This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:51, October 28, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Talk:Yonaguni Monument is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
I propose to restore them under rule Wikipedia:ELMAYBE, item 4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Take for example site #1. While one may question their interpretation of the structure, the site contains a lot of factual information (including many photos of the structure) which is useful and, as far as I can tell, as accurate as one can get. Likewise, Robert Schoch's page (site #3) is a report by one of the few geologists who have studied the structure firsthand. One may not agree with his opinions either (which, by the way, are mostly opposite to those of sites #1 and #2); but, if his report is not source worth citing, then which one is?
When asked for "Yonaguni monument", Google will give a long list of sites, most of them being random hey-look-at-this-cool-stuff scraps casually copied from other casual sites. The links above are are some of the "best" ones I could find in terms of being either close to the primary sources, or fairly extensive, or (at least) carefully edited and organized. Methinks that the benefits that readers may get out of those links far outweight their cost. If no one objects, I will put them back. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for bringing the discussion here. In my appraisal, these links do not qualify for inclusion as external links in Wikipedia based on WP:ELNO, specifically: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." - this is a serious problem, and I don't believe it is counterbalanced by the inclusion of other content, such as photographs, particularly when this content is presented with a questionable interpretation.
However, I'll grant that some of these are worse than others. Perhaps the flickr.com photograph collection could be re-included? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I just remembered that two of the links, the "Alternative Archaeology site" and the "Page on Yonaguni" are currently used as references in the article. While I'm not too impressed with their standing as reliable sources, as long as they are used as references they shouldn't also be listed as external links. So we're really talking about two links, the "Photo collection" and the "Morien Institute." ClovisPt (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fringe nature of some of the viewpoints the topic, I think these external links should be left out. Otherwise, it looks an attempt to get around NPOV and FRINGE issues. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I normally wouldn't like to use these sites however due to lack of attention from mainstream academics I think it would be better to present the best information available and include a disclaimer. There have been some compaints about censorship at wikipedia most of which don't hold up after a close look but when we have a subject that is almost completely ignored by most of the academic community one way or another the fringe groups are going to get the attention of the public. This shouldn't be left to them the mainsteam acidemics should take a closer look and either confirm or debunk this. This is a solid structure that has lasted thousands of years we should be able to confirm the hard facts. As for it being a source already that isn't the most organized way to site external links. I see no problem with providing a external link to the main page. This way with the disclaimer wikipedia wouldn't be endorsing the sites or censoring them they would be inviting the public to draw their own conclusions. Also if people go directly to the fringe sites on their own they will never read the disclaimer and some may not doubt the fringe ideas. Also I changed the size of the monument the sources sited didn't mention the size and my source did but it was different.
good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has objected to my proposal I have put the external links back with a disclaimer. If any one disagrees with the wording of the disclaimer and would prefer a different that would be fine but I think the links should remain with some kind of disclaimer. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. NPOV and FRINGE issues should not be addressed by the use of external links. Sorry I wasn't clear before. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The only page you did leave is the one with the least amount of information. some of these pictures have been confimed by other sources but are not available online. As I implied before the only thing this acomplishes is to neglect the issue and censor the best information available about the subject. This actualy gives more credibility to the fringe beliefs (some of which are backed up by people with Phd degrees) once it is ignored since they are the only ones addressing this subject and the readers will no longer even read a disclaimer. I don't agree with all the conclusions they may have come up with either but I think the subject should be addressed in the most effective way possible which doesn't involve ignoring the issue. However I'm not going to push it. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to all Yonaguni Monument readers and contributors. Speaking of the topic of external links, I was just surprised not to see any link to Wikipedia pages like Japan, Japanese History, Prehistory of Japan and the like. Furthermore, a link to Wikipedia Yonaguni Monument page is, I feel, definitely needed in those Wikipedia pages relating to "Japan". This is of course a geopolitical categorization, and therefore "Japan". Not being a prehistory specialist, I do not have any claims as to who built the monument. But as I have forgotten its name, and couldn't find the island on the map of Japan, I searched through the Japan-related pages of Wikipedia and could not find any link to the "japanese underwater monument", the phrase a later took to a search engine to see the name by which the place is called. Many thanks if this rings true to your ears. OnderOtcu (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) OnderOtcu (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also see a problem in removing these external links especially because the underwater pictures being still one of the major sources and proof of a lot of details within the article. The problem I see lies in external links to a specific picture (regarding a certain fact) not being allowed directly within the text. Only references are allowed which then have to follow special rules. These rules were established for good reasons (like for example: only references of valid sources are allowed) but I think that especially written sources were in mind making these rules, cause the written word can easily be manipulated or wrongly cited. But in my opinion photos of certain monuments/structures/formations should be allowed as references regardless the web-source to proof a certain fact that is mentioned in the article (especially when these facts are marked with "citatation needed" and thus are threatened to be removed) if a topic is not covered enough with scientifically research (as mentioned by others before). Is this already theory finding or (more likely) original research? -- Weapon X(talk, contribs)02:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links meet WP:EL and all are partisan. This includes the Flickr link which suggests that there were symbols on stones connected to this site. Selections of photographs are almost always selective, the written word can be checked against the source but photographs can be manipulated and the source impossible to find. Doug Weller (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Natural formation? hahaha. There is nothing similar above sea. this is a place submerged 8.000 years ago or more. Ancient carving and quarries spotted in the region. Misterious ancient drawings near theplace. The best pic and info links prohibited. Could be wikipedia be more closed minded?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim FOR sure (talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the geology above ground is very similar to what you see under the water. The Japanese scientists certainly don't agree with your date in any case. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy most scientists put an earlier date of 10,000 BCE according to the article, the exception seems to be a result of carbon dating of marine life 6,000 year old which put a minimum date of 4,000 BCE but doesn't rule out a older date. So the Japanese scientists aren't diputing the older date Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The manner in which this section is written implies that Robert Schoch from Boston actually thinks it's an entirely natural structure. However the article on Schoch is quite different in tone, as it states:
He is also known for his research on the Yonaguni underwater "monuments," where he has dived on several occasions, beginning in 1997; his analysis of the formations is that it is a natural site modified by man to suit their needs. He has said that "We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."
This is a completely different conclusion to the statements on this page. Which article is therefore correct? Or in the tag I used, which one is not a POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.57 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point it out on google maps? Or at least give a description. The only directions given are to the Island, but nothing about which side of the island, how far out etc. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry if I sound new, this is my first time using a Talk page. I am the user who added a few [who?] and [citation needed] tags, as well as tagged the article as having weasel words and needing further references last night. I did so under an IP as I was not logged in. I wanted to stop by this page and say that there is quite a few more instances of weasel words and lack of references, but I was hesitant to mark up the page further with even more in-text and article tags. Through reading over the article again it seems like there is a fair amount of original research within, but I don't feel I can make that call on my own, as I am still fairly new to editing on wikipedia. If anyone else who is more experienced would be open to going over the edits I did, and adding more of their own (either fixing the errors I tagged, or by further tagging of errors for others) it would be much appreciated. Lgnlint (talk) 5:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is that there is no rubble at the bottom of the structure, so must have been removed in the distant past. Every natural structure like this has massive rubble around it, this site has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.146.130 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "structure" can mean something built by people, I've replaced the word with "features" or "formations" depending upon the context. [1] Per NPOV and FRINGE, I don't think we should be suggesting the formations have been built. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pushing it to suggest that it would be obvious that to a reader that 'structure' can also mean something created by nature, especially in this context. And in geology, archaeology, etc context is paramount. Doug Wellertalk06:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think it is not realistic to find the author of the photo and get their permission to use it here. Another problem is that it is of relatively low quality, and captures only part of the monument, while the resolution is too low to seen important features of the site. I have just added a couple of photos that I took in 2013. It is not easy to make a good overview photo of the site. General scheme of the structure is here: http://www.yonaguni.jp/en/uw/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkov (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I would also like to know why have you undone my edit that added images. I can't find any guideline explaining what's wrong in the images (well, divers in frame? there are virtually no images of this place w/o divers, see the image at the top of the page). Image description is so far common knowledge rather that original research. Anyone (*holding OWD certification) can go and see these.Melkov (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image titled "twin megaliths" is not bad, but needs a better caption. The bright red flippers are a distraction, but the diver provides a scale. The second image is less useful, although it does show the layered "step-like" nature of the bedrock. Would need a better caption as they really aren't "right angle" ... and the "red rock" sorta distracts - perhaps crop it a bit to focus more on the points of interest. And avoid captions that are based on one's personal point of view. Just some thoughts. Vsmith (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith: "Twin megaliths" is kinda official name from here: http://yonaguni.jp/en/uw/index.html . There are some more images of these on Wikimedia but they would not make a thumbnail where these things are clearly recognizable. I also do not have any other photo in my own archive. Also, would "right angle" -> "seemingly right angle" be sufficient? I will edit out red rock then.Melkov (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Melkov: that's a tourist site. It's got a clear bias, it says its founder was the first to discover the "monument". Anyone wanting to give an underwater tour at that site would want fancy names for the features, but in particular this company is pushing the idea that it is the remains of an ancient civilization. "Turtle stone" is clearly fanciful, no reader will think it's a petrified turtle or whatever. But once we start using the nomenclature devised by people pushing the idea it's an ancient civilization, we've broken WP:NPOV. By the way, my first reaction on seeing your photograph labeled "right angles" was that I didn't see any. My second reaction was even if they were right angles, why would we want a photo of right angles? Doug Wellertalk19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The right quotation from the book is: "The Yonaguni Underwater Pyramid and associated structures found below water off southern Yonaguni
continue above, where I have examined them extensively". Therefore Dr. Nunn doesn't seem to have ever examined underwater part personally. I would also assert that underwater photos of the site publicly available at the date when his book was written, and he might have used, were not of a good quality.
I have also compared my personal impressions and photos of the underwater site with a single image of the above-the-water site that was in the book. These are pretty much different.
Therefore I must assert that this article does not have any reliable source from any scientist who have ever visited (SCUBA dived) the site underwater who would claim that the structure is naturally formed without any human intervention. The wording should be edited accordingly.Melkov (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Melkov: that's simply not the way we decide if a source meets our criteria at WP:RS. You are speculating on what he did and the photos and using your own impressions and photos. We call this no original research and although it's interesting, that's all it is. If you want to ask at the appropriate noticeboard, feel free, it's WP:RSN, but you'll be told the same thing. Doug Wellertalk11:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:Ok I must agree that is it a reliable source, but at least misused. The statement that Dr.Nunn "has studied these formations extensively" that is presently in the article is misleading and does not derive from his book, as you can see from the quote I provided here. Is a valuable but alternative opinion, and the article structure should reflect that.Melkov (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:Well it is your misunderstanding that I doubt that the structure continues above. It does end up with some rocks sticking out of the water below the cliffs (see image). Rocks in the water between Y.M. and the cliffs above it However there's also nothing similar to the image in the book. Well, now I even have an answer why. Sanninudai (サンニヌ台) cliffs are almost 3 km (1.8 mi) away from Yonaguni Monument https://goo.gl/maps/qTCUcu7rSAD2 . So the correct annotation to Dr.Nunn's opinion would be "Patrick D. Nunn,..., who probably haven't ever come closer than 3 km to the structure discussed, notes ...". That is totally a reason for that entire passage to be deleted. Melkov (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I'm providing the exact quote from the book. "The slate forming the Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures has been fashioned solely by natural processes." - which is totally wrong because Sanninudai is 3 km away. I also would like to point out that Japanese article does not reference Nunn because a native Japanese can read Japanese the map easily. So the current situation is not that "we can't do that". Now it just has to be done. It is thanks to you that I took trouble to check the map. The way of Y.M. structures continuing abouve the water can also be easily inspected vial Google Maps in satellite mode https://goo.gl/maps/jedEkn7bcQoMelkov (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz:Is there a rule that a request to take down a RS can not be an original research? Anyway, let's do it cleanly, adding another sentence "However, Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument" with https://goo.gl/maps/qTCUcu7rSAD2 as ref (I just checked, this kind of use of Google Maps as RS looks OK since we are basically just "verifying coordinates").Melkov (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be inserting your own original research in an attempt to undermine a source. Following that path can result in a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz:Do you insist that a trivial statement like: "Distance between points A and B is N km, link to map" is an original research not allowed on Wikipedia? And the second question, what's wrong with undermining a source that fails trivial fact-checking like that?Melkov (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what's wrong with undermining a source that fails trivial fact-checking like that Your personal belief that it undermines the source is the problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz:Please answer 3 questions I asked earlier, outside the context of this discussion:
1.Is there a rule that a request to take down a RS can not be an original research?
2.Do you insist that a trivial statement like: "Distance between points A and B is N km, link to map" is an original research not allowed on Wikipedia?
@Ronz: I find ER irrelevant because it is for protected pages. Probably WP:RFC. By far, I have the answer for one of questions above. You can challenge it though. Melkov (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is going to leave you very frustrated at best. A proper RFC is basically just an ER with a request for a broader audience. Take your time and try to make a far clearer case that doesn't have everyone respond by saying it's original research. --Ronz (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same view as in Nunn's book. Click geotag, see the map, look how far it is from Y.M.What Nunn presumably studied, if he ever did, is to the east of the first imageThis is what Nunn might also have studied
Firstly I would like to outline the book's content related to Yonaguni Monument for those who do not have quick access to the book itself. Nunn gives an overview of Kimura and Schoch opinions (we have these in our Wikipedia article), then proceeds with his own field research, then gives the conclusion we all know. The field research, in turn, is described in just two sentences, which I will quote here once again: "The Yonaguni
Underwater Pyramid and associated structures found below water off southern Yonaguni continue above, where I have examined them extensively, and there seems no reason to suppose that they are artificial (Figure 7.2d)" and under Figure 7.2d: "The slate forming the Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures has been fashioned solely by natural processes". Figure 7.2d itself is a photo that is indeed (I verified that, anyone can, too) taken at Sanninudai.
Secondly I would like to outline the history of the passage about Nunn's opinion in our Wikipedia article. It was initially added by User:Doug Weller almost 8 and a half years ago. It already contained the misinterpretation that lead the reader into thinking that Nunn made an extensive study both onshore and below the water at Yonaguni Monument. Next one is the change by User:Goustien one year later who added info about "continuing into Sanninudai" to the article. This is what basically survived until last week (7 March 2019)
What is bad with having, for many years, a statement that inflates the value of Nunn's research? Dozens, maybe hundreds of tertiary content sites (including Q&A sites like Quora) copied or based their reports blindly on our Wikipedia article. That would lead many scientists to believe that the matter was already thoroughly investigated by some professor (Nunn) and the case is closed. They are discouraged to do any field research at the site of Yonaguni Monument that would support Natural generation hypothesis. This in turn brings the situation that the only thorough research that supports Natural generation we have at hands is of Schoch.
Meanwhile, sources that support Artificial generation continue to emerge, because, like I have mentioned, it is enough to dive at the site to make you believe that Yonaguni Monument is at least not completely natural.
This is the illustration of the way that trying to maintain the POV balance and neutrality by referring a relatively poor research and trying to inflate its value actually backslashes against the endangered POV you are trying to protect in the long term.
Finally let's turn to the "Sanninudai cliffs above the underwater Yonaguni structures" stuff. This is a mistaken statement in the book itself, that can be disproved by looking at the map. It further diminishes the value of Nunn's research. Leaving this matter unattended is as bad as previously having the value of the research inflated.
Explicitly stating (provided that map-supported statement is not an Original Research) that Nunn's research was taken in a wrong place would encourage the editors to find new better sources (if any) and the scientists to make some new research, which would improve the POV balance in the long term.
Conversely, trying to protect a source with low-quality information from being challenged will bring more harm in the long term. - Melkov (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: So you believe that the cliffs are not a part of the same geological structure as that of the underwater area? --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is most likely different geological structure. Basically, I believe that if Dr.Nunn actually knew that he is researching a place that is 3 km away from Y.M. and still thought that it is the same geological structure he would clarify that. Anyway, above Y.M. is Arakawabana (新川鼻), not Sanninudai cliffs. Melkov (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found a Japanese page that surprisingly ends up with English text island.html. Not sure about the reliability though. (A) Both Sanninudai and Arakawabana (Arakawa-bana) belong to the same "Yaeyama Layer" ("八重山群層") made up of "Shale" and "Sandstone". This pdf document: yonaguni1.pdf which is linked by Japanese article on Yonaguni also contains the same map at page 3 図２. (B) "However says Prof. Ishii that the composition of The Structure itself is a little different from those rocks of Arakawa-bana layer, and is "Silt"". Melkov (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some links to sites with "Useful" images taken at Sanninudai (can not find anything of better resolution): (1)(2)(3) (4) Page 6 図10 of the above-mentioned yonaguni1.pdf. I should note, though, that some people believe that those Sanninudai formations might also be artificial. Melkov (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:@Ronz: I've got new nice images geotagged for your consideration (on the right of this section). Let me reiterate myself: (1) Not a well-known scientist; (2) Apparent mistake; (3) No proof that research was ever done; (4) Only a few words on the topic, compared to other RS where people say "I have dived at Y.M. at those dates this many times, saw this and that and therefore my conclusion". Now will you please thoroughly explain why this reference is valuable enough to be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkov (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically there's a question: among the people who know locations of Yonaguni well, who would write a statement about the distance between Y.M. and Sanninudai, to be used as a RS? To reiterate, a common knowledge for the people who live or work at Yonaguni, that you were trying to deny? Thankfully, there's such a person, none other than prof. Kimura. In this scanned article he states at p.61 that "The site is about 2.5 km east of the same Arakawa-bana that served as a reference marker for Yonaguni Submarine Pyramid". However, out of context, a single misuse of "the" article in the next passage: "pyramidal shape continued from THE underwater formation" could have long-standing consequences including Dr.Nunn being confused. That is, unless we consider Fig.5 at p.53 that shows just some flat underwater area below water at Sanninudai, so the phrase should actually be read as "pyramidal shape continued from AN underwater formation".Melkov (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not definitively a monument, it is an example of Submarine Topography. So I suggest a rename to Yonaguni Island Submarine TopographySlatersteven (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "monument" bit is a problem as it appears to be an example of bedrock structure. I would support the suggested rename ... or some other formulation that avoids the "monument" bit which "pushes" a specific point of view. Having said that ... it seems there could be some history behind the current name that should perhaps be considered. Vsmith (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that tourist attractions and tabloids promote it a lot, it appears to mostly be called "Yonaguni Monument", but I also see: "Yonaguni pyramid", "Japanese Atlantis", "Yonaguni ruins", and finally in more serious (but few) publications: "Yonaguni formation". It would seem that the current title remains the WP:COMMONNAME in English for it... —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to find out who among the subscribers or accidental visitors of this talk page have actually been at the site that the article describes. Sorry for being slightly impudent, but I believe that an article about a tourist spot should mostly look as an article about a tourist spot, and to achieve that the people who have actually been there are best editors. Dive, Glass Boat or Snorkel, please.Melkov (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Totally inappropriate. Yes, it's a tourist spot, but as we rely entirely on sources that meet our criteria and not at all on individual experience for the text of our articles, no one needs to have been there to be a good editor. Doug Wellertalk19:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:What I see right now is that at least two sources "that meet our criteria" were previously intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted, including Dr.Nunn's book as stated above, and previously R.Schoch article http://www.robertschoch.net/Enigmatic%20Yonaguni%20Underwater%20RMS%20CT.htm as well. Notably, if you read R.Schoch's article right, and build this wiki article right, there would not be more fodder for anti-science than we currently have here. And that idea is that when you dive at the site, you get an impression of an ancient city ruins that you could previously see in en masse on your "Ancient Greece" bus tour or similar trip. And yet there's absolutely no trace or evidence of any human activity. If there's another such place in the world, just add a category "natural landscape that looks exactly like an ancient city ruins" and be done with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkov (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I feel that comparing a non-existent object with a place anyone can visit is not a good argument, I still want to point out that you will most likely start with using your previous experience to find Reliable Sources, should an article about non-existent werewolves emerge.Melkov (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that adding a statement that "Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument while providing a link to online (Google) maps" would be original research so should not be done.
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.
Can I add a statement that Sanninudai cliffs are 3 km away from Yonaguni Monument while providing a link to online (Google) maps? Melkov (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any recommendations on how to link to g.maps in a better way are also welcome. Basically two problems: Sanninudai is only labeled in Japanese, サンニヌ台, which might limit the number of people who will understand the map just by looking at it; and inability to embed "measure distance" feature into the map URL so I resorted to using Route feature.
@Melkov:You were asked to make a clear statement about this, and you've not done so. Please explain why this statement belongs in this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a NOT and POV violation to include it for a number of reasons. Please cooperate with other editors and explain the need for the content, this RfC, and all the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly stated that the statement in question is an Original Research. Now that I created an RfC questioning whether is it actually an OR, you are spamming this RfC section with additional claims. What are you doing? - Melkov (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mess. @Melkov:, your argument should be here, not in other threads above. It boils down to your admitting that there are cliffs above the formation and that you don't know what the type of rock forming those cliffs is called or whether it is the same as the Sanninudai slate, but you want to add a sentence suggesting that it isn't. Are you also arguing that there is no resemblance between the rock under the water and the rock above the water? Doug Wellertalk09:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Basically my argument boils down to that Dr.Nunn, knowing that he is researching 3 km away from Y.M., should have clarified why does he consider that there are the same rock types, formation conditions, etc., but he didn't. Another problem is that by reading his statements, the reader would think that Yonaguni Monument is below Sanninudai, which is wrong. Next, I only said that there's no resemblance between the features visible on the photo "Figure 7.2d" in the book and Y.M. (basically because the photo was taken from a wrong angle).Melkov (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm missing something from the conversation above, but from Google Maps it looks like the monument is about 100 metres away from the cliffs. It might be 3km from where Google put their 'サンニヌ台' label, but what I'm seeing from the satellite image appears to be a series of cliffs interspersed with rocky beaches all the way from the label down to the monument. My uninformed assumption would be that this series of cliffs are known as the Sanninudai cliffs, and that Google put their label where the car park for the cliffs is. So, yes, using this as a source to make that claim would definitely be OR, and probably factually inaccurate as well. GirthSummit (blether)15:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OSM has the cliff (unnamed) running along a stretch of the coast starting at the eastern point, roughly centred on the locality label, and ending about a kilometre from the YM coördinates. But the contours (as shown in the Cycle layer) remain pretty steep the rest of the way to the southern point.—Odysseus147903:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for community input here. By far, I have enough RS to clarify the geography in question, but it would not be as concise and clear as a single link to map.Melkov (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The state of Main Features section in its present form is somewhat frustrating because if a person diving at Y.M. would read this article before (or even after) the dive, they would have a hard time identifying the stuff they see on site with "Main Features" here.
Of course the edit that deleted commonly known names of the features is half-responsible for the trouble, but there's another problem: half of the features listed are just not there at Yonaguni Monument. On the other hand, at least one important feature, "Arch gate", is missing. The reference map would probably be this: [2], also this: [3] (図３). These schemes are also available in books of Prof. Kimura. I will try to find something useful in English later.Melkov (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two closely spaced pillars which rise to within eight feet of the surface;
What's that? Not a single scheme of description of Y.M. I could find mentions "two pillars". Probably "Twin megaliths".
Proposed wording: Two huge stone slabs standing parallel to each other (also called "Twin megaliths");
The "Loop Road", a 5 m (16 ft) wide ledge that encircles the base of the formation on three sides;
Proposed wording: A 5 m (16 ft) wide ledge that encircles the base of the formation on three sides (also called "Loop Road");
The "Totem", a stone column about 7 m (23 ft) tall;
It is located at "Second underwater hill" just to the south of the western part of Y.M. which is the "First hill". Kind of close, but if you dive specifically at Y.M. you most likely won't be able to explore it. Probably we need another list like "nearby features".
Proposed wording: A stone column about 7 m (23 ft) tall located to the south of the Monument (also called "Totem");
The "Dividing Wall", a straight wall 10 m (33 ft) long;
Ok there are two huge long straight walls, which one is it? Also I didn't see the name "Dividing Wall" in any sources so far.
But there is "Retaining Wall" page 59, boulders aligned neatly along the "outer" (south) edge of the "Loop road". Probably the walls of Y.M. terraces got mixed with "Retaining Wall" in someone's mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkov (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Gosintai", an isolated boulder resting on a low platform;
It is like 100 meters to the east of the Monument, adding 270 meters of total length of the Monument, there are even fewer chances to see it during a regular dive than "Totem".
Proposed wording: An isolated boulder resting on a low platform to the east of the Monument (also called "Goshintai" as well as "Sun Stone");
The "Turtle", a low star-shaped platform;
Proposed wording: A low star-shaped platform (also called "Turtle Monument");
The "Triangle Pool", a triangular depression with two large holes at its edge;
Well OK, but there are 3 holes.
Proposed wording: A triangular depression with three large holes at its edge (also called "Triangle Pool");
The "Stage", an L-shaped rock.
What's called the "Stage" is actually 2 km to the east near Tachigami-iwa [4]. It was difficult to find out what "L-shaped rock" is. Some 200 meters to the east of Y.M. there is a "Stadium" where an L-shaped rock was recovered. It is an artifact that was taken away and is not there any more.
To illustrate "Main features" we still don't have free images of these objects:
"Triangle Pool" - taken from the top, with triangular form and holes visible. Basically like here. Images of T.P. from lower position are in abundance, but in order to take a proper image a diver would have to resurface (basically we don't do that in the middle of the dive). But snorkeling is helpful here.
"Sun Stone" - it is pretty far away, most likely need to do a separate dive just to see it. Basically, image like this: [5]
One of the problems that little has been published by mainstream archaeologists and geologists in terms of their evaluations of Dr. Kimura's interpretations. In part this is because most mainstream researchers have better things to do, e.g. supervising graduate students; preparing grant proposals; writing papers; conducting research; and so forth, than discussing every fringe claim that makes it into print and onto the Internet. Another problem is that although a few such papers that have been published, they are in Japanese and published in journals that cannot be accessed by normal means.
I have located what appears to be discussions by mainstream researchers concerning the validity of Dr. Kimura's interpretations in Volume 22, no.2 of 月刊地球 (Earth Monthly). Unfortunately, not only are these discussions in Japanese, I also have not been able obtain copies of these papers. If someone has access to volume 22 of 月刊地球 (Earth Monthly), maybe the papers in this issue can a source of mainstream viewpoints and interpretations about the origin and significance the "Yonaguni Monument." I have specific citations for the individual papers, but lack access to this specific issue. I do have a couple of friends, who know Japanese, including a couple of geologists. Paul H. (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There might be even a problem with determining what's fringe here. While Mu/Lemuria theories are fringe in plain sight, dr. Kimura's most "recent" theory (it is as old as this page, though) about Yamatai, whose location is not officially discovered, pretty much does not contradict anything (except for other Yamatai theories). I would suggest to focus on finding new RS while gradually improving overall usability and readability of the article. Melkov (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains a link to NDL paid photocopy service, which is probably usable, all in English. Titles (hidden under "Detailed Record View") are definitely interesting and may be useful. Good luck. Melkov (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There might be even a problem with determining what's fringe here Howso?
This article clearly again attacks that 10000-old Mu/Lemuria stuff, and may be useful for that case. However it does not mention Kimura at all. Additionally when I see an article with this image (not flat, very bumpy and fractured surfaces not a bit similar to Y.M.) and not that (clearly similar), I conclude that the article was written in a rush without proper investigation. Should there be "peer review", it would not pass. Melkov (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made some rough, initial edits to get us moving in the right direction. Looking at the sources and their quality, it appears Kimura's claims are purely FRINGE in nature, and pseudoarchaeological per the Feagans article discussed above. If there are any reliable sources demonstrating otherwise, please point them out. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't seem to comment why you think that Feagans opinion is in any relation with Kimura's Yamatai hypothesis (which is 1000-0 years b.c.e.). Also pity the Features list, I will resurrect it on Wikivoyage. Melkov (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGE, SOAP, POV. Kimura can make all the claims he wants, but without any reliable sources showing they're anything but FRINGE claims, we shouldn't treat them otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, there's no word about Kimura in the article link you provided. Like I said, the article is only about the "theories" that Y.M. was man-modified 10000 years ago. Kimura dropped that idea 10-15 years ago and is now writing about the stuff of 2000-3000 years ago. Please provide a link to another article that really support that Kimura's *current* theories a FRINGE. Melkov (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started this discussion asking for sources. Can you find any?
Perhaps we can reword the lede so it's clearer that we're talking about the claims in general.
So far as I see the FRINGE policy, there's no requirement that a RS saying that something is not FRINGE has to be provided (generally such RS may appear only after something is widely considered FRINGE). Regarding this article, which is really much better than previous, there are few points. First, the author is still writing about Pleistocene and is unaware that Kimura has dropped his Pleistocene theories many years before the article was written. Second, the author very carefully avoids calling Kimura's claims "pseudoscience" or "pseudoarchaeology" while having no restrain towards the "elements like Graham Hancock". Therefore calling Kimura's research FRINGE based on the article is clearly WP:SYNTH on your side. Melkov (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, on the content and FRINGE.
The ref states, The first and primary claim made about the Yonaguni Formation, that it is an artificial, megalithic construction, is not upheld. Not if you’re a rational person who cares about evidence.
WP:SYNTH states clearly what is SYNTH. As the author of the ref does not claim that Kimura's research is FRINGE (and clearly avoids that), you statement that it follows from ref that Kimura's research is FRINGE is SYNTH. Re-read WP:SYNTH again.
So far you have failed to provide any reliable link supporting FRINGE, therefore I can not provide you a link in response.
By the way, I'm not a follower of "Artificial origin" to begin with. This is again your WP:SYNTH. My interest is to have this page be a collection of double and triple-checked information, so that some people would not incorrectly claim that "Yonaguni Monument is below Sanninudai", others would not claim that "Photographs of <object> are not available", etc. Melkov (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Starting THIRDOPINION. Please edit the section in the case I misstated your opinion while summarizing. Then I will post the request to 3O page. Melkov (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to read this article. Does it follow from the article that claims of prof. Kimura are fringe theories or pseudoscience? Detailed discussion is above.
Per Melkov, it does not follow. Author of the article carefully avoids calling Kimura's theories fringe or pseudoscience, only noting that they are used by pseudo-scientists. Melkov (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, that "neither the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs nor the government of Okinawa Prefecture recognize the features as important cultural artifacts..." could be an strong evidence that mainstream consensus is that Yonaguni is a natural rock formations and Kimura's theories are considered fringe. It would be interesting to obtain a copy of any study that was made for this determination as it would have been strongly vetted.
Finally, it was at one point written; “His ideas are disputed and there is debate about whether the site is completely natural, a natural site that has been modified, or a man-made.” Yes, there is a debate, but seems to be a one-sided debate with Kimura receiving support only from fringe sources and the trained geologists and archaeologists concluding that Yonaguni is a natural rock formation. To claim that there is a truly scientific debate, it seems that a person needs reliable, non-fringe sources that support Kimura's theories in addition to Kimura. People can come up with strange ideas, e.g. Chonosuke Okamura. Paul H. (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul H.:This section of the page was made in preparation for inviting someone via 3O process. Please move your comments outside of this section. I can't post 3O invitation while they are here.Melkov (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
THIRD is no longer an option at this point, and asking an editor to remove comments is inappropriate. WP:DR has further options to consider. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statement under discussion is a direct accusation of doing a pseudoscience towards an active professor. In that sense such a bold statement must be supported by a RS stating that literally, not in the form of that Kimura is helping the pseudo-scientists. In a more general sense, I think that finding such a RS in non-Japanese internet is unlikely. To accuse Kumura, a standing scientist would have to base their opinion on actual Kimura's publications (after reading those in Japanese), not the scattered and unreliable data found on the internet. As for Japanese community, should such a statement appear, it would already be linked by Japanese page on Y.M.Melkov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being an active professor with a PhD does not mean that a person is infalliable and incapable of publishing foolish research. For example, the fact that Young Earth creationists like Dr. Steven Austin, Dr. Andrew Snelling, and Dr. Kurt Wise have valid PhDs does not preclude them from publishing and engaging in dreadfully bad pseudoscience. In Kimura's case, the dreath of support by mainstream scientists and active support by many fringe "researchers" of his ideas support the idea that Yonaguni is manmade structure of any age is indeed pseudoscience. Paul H. (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what you have stated here is your own reasoning, called WP:OR (original research) on Wikipedia. It is OK on a Talk page, but within the main article, any statement that may be doubted by other Wikipedia editors must be supported by a statement directly found within a Reliable Source provided by a reference link. I only argue that current link does not have such a statement, and finding other links to replace it is unlikely. Melkov (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple, experienced editors have reviewed the situation and no one agrees with you.
A little offtopic here, but I treat the phrase "multiple, experienced editors"... as an indirect insult and inappropriate notice. Stating "multiple editors" should have been sufficient. Melkov (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Melkov: you shouldn't take it that way. You've got 115 edits. Ronz has 115005. Slatersteven has 32360. Paul has 12501. I have 203956. If you're wondering how I know, I have a script that let's me hoever over signatures and see h how many edits an editor has, as well as other information. Experience normally means greater understanding of our policies and guidelines. There's no insult in stating a fact. Doug Wellertalk10:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Emphasis" was in a different context, while "rewording" was followed by your new link, so it slipped out of my attention. I can not make up suggestions right now for phrasing that would not imply Kimura's research to be a pseudoscience, so I ask you to present your variant(s) here. Melkov (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest add this page to a pseudoscepticism page. Even Dougweller here dont denies he is hiding the truth.
Why no clear pic of a NON rock formation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.205.239.98 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that claims that prof. Kimura's research being pseudoscience are in clear contradiction with the community guidelines on what can be marked as a pseudoscience (specifically WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE/ALT and WP:FRINGEBLP). However it does relate to publications of other authors, such as Graham Hancock, that are described as a pseudoscience according to the community guidelines. Melkov (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Quandoomni, should something ancient and artificial be found even by a non-archaeologist, that's still archaeology. Additionally, you claim that "... contains no statements by actual Archaeologists" might not be correct. For instance, prof. Kimura's several books on the topic have more than a dozen so-authors. You'll have to verify all those co-authors' profession to make such a claim (it is a hard task unless you can read Japanese and are ready to buy a pile of copyrighted Japanese books). Additionally I've noticed that you've renamed the article. Such renames require formal discussion and acceptance. Renaming of this article has already been discussed and denied. I'm going to revert your changes. Melkov (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The major roadblock that that I have with working on this article is accessing papers. I have citations and a geologist friend willing to translate Japanese to English. The problem is obtaining actual copies of the papers that go with the citations. I and others cannot find their text online and they are for practical purposes impossible to get by interlibrary loan. If someone could suggest how to get copies, it would be helpful. Specifically, I am at this time looking for someone with access to volume 22, no. 2, of 月刊地球. Paul H. (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Monument can have various meanings; one of them is, 'a natural feature of outstanding value'. I did type in the edit box that a change like the one you made is best discussed here, in the talk page. I think that's best for adding an adjective like 'so-called.'Halbared (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Normally I just edit an article with missing information and just write it normally, but I see that over the years there's been a lot of debate over these issues so I'm opening a discussion.
First of all, although I think it was an honest mistake of an edit that accidentally dropped a paragraph out, and thus not a debate, I'm bringing it up here that Professor Masaaki Kimura original observations and impressions about the artifacts origin has been scrapped from the article completely. At first it is mentioned that Prof. Masaaki Kimura was sent to examine the artifacts, then there is a paragraph about its history, then we move straight to colleges opinions on its origin, some directly contradicting Prof. Kimura, yet at no point is mentioned what did he make of it all. Only by their responses to him, and later his reassessment report, we can learn what he published at first when the site was discovered. I believe it must be mentioned, and it probably was and mistakenly deleted. If there's such a previous paragraph I'd love to be redirect to it so it can be restored, or I can draft a new one.
Secondly, and most importantly, the headline under which Prof. Masaaki Kimura reassessment report is written. I think it is extremely disrespectful to put Prof. Kimura sayings under "Pseudoarcheology". Prof. Kimura is at least as respected and professional as his colleagues, and he does not fit under such insulting terms, as if he is a rouge YouTuber making false claim. In legal terms, as wild his claims may sound, the natural formation theory is as circumstantial as Prof. Kimura theory. So I would like the community approval to tone down the condescending approach to Prof. Kimura throughout the paragraph, as if his claims have any less proof as the counter argument of natural formation, and show this esteemed professor the respect he deserves. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response. I was drafted for army reserve.
I don't see how Prof. Masaaki Kimura remarks, even if strange, can be categorized as Pseudoarcheology. They are not completely out of the question, certainly not about super-natural stuff, and were never debunked. Prof. Kimura later revised some of his conclusions, and they are standing as a possibility exactly as the more conservative approach. Prof. Masaaki Kimura is is an esteemed scientist and part of the scientific consensus, his remarks cannot be put in the same category as conspiracies such as Atlantis or the Alien Egyptians.
As for my first point, I still don't understand why an entire paragraph with his statement was removed hastily without even adjusting the paragraphs before and after it, which are still links to it. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
02:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
(not flat, very bumpy and fractured surfaces not a bit similar to Y.M.) and not that 
(clearly similar), I conclude that the article was written in a rush without proper investigation. Should there be "peer review", it would not pass. Melkov (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)