Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bosnian pyramid claims. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Adding a new section to this article
| The consensus is overwhelming that we should not add a new section about ongoing claims being made by the Bosnian Pyramid supporters, as there has been no independent verification of any of it. Further, the only supporter of including such material has been topic banned from discussing this subject for three months. So I think it's safe now to close the proposal as failed, and I'm hatting it to make this page a little easier to navigate. Please use the "Show" link to read it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
Since this article has almost only references that are from 2005 and 2006, and is mostly built out of these years, then I think the article needs a new section where it tells about all the discoveries that have been made in the area. The section could contain the artefacts, archaeology, geology, energy discoveries etc. It can also contain some of the conferences that have happened in Visoko about the Bosnian pyramids. Everything written in an objective way. This way, the article would be balanced and be more objective, and the readers could also read about the discoveries that have been made on the site. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
These are all that have been on the conferences and presented their opinions:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! TheBIHLover (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller, it's not a New Age thing, when artificial instruments are measuring the energy phenomenon. There has been a lot of measurements from different people, like Debortolis, Mizdrak etc. Here a paper: http://www.sbresearchgroup.eu/index.php/en/notizie-in-inglese/78-new-experiment-on-the-pyramid-of-the-sun-for-the-study-of-electromagnetic-and-ultrasonic-emissions And look what kind of team it was:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 08:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Aren't the Wikipedia editors supposed to be objective? Looks like you have already made up your mind before I made this section. And calling energy measurements for woo-woo-stuff, is absrud. It's science and it has been proved by numeours of scienticst. If it is woo-woo-stuff, then it is your subjective opinion and you have no evidence to tell that it is not important and an hoax, when the same measurements have been detected by many scienticst. To add a new section where the discoveries are told, it would give the article some balance. TheBIHLover (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you are stuck in time. Our knowledge about science and history is changing every day. The same with the Bosnian pyramid project. The references are from 2005 and 2006, not from 2014, 2015 or 2016. TheBIHLover (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are three articles that are from 2015 and 2016, which is good, but it would be nice with more articles. What about these articles: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pyramids-bosnia-exist-according-archaeologist-165225736.html and http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/469316/Bosnian-pyramids-discovery-Europe As far as I know, the article does not contan the different C-14 datings that have happened on the Sun pyramid. The carbon datings in 2013, evidence of the paper: http://i.imgur.com/mQPv9FW.jpg TheBIHLover (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I gave you an article from Yahoo, not The Straits Times. Boing! said Zebedee: if I could find one, I would have given it to you, otherwise there are archaeological reports, but they don't fit your taste. TheBIHLover (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I have now found an article that is indireclty peer-reviewed. This article is about the energy phenomenon and the article is by Hrvoje Zujic, which has a master degree of electrical engineering from the University of Zagreb. The article is published SBRG which is a multidisciplinary university project that aims to study from 2010 the architecture, geometry, shape and materials of ancient structures in Europe as well as the development of knowledge from the viewpoint of anthropological and historical discoveries made in this context. The group is also supported by University of Trieste, and had to be peer-review to make it to the site. This could be explained in one or two sentences and some of you (or I) can add a reference, which is this one: http://www.sbresearchgroup.eu/index.php/en/articoli-in-inglese/169-electromagnetic-mechanism-of-the-ultrasound-on-the-bosnian-pyramid-of-the-sun-visocica-hill Although you don't people in the energy things, it deserves to be in the article, because it is a whole part of the Bosnian pyramids and which there are many articles on. Then the people that are reading this article can make up their own mind if this is true or false. TheBIHLover (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It's your own subjective opinion about that. When there has been, not one, but more than five resarchers that has measured the energy in the Bosnian Valley of the pyramids, with their own professional instruments, then it needs to be included in the article. An encyclopedia don't care about people's opinions, when things has been proved with professional instruments. Like I said, the energy phenomenon should be included in the article, at least with some sentences. There are articles on this Wikipedia, that are not peer-reviewed, so we should be fair and exclude our own opinions. The archaeologists signed that letter that was against the pyramids in Bosnia ten years ago, and then no one knew about the energy phenomenon which has been proved time after time. TheBIHLover (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I quote myself: When there has been, not one, but more than five resarchers that has measured the energy in the Bosnian Valley of the pyramids, with their own professional instruments, then it needs to be included in the article. SBRG is not the only ones that has measured the energy phenomenon. Also, Dr. Osmanagich's book about the pyramids in Bosnia are placed in the libary of Sarajevo. The book include the energy phenomenon. No one is waving with arms. There is an energy phenomen on the site, no matter if it is natural or artificial. TheBIHLover (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It is speculated that this is some type of non-hertzian phenomena which contradicts with today’s known physical laws. Apparantely it's not some normal energy. TheBIHLover (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't there scientific journals for your article and your references then? TheBIHLover (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
So the 39 references in the article are peer-reviewed? Don't think so. TheBIHLover (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You're giving too much intention to TheBIHLover. His concern was already answered months ago, and now used our discussion above to restart his activity. You're just circling saying the same thing infinitely. Personally there's "something" strange about the site of Sb Research Group, although supported by University of Trieste, and they are as they claim a multidisciplinary university project. On the right side can be seen the link that they done at least some research on the mountain Rtanj in Serbia, for which was founded Research & Ecology Centre. Looking at the video (in Serbo-Croatian) by Al Jazeera Balkans (or quick look at the "Rtanj Pyramid Info" document at the link before), Centre's people claim there some anomalies for a natural hill, similar with the Visočica hill in Bosnia (which are allegedly exactly 300km apart). However, on the first look it has a very similar pyramidal shape like Visočica hill - it's missing the fourth side. It seems there's some natural pattern in the Balkan. On the bottom left side there's a link-title "Warning to the readers - Le site d'Irna", with link to "An anonymous quarrelling blogger", about the Irna's website in response to her "attacks" on them, above mentioned and linked several time. According to them she graduated in geology, Irna has no academic assignment, experience of research or knowledge of archaeology, she is in fact merely a geography teacher at a school in Lyon (France), and that regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina they carried out research between 2010 to 2013 in Bosnia-Herzegovina with 18 missions, and published 2 papers Archaeoacoustics in ancient sites (2013) and The phenomenon of resonance in the Labyrinth of Ravne (2012) on international scientific literature, and 28 news and 13 articles on our web site in English for describing our studies. Are these two papers reliable? In short, in the first they demonstrate on Cistercian Abbey of San Salvatore in Abbadia San Salvatore and ruins of medieval monastery/fortress on the top of the Visočica Hill that "natural phenomena in the band of audible sound, infrasonic or ultrasonic, and electromagnetic or geodynamic phenomena may have had a close connection with aspects of spirituality of particular places ... [was it] perceptible even to a sensitive ear ... a particular volume we perceive low sounds better by vibration through sensors in human bones than by ear ... mechanic vibration is the most likely reason why so many sensitive people have the sensation of energy ... These characteristics appear to have ultimately influenced the choice of construction of a particular temple in a certain location. We observed that when we found a natural interesting phenomenon, the archaeological site was very ancient and important and had a church or temple present long before the arrival of medieval churches. We also collected not significant data from chapels and medieval sites which appeared very interesting for their mystical nature and religious importance, but without any physical/mechanical secrets. In our archaeoacoustics research we also found some sites with interesting phenomena in suggestive archaeological locations without finding any significant archaeoacoustics features". It doesn't say anything about Visočica hill being an artificial pyramid, yet "We can suppose that these frequencies are probably comming from a nearby earth fault and are concentrated by the pyramid shape". In the second examined the acoustic resonance in Ravne tunnels. Among the pioneers in this type of research on sites of Neolithic Age they cited Robert G. Jahn and his controversial Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. However, the SBRG "analyzed the site of Wayland's Smithy and confirmed the presence of resonance phenomenon ... found before by PEAR of Princeton University". In conclusion "Although only preliminary, the examination carried out shows it would appear difficult to achieve a similar sound in a structure whose path is just random as is typical of a mine. The duration of the phenomenon does not appear typical of an echo or a reverberation. Rather it is more typical of a resonance phenomenon evidently sought through a link between the structure and the human voice", in Abstract "The resonance phenomenon in Ravne tunnels in Bosnia – Herzegovina is an unusual but unknown phenomenon. A number of researchers consider this structure to be an ancient mine. But in our research we demonstrated a very strong response at 71,57Hz when a singer sings inside the tunnel. Our thesis is that this structure was also used for rituals and prayers, because the resonance of these frequencies can have a direct effect on the human body, in the same way as was found in ancient Neolithic temples in South of England". In both sources were explained materials and methods used, and in both wasn't claimed something very controversial but neither conclusive, yet it seems this kind of measurements are later misinterpreted and misused by the Foundation for exceptional claims about some civilisation from before 12,000 BCE ie. Neolithic time.--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
Dr. Korotkov confirming the Bosnian Pyramids, should be included in this article
| User's topic ban reinstated indefinitely |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi everyone, Recently Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, confirmed the existence of the Bosnian Pyramids. Source: http://www.sarajevotimes.com/?p=117064 Dr. Konstantin Korotkov is a quantum physicist and computer science engineer. He is a professor at the Department of Computer Science and Biophysics at the State University for Information Technology, Mechanics and Optics in Sent Petersburg, Russia. He is the Deputy Director of the Research Institute for Health in Sent Petersburg. He is the Chairman of the Association for medicinal and applied bioelectrography. He has published more than 200 scientific articles in leading international magazines in physics and biology. He owns 17 patents in the field of biophysics. He has presented in 43 countries and participated in more than 100 international conferences. He is the author of nine books translated into several languages. His EPC/GDV technique is accepted by the Russian Ministry of Health and is certified in Europe and used by more than 1000 doctors all around the world. He researched many megalithic locations in the world as well as the energy of the Egyptian and Mexican Pyramids. I suggest to include some sentences or a paragraph about this. This would strengthen this article, and give more diverse views to it. TheBIHLover (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources in this article that are not peer-reviewed. I request that this article is included in this Wikipedia-article. Some of the links to the articles do not work anymore And please read: Korotkov is an academic source. TheBIHLover (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I see you like making threats. Well, you can't paint the whole man by one thing. He is still an academic (He is a professor at the Department of Computer Science and Biophysics at the State University for Information Technology, Mechanics and Optics in Sent Petersburg, Russia.), whether you like it or not. This is an article from a reliable news station. You use ordinary articles in this Wikipedia-article too! TheBIHLover (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict):The Sarajevo Times got all that from his website (almost copy and paste), they don't know it's true. What does "certified in Europe mean"? You don't know, do you? You're just repeating the claim from his website. Kirilian photography discusses his work - or rather his stuff that doesn't work. It's nonsense. Mayan and Aztec pyramids as well, and mainstream science knows nothing about it? Hell, if it were true scientists would be all over this and tourist companies would be selling health holidays by the hundreds of thousands. We aren't going to put more nonsense in the article. He's an expert in a field that isn't recognised by mainstream science because it's not scientific. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
Clean-up
I've tried today to clean this article up - quite a lot of irrelevant/repeated/unsubstantiated material. It could certainly be better, and probably shorter still, but I hope there will be people who agree that it has been improved today!Cpaaoi (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017
 | This edit request to Bosnian pyramid claims has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please update your sources for this page. Other than on source, everything else appears to be from 2006 and 2008. I would like to read current evaluations on this dig, fake or not. Digs progress in value, credibility, and origin analysis. When I read this page, it was a bit embarrassing that the source material was so dated, and the page not kept up. 24.17.25.69 (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done. You need to propose the actual changes yourself here, provide the text you want added and/or changed, and provide the reliable sources to back it up. (An edit request is purely to ask someone who has sufficient privilege to make the actual change because the page is protected, but you still have to do the work yourself.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Update needed and upgrade needed soon
Claims? Sorry, some regret that old text-book writers ("peers"?) do not accept new discoveries at it might devalue the price of their books. This behaviour is normal in history. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Many new scientists support the find. <ref>http://www.ancient-code.com/finnish-scientist-spots-great-mystery-bosnian-pyramids/<ref> <ref>http://anamericaninbosnia.blogspot.de/2016/07/new-lidar-scan-of-bosnian-pyramid.html<ref>
References
(Rangutan (Munich) (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)) RRG2017
- Sorry, that's nonsense. No scientist worries about their books being devalued by real discoveries, let alone this stuff. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's worse than nonsense: It's completely backwards. It's the Foundation that is trying to protect their value.
- Note that Osmanagic and the Foundation are unreliable in their claims, especially on the viewpoints of others. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed; no update is currently needed. The financial value of books is not pertinent. This scheme is supported by no scientific literature. Cpaaoi (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bosnian pyramid claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717134402/http://www.e-a-a.org/statement.pdf to http://www.e-a-a.org/statement.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
First sentence - debunked?
"The 'Bosnian pyramid complex' is a debunked, pseudoarchaeological[1] notion which has been promoted by author and businessman Semir Osmanagić."
I think the emphasis on it being "debunked" from the very start is necessary and due. Outside the p.r. from the foundation, this is why it's notable. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- 100% agreement with Ronz. Conspiracy theorists and woo-merchants such as Osmanagic thrive on vagueness. Not to clearly state their ultra-hogwash is ultra-hogwash is firmly POV, and is not to be entertained. (Ever listened to Osmanagic's lectures about how unseen water channels moving under the 'pyramids' channels 'piezo-electrical energy' and 'negative ions' through 'artificial ceramic boulders' to 'clean your blood' and communicate with aliens on faraway planets, and how the Illuminati and JP Morgan don't want you to know about it because it would harm their investments in electrical cabling? Rubbish.)
- Not all pseudoarchaeological notions are debunked, and not all debunked notions are pseudoarchaeological. The 'Bosnian pyramids' are pseudoarchaeological and they are debunked, therefore they are legitimately described as 'a debunked pseudoarchaeological notion'. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seems undue, not following WP:LEAD. The article seems not about debunking or that it actually has been debunked in popular impressions. Mostly the tone verges on being an attack page, pastwhat National Geographic, Smithsonian, or Science does. Article content would support only ‘rejected by the academic community’. Markbassett (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- A verifiably false reading of the page, the source material and Wikipedia guidelines. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Shape - One triangle does not make multiple pyramids
I've removed the claim [1]. We've touched on this for quite a while, and it really stuck out as I was rereading the article yesterday. As far as I can tell, the claims that the hills are pyramids, or even pyramidal are just marketing from the foundation, echoed over and over. Visočica hill has one triangular face, the only angle that we ever see in pictures, while the other hills simply look like hills. If anyone disputes the removal, like other disputes about echoed claims, we need to be sure that we find truly independent sources to work from. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you may be right: all his marketing only really shows one side. Purely anecdotally I have heard that the other side of the hill looks very much more like - a hill! Cpaaoi (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- There are geological surveys, maps, and pictures of the hill from other angles. The hill is clearly a part of the range around it. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal, as I see no reliable sources saying there is more than one triangular face (and as an aside, I'm surprised the peacock term "striking" lasted so long). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
More on the geology
See [2] Doug Weller talk 17:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Another Source(?)
Earlier this year, a debate between people involved in the Visoko 'Pyramids' issue was published. Participants included Irna, Cornelius Holtorf, Andrew Lawler and Danijel Dzino. It can be viewed here: https://www.academia.edu/34830673/Debate_Peculiar_Artifacts_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_an_imaginary_exhibition I'm not sure if it brings anything new to the table, but it's something more recent (2017) that addresses the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibbers (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've had a casual look through, and it is interesting. The passages which jumped out at me were the comments about placing the "Bosnian Pyramid phenomenon" in the wider context of "post-factualism", and also concerning the way in which Osmanagic was at least *pretending* to practice archaeology in the earliest years, but has since retreated almost completely into New Age storytelling. There could be some useful quotations in here; the commentators appear to be fairly serious folk? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Tourist destination
The consensus is that the article's lead should mention that it is a tourism destination only if the article has a "Tourism" section. A tourism section was added 16 December 2017 and has remained in the article, so the article's lead should mention that it is a tourism destination.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Propose that article should include mention that it is a tourist destination, and propose that this should be recognized in the lede. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes and no. The article can mention tourism but the lead section should be a summary of important points about the topic. The tourism aspect is not developed enough to be mentioned in the lead section. This article is not here to help Bosnia enjoy more tourism. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mentioned but not in the lede seems fine. We could probably expand a bit on how the financial gains from tourism have caused the public and politicians to allow what has gone on. I'm not finding sources easily though. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- All these sources mention tourism, from 2006-2017:
- * https://www.rferl.org/a/bosnia-visoko-pyramids-osmanagic-economy-hoax/28725843.html (Radio Free Europe)
- * http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/04/bosnian-pyramids-shunned-by-archaeologists-still-draw-tourists (Euronews)
- * https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2017/06/15/late-discovered-bosnian-pyramids-attract-enthusiasts-worldwide-1497509523 (Daily Sabah)
- * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/bosnia/1521638/Bosnians-unite-in-pyramid-selling-that-pays-off-for-all.html (Daily Telegraph)
- * https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/pyramid-bosnia-1_2.html (National Geographic)
- * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/05/travelnews.travel (The Guardian)
- * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bosnia-pyramids/bosnian-indiana-jones-digs-for-controversy-again-with-park-idUSKCN10F0UD (Reuters)
- Need any more, Binksternet? Or shall I open an RfC about it?
- Given that Osmanagic openly promotes the tourist aspect in most of his lectures and across his 'Archaeological Park' website (the clue is in the name), and always talks about how his 'work' is funded wholly or in part by tourists, and complains that the situation does not bring in *even more* tourists, it strikes me as questionable that the principal purpose of this project (given that it is most certainly not archaeology) should be buried lower down in the article. It should be front and centre, in the lede, just as it appears front and centre (even with pictures of tourists and of the people selling 'Bosnian pyramid' rubbish to tourists) in reliable sources. There is nothing there: the whole 'Bosnian pyramid' story could almost be summed up as "Tourists visit hill". It is not an 'important point', Binksternet; it is the point.
- And I do not agree that mentioning tourism has to be a matter of promoting tourism. To my mind, it would in fact help the reader to see through the whole thing better. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Which sources provide encyclopedic context? That was why I brought up the financial aspects and why locals and polticians have allowed it to continue. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Telegraph article is type of material I had been looking for. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the lead section mention that this is a tourist destination? Cpaaoi (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Survey (Yes: it should mention tourism. No: it should not mention tourism)
- Yes: It is a tourist destination. This is sharply reflected in a range of RS (see links above). The fact that the archaeology is bogus is not relevant. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- “Not at this time”. The tourism is DUE for more mention in the article, perhaps a whole subsection. But at this time there is not much so it would seem against WP:LEAD to put it a top until the article body says more about it.Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but only if there is a section of article body text describing tourism. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, agree that it is a tourist site, no matter what we think, and has been operating for more than 10 years as a business, making some locals' livelihood. Added a couple of paragraphs to the body to address this (see below). Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes if there's a section on it, well-souced. Leads are summaries of bodies, not places to shoehorn things we don't bother covering in the body. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not at this time. More definitive sources on economic impact (i.e. facts and figures, not 'Whatever Osmanagich told the journalist') needed to allow this.Bibbers (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments
- Tourist destinations across Wikipedia are described as tourist destinations, often with information about visitor numbers, location, etc. I have no desire to promote the site, since it is clearly balderdash; rather I consider that not making clear that it is a business operation is misleading, since there is obviously no science going on at the site. Perhaps a comment along the lines of "despite there being no evidence of pyramids, it has become a tourist site for pseudoscience enthusiasts"? Cpaaoi (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to reorganize the Lead to put the scientific debunking of his claims earlier in the article, then to show his business/showman's approach to exploiting the site. I also added two short paragraphs on Tourism at the end of the body of the article, and something short in the Lead. Will revise to add Cpaaoi's wording. I agree that it is a tourist site, no matter what scientists or we think about it. The business site has been expanded for more than ten years now, so I don't think we can ignore that aspect. Clearly, most of the visitors don't care about the science, don't care about facts, and locals (and national gov't) are grateful for the business. It appears all we have for numbers are his claims, which must be as suspect as his other "facts", but they can be presented as his claims.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- We may want to give more space in the body to why people support this - one person's view is given, but there are other comments about the devastation to the area and country during the Bosnian War, and their effort to build a new image of themselves. It deserves explanation as a phenomenon in itself.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to reorganize the Lead to put the scientific debunking of his claims earlier in the article, then to show his business/showman's approach to exploiting the site. I also added two short paragraphs on Tourism at the end of the body of the article, and something short in the Lead. Will revise to add Cpaaoi's wording. I agree that it is a tourist site, no matter what scientists or we think about it. The business site has been expanded for more than ten years now, so I don't think we can ignore that aspect. Clearly, most of the visitors don't care about the science, don't care about facts, and locals (and national gov't) are grateful for the business. It appears all we have for numbers are his claims, which must be as suspect as his other "facts", but they can be presented as his claims.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Just one query in relation to the place being considered a tourist attraction: Do we have figures for visitor numbers/economic impact from any reliable source? The last time I checked, there were only a couple of hundred registered overnight stays in Visoko municipality each year (these figures were gleaned directly from tourist tax receipts), which would suggest that tourists aren't staying there for long, or someone isn't paying their taxes. In terms of economic impact, there is virtually no trace of the 'Pyramid Mania' that swept the town in 2005-07 nowadays (my last visit was in Jan 2017), and similar was claimed in Pruitt's PhD thesis. On the other side, the Foundation seems to be making a roaring trade from traders working at its 'Park Ravne 2' site, with trinket sellers coming from far and wide to sell their wares there. Bibbers (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article doesn't seem neutral
Article does not present a neutral argument. Qualified and peer reviewed people both agree and disagree these pyramids are man made. Article should not have opinion either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.48.38 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please provide reliable, independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- The first article cited is from an anonymous author. Are there sources for or against that have done surveys at the site or is this bickering between adults? 198.217.124.59 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The source has was deemed reliable, and important to note per WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The source being anonymous does not get a pass because of claiming fringe. What authority dictates that it's fringe when the major critic of the claim is anonymous with no way to verify credentials and bias WP:Verifiability198.217.124.59 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- The source has was deemed reliable, and important to note per WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The first article cited is from an anonymous author. Are there sources for or against that have done surveys at the site or is this bickering between adults? 198.217.124.59 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The article isn't meant to be neutral. Read WP:NPOV. There are a number of sources calling these pseudoarchaeology. Eg ":Lost City, Found Pyramid: Understanding Alternative Archaeologies[3] J. Card, David S. Anderson - 2016 "In response to the outcry, the Bosnian Pyramid project has tried to “outsource authority” in order to create a project that ... However, these experts merely “attend” or “show up”; meanwhile, Osmanagić performs pseudoarchaeology based on" Doug Weller talk 19:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia intends to represent scientific consensus opinion, not to report neutrally on issues where there are different views. Professional archaeologists unanimously just laugh or sigh at the Bosnian pyramid claims. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- If "unanimous" then cite it. that's an claim you are making not one based on any grounds in science. Ergo not a consensus, just a blurted out opinion that people havnt taken the time to respond to. 198.217.124.59 (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It is sourced. Drop it. Wikipedia won't present pseudoarcheology as anything other than pseudoarchaeology. --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I tried rewriting this to be shorter 4 times. It's long, and the length doesn't seem to be able to be helped. For that, I'm sorry. This is the key problem and why this article cannot be considered NPOV: How does one represent the very real findings of the entire site as pseudoarchaeological, rather than merely the wild claims of the site's original finder (Osmanagić)? There does seem to be at least some basis to show human construction at the site in ancient times. But there are continual (and wholly unsupportable, beyond merely absurd) claims made by Osmanagić regarding the nature of the finds--and which should not be held as anything other than pseudoarchaeology. On the other hand, the wildly unrealistic assertions are in fact based on real and discernible things that are misinterpreted--facts that have been twisted, resulting in a site's entire location being called pseudoscience in spite of the fact that the evidence exists upon which the pseudoscience is founded. The issue I have is that a site is being called pseudoarchaeological when the truth is closer to the idea that the claims made about the site are where the pseudoscience is. It's like discounting gravity exists in India because someone once claimed they can levitate there. Keep in mind that in spite of Osmanagić's claims, the government of Bosnia is in fact funding what is essentially tourist income, but these qualified experts who "attend" the site and say things which appear on the sign as endorsements in Osmanagić's YouTube video (Dr. Sam Osmanagich: Bosnian Pyramids - My Story) are either vastly misquoted, or appear impressed that there is at least some merit to the site itself (and typically don't comment on Osmanagić's claims, but on the site). As an example of this on an unrelated topic, few would argue with the idea today that there are at least some craft in the sky nobody is identifying (Moment UFO spotted by US Navy jet - CNN Video - CNN.com), but if we jump immediately to the unsupportable conclusion that this means aliens, it automatically qualifies as pseudoscientific (or irrational, at best). The site is clearly archaeological; the claims made by Osmanagić are absolute pseudoarchaeology and should be treated independently. So, how do we separate the two in order to show that the site is real, even if the claims about its construction are not based in fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHeron (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could propose a change, properly verified by reliable and independent sources? --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Park Ravne 2
Park is an integral part of the pyramid claims. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to finish the article, I think it should not be merged. It is just a park, like any other park that has article on Wikipedia. And there are many. --Mhare (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like a WP:SOAP and WP:CRYSTAL vio at this point given the sources. I don't see that there's anything to merge. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will focus on the park aspect of a park. --Mhare (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please now look at the article? --Mhare (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- No offense, but point me to the references that meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- None taken, but this is article about park. You can't expect me to pull out scholarly articles from journal Science. Look, I get it, I don't like pseudoscience either, I just tried to make article about a park in Visoko. It's not like article claims to have healing powers or something. I even put journal that claim all of this as pseudo history as a reference, for god sake. I looked at about tens of park articles. This one cites yahoogroups and blogspot. This one doesn't do anything I guess. I cited local Visoko portal, that is officialy registered as news agency, Radiosarajevo.ba, Visoko government official site (gov.ba). Please flag inappropriate claims in article so I can meet better quality. Mhare (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've no idea why you responded in that manner.
- Which references meet WP:N? --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- What kind of reference for opening a park can I offer you? I've have no idea why you act offensively and dismissive. Please flag inappropriate references so I can find better ones. Flag dubious statements so I can fix it. It's a article of a park like so many others on Wikipedia. Mhare (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest taking some time to learn Wikipedia far better. I asked for basic, required information. A simple response identifying the information is all that's expected. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are clearly aggressive. I will not get involved in that. I have made my references, and leave it up to the community to decide from this point on are they valid references or not. If the article get merged or deleted, so be it, I leave to the greater good of Wikipedia and it's community. --Mhare (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
You are clearly aggressive
Again, I have no idea why you're responding in such a manner. This is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)- Sorry, but I found your comments inappropriate. --Mhare (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are clearly aggressive. I will not get involved in that. I have made my references, and leave it up to the community to decide from this point on are they valid references or not. If the article get merged or deleted, so be it, I leave to the greater good of Wikipedia and it's community. --Mhare (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest taking some time to learn Wikipedia far better. I asked for basic, required information. A simple response identifying the information is all that's expected. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- What kind of reference for opening a park can I offer you? I've have no idea why you act offensively and dismissive. Please flag inappropriate references so I can find better ones. Flag dubious statements so I can fix it. It's a article of a park like so many others on Wikipedia. Mhare (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- None taken, but this is article about park. You can't expect me to pull out scholarly articles from journal Science. Look, I get it, I don't like pseudoscience either, I just tried to make article about a park in Visoko. It's not like article claims to have healing powers or something. I even put journal that claim all of this as pseudo history as a reference, for god sake. I looked at about tens of park articles. This one cites yahoogroups and blogspot. This one doesn't do anything I guess. I cited local Visoko portal, that is officialy registered as news agency, Radiosarajevo.ba, Visoko government official site (gov.ba). Please flag inappropriate claims in article so I can meet better quality. Mhare (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- No offense, but point me to the references that meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please now look at the article? --Mhare (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will focus on the park aspect of a park. --Mhare (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like a WP:SOAP and WP:CRYSTAL vio at this point given the sources. I don't see that there's anything to merge. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to finish the article, I think it should not be merged. It is just a park, like any other park that has article on Wikipedia. And there are many. --Mhare (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just a comment from an observer: For a subject to warrant a standalone article, it needs to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, and in this case that would need to be WP:GNG. Specifically, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If this park does not have that coverage, then it would not be considered sufficiently notable for its own article. I know there are other articles in Wikipedia that also do not have good coverage in reliable sources, and there are plenty that should be deleted too, but that does not mean new articles don't need to demonstrate notability. My thought is that if this park does not have sufficient coverage for its own article, the content would probably still be acceptable as an addition to the Bosnian pyramid claims article - related subjects included in parent articles do not need to demonstrate individual notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for clear and well-thought observation. All portals I have cited are independent and have their own articles, namely radiosarajevo.ba, and avaz.ba. I can add more references to that if it's suitable. I will not be making any more changes until the community agrees that this belongs to Wikipedia. --Mhare (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have the time to do it now, but I'll be happy to look over the sources and let you know what I think - probably some time tomorrow. But yes, on first look, I do think it belongs here - the question is just whether in its own article or as part of Bosnian pyramid claims (as it is the Osmanagić connection that seems to be most important). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's fair. I get it, it's touchy subject. We can merge it into tourism area of Visoko article if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. There is a lot more work to be done on Visoko anyways. Thanks. Mhare (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- This page is about what is acknowledged in professional circles as an archaeological hoax. The proposed merging of the Park Ravne 2 page into it does not make sense unless the Park were part and parcel of the hoax, which does not seem to be the case. --Elnon (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Elnon: how is it not part and parcel of the hoax? It's part of the Foundation[4] Osmmanagic said ". Semir Osmanagic said: “This park is unique in the Balkans because it is a private archeological park that can be used by all. We came to this idea 7-8 months ago, when below the entrance to the underground maze of Ravne is another entrance for the Bosnian Pyramids. Following this discovery, and for further research, we purchased a smaller parcel around this entrance."[5] The Tripadvisor description (which will have been written by the partk)[6] says ". Several active archaeological sites are located in the park such as the entrance to second level tunnels and shaped hill “the bell tower” with measured energy phenomena. Park has the platform for yoga and meditation, concert stage with the natural amphitheater, “aura amplifier -stone circles”, megalithic blocks – geopunctual circle, underground spiral, double stone labyrinth, spiral botanical garden and other. It’s unique energy park in southern Europe." That's all part of the hoax. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Doug, that's my view as well. If the Park Ravne 2 article was properly fleshed out it would have to tell the reader about the pseudoscience hoax perpetrated on the visitors, and in that case the Park Ravne 2 article would say many of the same things that can be found at the Bosnian pyramid article, but not as much. It's better for the reader to learn about all of it at the same article. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Doug Weller and Binksternet for warning me about the real nature and purpose of Park Ravne. Judging from its Wikipedia article, the park seemed a rather harmless New Age contraption when in fact it is a disingenuous method of leading unsuspecting visitors on. So the proposed merge is fine with me. --Elnon (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Doug, that's my view as well. If the Park Ravne 2 article was properly fleshed out it would have to tell the reader about the pseudoscience hoax perpetrated on the visitors, and in that case the Park Ravne 2 article would say many of the same things that can be found at the Bosnian pyramid article, but not as much. It's better for the reader to learn about all of it at the same article. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Elnon: how is it not part and parcel of the hoax? It's part of the Foundation[4] Osmmanagic said ". Semir Osmanagic said: “This park is unique in the Balkans because it is a private archeological park that can be used by all. We came to this idea 7-8 months ago, when below the entrance to the underground maze of Ravne is another entrance for the Bosnian Pyramids. Following this discovery, and for further research, we purchased a smaller parcel around this entrance."[5] The Tripadvisor description (which will have been written by the partk)[6] says ". Several active archaeological sites are located in the park such as the entrance to second level tunnels and shaped hill “the bell tower” with measured energy phenomena. Park has the platform for yoga and meditation, concert stage with the natural amphitheater, “aura amplifier -stone circles”, megalithic blocks – geopunctual circle, underground spiral, double stone labyrinth, spiral botanical garden and other. It’s unique energy park in southern Europe." That's all part of the hoax. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- This page is about what is acknowledged in professional circles as an archaeological hoax. The proposed merging of the Park Ravne 2 page into it does not make sense unless the Park were part and parcel of the hoax, which does not seem to be the case. --Elnon (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's fair. I get it, it's touchy subject. We can merge it into tourism area of Visoko article if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. There is a lot more work to be done on Visoko anyways. Thanks. Mhare (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have the time to do it now, but I'll be happy to look over the sources and let you know what I think - probably some time tomorrow. But yes, on first look, I do think it belongs here - the question is just whether in its own article or as part of Bosnian pyramid claims (as it is the Osmanagić connection that seems to be most important). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for clear and well-thought observation. All portals I have cited are independent and have their own articles, namely radiosarajevo.ba, and avaz.ba. I can add more references to that if it's suitable. I will not be making any more changes until the community agrees that this belongs to Wikipedia. --Mhare (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)