering to what reliable sources say; usually "POV" is supposed to mean the opposite. Here, reliable sources say that it's a hoax, but instead we pretend that it's a "hypothesis". bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Many – probably most – of the sources cited in the article do not say it is a hoax. The relevant experts generally say that the idea is incorrect, but there is a big difference between simply being incorrect and having a "scheme" to perpetrate a "hoax". Some of the reliable sources also do not necessarily declare the notion to definitely be incorrect, although some do. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Those who address Osmanagic rather than just the hills call it a "fraud", "scheme", or "hoax". — kwami (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Osmanagic's claims are too ridiculous to have been disseminated with the intention of tricking anyone into believing anything that Osmanagic himself did not believe in. If you want to trick people, you say something believable. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "hoax", but would support alternative that has "Bosnian pyramid..." instead of "Osmanagic pyramid...". I also wouldn't mind finding something other than "hypothesis" (why not "claims"?), but "hoax" seems wrong, as it entails systematic intent to deceive and awareness of the falsity of the claim on the part of its proponent. I see no evidence in the article that reliable sources take such an intention on the part of Osmanagic to be a proven fact, or even the most likely scenario. It's certainly crackpot pseudo-science, but it's not a hoax. I'd actually say for us to call it a hoax in the title would be a WP:BLP violation, and the same is already true of our use of the term in the lead sentence. The sourcing of that term to the EAA declaration doesn't help us here – the archaeologists don't appear to be intending to make any definite claim about Osmanagac's intentions, so when they use "hoax" in their text they are using it much more loosely and more carelessly than we are forced to do. I'd also argue that while they clearly are the reliable experts when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the proposal as such, they are not a reliable source when it comes to looking into Osmanagic's mind, so their opinion piece can't serve as our basis for such a problematic claim here. I wouldn't mind having some alternative but still very strong wording in the lead sentence – why not in fact start out straight away with "'Bosnian Pyramids' claims are a pseudo-scientific proposal promoted by..." (and then "... have been labelled as a 'hoax' by..." a bit further down)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Claim" works for me. I just want to get rid of "hypothesis". — kwami (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• What Victor falk and Fut.Perf. said: Bosnian pyramids is the most preferred, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME title; I could reluctantly live with Bosnian pyramids claim, I guess. I really don't get the outcome of #Requested move 2, which led to the current, unrecognizable and contrived title.
  I sort of recall that Ronz (?) once posted a thorough analysis of the name usage across reliable sources, and demonstrated that the vast majority uses "Bosnian pyramids", or a variant thereof, with or without scare quotes: that's the name of the phenomenon we describe, and there is no need to teach the controversy in the very title. That it is a pseudo-scientific fringe theory is described in the body of the article; we ought not pass judgments in the title, scientific or not. No such user (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that RS's put it in scare quotes shows that simply calling them "pyramids" is unacceptable to them. I've also seen "Bosnian pseudo-pyramids", but that has a non-psuedoscience usage. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support move. Anything but the absurd word "hypothesis", which implies that the whole thing is being conducting along scientific lines when in fact the hypothesis stage (if there ever was one) has long been past and the claim of pyramids has been disproved by renowned geologists and archaeologists. --Elnon (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support move, but to Bosnian pyramids. A title with "hypothesis" in it is out of the question, though. It an obvious weasel word in this context. Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Bosnian pyramids seems unacceptable as pov - people will read it in the same way they would Egyptian pyramids, as an article about pyramids in Bosnia. On the other hand, Bosnian pyramid dispute does describe the content. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would find that even more problematic – "dispute" implies there is something worth taking serious enough to be disputed. Serious people don't engage in a "dispute" with Osmanagic; at most they debunk him. On the other hand, I don't share the concerns either about "hypothesis" or about plain "pyramids". A "hypothesis" can be a crackpot hypothesis, and "pyramids" can be read just as "Loch Ness Monster" or "UFO": denoting a fictional topic about which claims are made, but not real-world objects. I find No such user's argument above persuasive – the simplest title that merely labels the topic works well, and there is no need to pass off the "fringe" judgment already in the title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I totally agree with FutPerf about "dispute"; it makes one think of "scholarly dispute" or "academic dispute" or "scientific dispute"; check this link to see it's not what we're talking about here. However, I very strongly disagree about "hypothesis"; it has specific meaning in the scientific method and the theory of science, and this article is related to a science, archeology, and therefore it would be WP:IMPRECISE to use "hypothesis/theory" in their colloquial sense where they are more less synonymous, and makes "Bosnian pyramid hypothesis" completely wrong and disinformative. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I take the point about 'dispute'. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. All reliable sources call it a hoax or a fraud or both, as does our article. To avoid calling a spade a spade in the title is the POV, not the other way around. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, Pruitt [26], possibly the most detailed scholarly treatment, explicitly argues that it is not a "hoax". Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

    She's introducing a technical distinction that is not used by other sources, where a "hoax" targets the academic community. Since it's too transparent a fraud to fool archeologists, and Osmanagic doesn't seem to care about them, she argues it's not technically a hoax. But then she also uses the word "pseudoscience" as a type of fraud, where other sources accept well-intentioned pseudoscience (such as a lot of astrology). This was one reason I suggested "scheme" above. But we only have so many words to choose from, and if none of them are perfect, we need to choose the least bad. "Hypothesis" is clearly not it. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

    • Not by a long shot. But remember here we're talking about the article title, not content. Distinctions between "fraud", "hoax", "falsehood" etc.. belong in the article, not the title. For the title we want something recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. It doesn't actually say accurate but surely this is a given, and hypothesis is just plain inaccurate. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Many – probably most – of the sources cited in the article do not say it is a hoax or fraud. People repeatedly saying that they all do doesn't actually change that. Is it necessary to mention specific ones that don't call it a hoax or fraud? Going back to remarks of 21 and 22 April (and 23 July) that have seem to have mostly not been noticed in this discussion, "concept" and "claim" are words that remain available, do not imply validity, and are less POV than "scheme" and "hoax" and "fraud". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Absence of evidence, ... Do any of the sources say it's not a hoax or a fraud?

I'd be happy with "claim". I've suggested that before. "Concept" is inaccurate: it's more than a concept, and using that word would be wishy-washy. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources that strive for objectivity do not make POV declarations one way or the other (in the absence of proof). Would others be satisfied with "claim" / "claims"? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should have said All reliable sources that take a stand either way call it a hoax or something equivalent, that's what I meant. But I admit I haven't checked all the references in the article, have you found any that say otherwise? Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is generally desirable for a source to refrain from jumping to conclusions in the absence of adequate evidence. We should not assume that the sources that "take a stand" are the only ones worthy of considering. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the first statement, but it's irrelevant. As to the second, if a source doesn't take a stand, then it's not a source at all on the issue in question. This is a case where the argument from silence is simply invalid. On the other hand if the source explicitly says that it's not known whether it's a hoax or not, then that would be a source. But we don't seem to have any of these. We just have ones that make no statement, and therefore are not evidence either way. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current name is fine, although I suppose I wouldn't be adverse to "Osmanagić's pyramid hypothesis" or "Osmanagić pyramid claims" if people really hate the word "hypothesis" for some reason. "Hoax" should have a VERY HIGH STANDARD to be stuck in the title, and it is being used in two different ways. As already noted, hoax usually means intentionally false, and it furthermore implies something "constructed", e.g. Osmanagic sneaking in overnight, building some pyramids, and dumping a layer of earth over them, a la the Piltdown man. There's been no such confession from Osmanagic or his supporters. This appears to be New Age woo nonsense, not a hoax, and people calling it a hoax are more likely using it in the weaker "this is all wrong" sense. "Bosnian pyramids" (and variants) is also a bad title, because that implies there really ARE pyramids. What do we have left? The proposer's (crazy) claims about pyramids - "Osmanagić's pyramid hypothesis", aka where we are right now. (or "Osmanagić pyramid claims" if you want, sure.) SnowFire (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

By calling it a "hypothesis", we are engaging in pseudoscience. But I'm glad to see that "claim" is okay. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What kwami says. I don't care much about "Osmanagic" or "Bosnian pyramids" ("Bosnian pyramidoids"?). What is absolutely intolerable is "hypothesis". So what about the solomonic Osmanagić pyramid claim? ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Would still very much prefer "Bosnian" over "Osmanagic", but would be okay with "claims". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree about Bosnian. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It looks to me like claim might be the go, reluctantly. It's not a controversy, and most reliable sources do seem to avoid the word hoax although that's what they say it is, just in other terms. It would be good to use English as she is spoke, but... Any better suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As a note, "Osmanagić" is obviously Bosniak to anyone with a passing familiarity with Serbo-Croat, muslim name "Osman (name)" + patronymic suffix "-ić". So, there's at least a little hint there. He is also notable for this, and the name might be familiar and recognisable to someone interested in the pyramids. So, this is not totally devoid of recognisability. However I agree that "Bosnian" just feels much more natural, despite the possibility of confusion with Egyptian and Aztec pyramids, but if a lot of readers come out with that impression that is proof that we have written a very bad article indeed. Most readers won't be familiar with the factors in favour in "Osmanagic" I mentioned, so in the end, I'm falling behind the line for "Bosnian". ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Slight nitpick to the above: if moved, I'd suggest the plural Osmanagić pyramid claims - he's not only claiming that these are ancient pyramids, but also that they have the power to break the cloud of negative energy, are ur-pyramids that were the basis for Egyptian & Mayan pyramids, etc. "Hypothesis" naturally implies subtopics & lesser results, but "claim" doesn't, so it reads better plural as "claims." SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Very good observation by SnowFire. The claims are not only that they are man-made, but who built them, when, for what purposes, how, and other ancillary matters. Definitely more precise. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How about Osmanagić pyramids? That avoids having to say whether they're real, fictional, or whatever, and it's concise. It's growing on me. Bosnian pyramids has some of the same advantages, but it was the name before the first move discussed on this page, so maybe not. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't see the advantage in this one. It fails the "common name" criterion by a mile when compared to "Bosnian pyramids", and to those editors who are concerned that plain "pyramids" without a following "claim/hoax/hypothesis/whatever" would imply their real existence, this version would carry the same problem. (Not that I personally share that concern, mind you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, we seem to be converging on Osmanagić pyramid claims (or perhaps Bosnian pyramid claims). It would be nice if we could retain a focus on that, lest we otherwise just end up with a "No consensus" closure and end up needing to discuss it all again in a few months. Personally, I don't have a big problem with the current title, but it seems unacceptable to some significant portion of our editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both options are much better than the current title, count me as support for "Bosnian pyramids claims" over "Osmanagic pyramids claims", but I'd rather have "Osmanagic pyramids claims" than no move or no consensus. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Osmanagić pyramid claims (with a singular pyramid). Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I also prefer the "X pyramid claims" format (with "X" being "Bosnian" or "Osmanagić"). I believe that "X pyramid claims" implies that there are multiple claims, but is silent about whether the claims are about multiple pyramids or not. I hope we don't get stuck on the question of whether "X" should be "Bosnian" or "Osmanagić", as I think that's a really minor aspect. I hesitate to declare a preference on that topic, but somewhat prefer X = "Bosnian", because the so-called pyramids belong to Bosnia but do not belong to Osmanagić (although the claims primarily seem to belong to Osmanagić) and because naming something after Osmanagić might seem to increase his prominence. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the common name is "Bosnian pyramids", so it would be good to stick to a recognizable variation on that. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The advantage of using Osmanagić in some variation is that his is the only notable view that they are pyramids, so the topic is in this sense more recognisable by such a title. But agree that it's a minor point compared to issues with the current title. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a more accurate title for sure. But apart from us, who's even heard of him? — kwami (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with pyramid singular. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Have we converged on Bosnian pyramid claims? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

These "claims" have long been disproved by archaeologists and geologists. The title "Bosnian pyramids claims" would have been correct when the whole affair was started in 2005. Nearly a decade later, I would not be so sure about the word "claims" still applying. --Elnon (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have. Elnon, Osmanagic is still claiming these are pyramids, so yes, of course they're claims. What they aren't is a hypothesis. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur, they never were a hypothesis in the first place as the scientific method is alien to inventors of ancient man-made pyramids. As to the relevance of using "claims", I remain unconvinced but will not insist on barring it. --Elnon (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Bosnian pyramid claims on the basis that it looks unlikely that we'll do any better, and it does address the major issue with the current title. A definite improvement. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think "Bosnian pyramid claims" is what we can converge on. Perhaps somebody could close this now. Do we wait for a formal outside closure, or do we all agree clearly enough we can simply call it a day and go ahead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal and proposed closure

I think we have consensus above to move to Bosnian pyramid claims, but that we should wait for an uninvolved administrator to close the RM, in that this consensus is hard won and precious! In that this RM is already on the RM backlog, that should not take too long. (But there's quite a backlog of tricky ones at present... I'll try to clear a few of the others, that will also help.)

At the risk of asking people to repeat themselves, it might also speed up the process if those supporting this close explicitly indicate this below (and feel free to oppose if you so desire as well of course). I expect the closing admin will at least skim the whole discussion in any case, but this will make it a little easier for them to do so, and the easier we make this one look the sooner it's likely to be closed! TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a title that has been most acceptable to the most editors. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Bosnian pyramid claims". —BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Reluctant support per my comment above, and suggest speedy move, as Fut. Perf. proposed. Processing of RM backlog is notoriously slow (see e.g. Talk:Chersonesus (Crimea)–it's been a month since the debate started), and this RM has already taken too much time. (unsigned, by User:No such user)

Any of us can do it if we're all agreed. I would if I weren't nominator. Could anyway, really. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We could indeed be bold and/or involve the snowball clause, we have a clear and strong consensus IMO. My suggestion that we wait for an uninvolved admin is just to reduce the likelihood of future challenges, and having to go through this all over... Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at closing Talk:Chersonesus (Crimea)#Requested move to Chersonesos myself several times, and it's just too hard... I can't even come up with a rationale for a helpful "vote" without doing a lot of the work which the proposer and other participants could and should have done. But I'll get to it eventually if nobody else does. On the other hand I often look down WP:RMB in an odd minute and see whether there are any closes that I can do reasonably quickly, remembering that backlog means just that, they have actually been available to close for 24 hours when they enter it. And I'm not the only one I'm sure. So if we can make this one look straightforward despite its length, we may get lucky. Or that's my strategy here. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support formally as the formal proposer of this alternative, see above. Recognisable, attested in sources, and unanimously agreed to be reasonably accurate, regardless of the POV of the assessor of this accuracy! Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support (reluctantly) as there doesn't seem to be any better wording. --Elnon (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semir Osmanagić Merge

Semir Osmanagić's sole claim to notability is his ridiculous Bosnian pyramid claim. Per WP:BLP1E it should be covered under the event and not an article about the individual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Very good point. Anyone disagree? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do. The simple reason is that the article would get messy. True, the pyramid are his sole claim to notability, but it's not one "event" (in BLP1E lingo). It is a phenomenon that has lasted for years, and he devoted mot his activities to it throughout this period. We routinely separate articles about authors of one-time wonders from their action iff they are widely known, even if the work is the sole reason for it. BLP1E has an entirely different rationale behind it: to discourage writing articles about people of only a short-term fame. No such user (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at BLP1E, I'm not clear on what one event covers (criteria 1), but he's definitely not a low profile individual (criteria 2), and his role is substantial though the documentation is sparse (criteria 3). He only needs to fail one of the three criteria, and he probably fails them all. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSEUDO "Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is notable only for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." and WP:1E "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage." are probably a better pointers than BLP1E. None of his other wacky claims are of note except in putting into context his wacky claims about the pyramids. Notable content about him can easily be covered in this article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

But let's take a look at the context: it is from Wikipedia:Avoiding harm (itself an essay, although a widely accepted one), and it gives an overview:

In some cases, a person is notable primarily for a single event in their life. This may be the case with the subjects of Internet phenomena or unusual medical conditions, the children of notable individuals, or the victims of notable crimes. In many of these cases, the person in question is a child, or was a child at the time of the notable event. In such cases, some sensitivity needs to be shown [...]

Osmanagić is not someone who needs such protection from public scrutiny; on the contrary, he is someone who actively seeks attention (and, well, gets it), and apart from the pyramids he makes other wacky claims. And he gets coverage by press and media, a lot of it yellow, but some serious ones as well. I'm not strongly against merge, but at least it should be done for the right reasons, and BLP1E is not one. No such user (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The two articles are too long (and too different in scope) to merge into one article; therefore merge criteria are not met. Also, Osmanagić is not known for one event. He is known for one subject matter, but many and varied events and writings over 8+ years. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for the same reasons as expounded above. --Elnon (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

There's an upcoming episode about these claims on the science channel. I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone that these are anything other than natural formations, but this article reads with such a sneer towards the claim that it is clearly lacking any neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:80:4C4:A10D:3162:EF60:3F18 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Unexplained Files, a The Science Channel series on which Semir Osmanagić is featured, is a cable series that is heavily into UFOs, cattle mutilations, Peruvian alien skulls, Russian yeti, the Mothman, and other such fringe, pseudoscientific subject matter. As a result, that an episode of The Unexplained Files discusses the Bosnian pyramid claims does nothing to either support or advance the credibility of Osmanagić’s arguments. It certainly does not help that he shares the show with an investigation of an alleged lake monster in Lake Labynkyr, Siberia.

I taped this show and later watched it. It does illustrate some really nice, classic examples of naturally jointed bedrock, which Semir Osmanagić incorrectly claims to be manmade pavement. However, the arguments for them being manmade are incorrect, factually bankrupt, and quite naïve. Instead of being unique as is falsely claimed, the arrangements of the stone blocks shown in this episode are quite typical of naturally jointed bedrock. In one segment, it is quite revealing that Semir Osmanagić is deaf, dumb, and blind to the presence of ancient ripple marks on a layer of stone and that they match across the joints. This contradicts the argument that this layer of bedrock was quarried and brought in from elsewhere. This episode also discusses material about active energy beams emanating from the summit of these hills that is hopelessly fringe and silly. This episode is quite embarrassing and certainly not at all helpful in regards to the claims being made about the alleged Bosnian pyramids. Paul H. (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an interesting review of the epidsode of The Unexplained Files, which is mentioned above and features Semir Osmanagić. It is "Review of The Unexplained Files" Segment on the So-Called Bosnian Pyramids 09/03/2014. Although it cannot be used as a source, it still provides useful background information and context to this controversy.

Also there is an earlier National Geographic documentary that is discussed on Le Site d'Irna in the article There and Back Again. This documentary includes archaeologist Dr. Henry Chapman, and geologist Dr. Dougal Jerram. A revealing rebuttal to the National Geographic documentary can be found on the Bosnian Archaeological Park web site. It is Ferhand: National Geographic is Lying about Us! Although neither can be used as a sources, they still provide background context in understanding the controversy about Osmanagić's ideas. Paul H. (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of impartiality and poor sources

The lack of impartiality in this article is as astonishing as it is horrendous; added to which, the poor quality of the source material, upon which this article is based, makes for a wholly disastrous, and rather pitiful, Wikipedia entry.

It amazes me that this article has been allowed to degenerate to this extent. It is articles like this that give Wikipedia little credibility, and general derision, as a reliable source of information.

I suggest drastic action be taken: a complete rewrite using quality source material or total deletion are the only options that I see as acceptable. Vicky Coren (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article in quite a while, but I just glanced at the lead section and it is a superb representation, telling the reader that the claims are pseudoscientific, that the geologic feature is naturally occurring, and that claims are a hoax. Perfect!

So what was your concern, specifically? What "quality source material" do you think was missed? Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the article, I find that the claims that this article lacks impartiality, has poor quality of the source material, and is wholly disastrous, and rather pitiful to be without merit. Requiring an article to be either neutral or impartial does not require that a false balance be created by giving undue attention to fringe (marginal) opinions that are published in unreliable sources and unsupported by credible sources and the weight of scientific agreement. According to the Wikipedia policy on Fringe theories, A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. This is what the Bosnian pyramid claims article currently does. Pretending that scientifically illiterate fringe theories have any credibility in order to create either a fake neutrality or false balance would definitely open Wikipedia to general derision and make it the laughing stock of geologists and archaeologists in general. Paul H. (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat. Paul H. (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the impartiality of this article has been discussed before. These discussion can be seen in the Archive and include There is no pyramid - Majority viewpoint? Scientific consensus?, Where is the neutrality of this article?, this makes a mockery of wikipedia., and Are we losing balance?. Paul H. (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Forum: Reliable source.

The opening section of this article contains the phrase "He opened excavations in 2006 which have reshaped the hill, making it look like a Mayan step pyramid". The source given does not, to my mind, appear reliable. Though the Smithsonian Magazine is certainly a respectable source of information, I do not believe that the context of the article permits such a stringent interpretation. The passage on which the source is based reads thus:

"Similarly, in a 2006 letter to Science magazine, Schoch said the hills in Visoko "could well yield scientifically valuable terrestrial vertebrate specimens. Presently, the fossils are being ignored and destroyed during the ‘excavations,' as crews work to shape the natural hills into crude semblances of the Mayan-style step pyramids with which Osmanagich is so enamored."

The problem, as I see it, is that the source (here the Smithsonian Magazine) is neither endorsing nor rejecting this statement. It is merely reporting that one person made the statement. This person does not appear to represent the university of Sarajevo, or any other institution, in an official capacity. His opinion cannot be directly attributed to any formal body and is therefore the opinion of an individual. As such, the statement may not be taken as representative of the general academic opinion (which we must recognise as the defining source for an article such as this) per se. Furthermore, this is a source quoting a letter posted to another publication, rendering it a shaky tertiary source at best.

My current proposition is to remove the statement from the page until such a time as a proper source can be found. Otherwise we are potentially harbouring and disseminating libelous claims. In the interests of establishing a consensus, I shall await any feedback which the watching powers may wish to contribute, before making any alteration. If anybody can find the text of the letter, as it was presented to Science magazine, that would be ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.94.78 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That is clearly a Smithsonian sanctioned blog and not a mere forum post. and the author Colin Woodard qualifies under WP:SPS even if it were just a random blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, a simple fast search of "2006 letter to Science magazine, Schoch" turned up Schoch's own webpage citing/endorsing Woodward's article.[27] I'm not clear why anyone should be representing the University of Sarajevo or its relevance. And clearly his excavations have shaped the hill - are you actually denying that? Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of the Smithsonian Magazine is not in question. I have attempted to acknowledge that the Smithsonian Magazine is indeed a "respectable source of information". If I have failed to communicate this, please excuse my error. The issue I take with this source is that the Smithsonian Magazine makes no endorsement. The source proves that Mr Schoch made these claims, but it does not prove that the claims are valid. On what basis do we publish this claim as the truth? Essentially, I do not believe that a claim can be vindicated by quotation alone. One could not read the article and say "The gentlemen at the Smithsonian Magazine declare that the design of the excavations, is to erect a facsimile of a Mayan step pyramid". And yet this is the implication given by the opening paragraphs here on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I wish to inquire as to what is meant by the use of the word "clearly". "Clearly" does not conform to any encyclopedic standard of evidence with which I am familiar. I am not "actually" denying anything beyond the interpretation of this source. The Smithsonian article appears, to my reading, to be largely impartial, quoting both sides of the dispute. The author does not express a preference for one side or the other. He makes no particular conclusion. The author's reputation cannot, therefore, be used to interpret any quotation used by the author as being accurate in its implications.

To distill my objection: where precisely does Colin Woodard say either

• a) That he agrees with Schoch.
• b) That he believes in any case that a facsimile of a Mayan pyramid is being excavated? 5.70.94.78 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

it would probably be an improvement to the article if we did not quote Robert M. Schoch - although when your ideas are considered fringey by the fringe....-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish to propose that we make one of following two modifications. Either:

• a) Remove the reference to reshaping entirely (Barring an explicit source).
• b) Stipulate that this is a claim, not a verified fact. Videlicet: "Osmanagić opened excavations in 2006, after claiming to have found tunnels, stone blocks and ancient mortar, which he suggests once covered the Visočica structure. However, it has been suggested that these excavations are in fact a fraudulent attempt to "shape the natural hills into crude semblances of the Mayan-style step pyramids".

Personally, I favour option b), as the excavations probably are fraudulent.

IE ^{• Communicate} 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)