Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconBosnian pyramid claims is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tourist destination[edit]

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.

Cunard (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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:
* (Radio Free Europe)
* (Euronews)
* (Daily Sabah)
* (Daily Telegraph)
* (National Geographic)
* (The Guardian)
* (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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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)


  • 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)

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.

Another Source(?)[edit]

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: 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

This article doesn't seem neutral[edit]

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 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please provide reliable, independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)