Talk:Yonaguni Monument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


For example: Yonaguni Monument Diagram


Discussion on Yonaguni Monument

Proposal to restore External Links that were deleted[edit]

The following external links were deleted from the article, under rule Wikipedia:ELNO:

  1. Alternative Archaeology site with an extensive section on Yonaguni Monument.
  2. Yonaguni pages at the Morien Istitute].
  3. page on Yonaguni by Robert M. Schoch.
  4. Yonaguni underwater structure (Photo collection)

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)

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 photograph collection could be re-included? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) Germany 02:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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)
Important INFORMATION. Again wikitalibans trying to impose his short view. The facts and pics are there, undeniable. (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Frustrating again[edit]

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?

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)

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)

Pseudo archaeology catagory[edit]

There are many sites that atract Pseudo archaeology interest but that doesn't make the site Pseudo archaeology just the Pseudo archaeologist Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Natural formation section[edit]

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 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. He does call it a natural structure, that was correct, but his caveat should have been added. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is it[edit]

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)

There's a rough map on Wikivoyage: voy:Yonaguni Jpatokal (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

References / weasel words / possible original research[edit]

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)

No Rubble[edit]

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 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's underwater. And your source for underwater natural formations (not structures) always having rubble? Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It is common sense. Doug, why u censoring truths?.-- (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's common sense, then surely you can find a reliable source. If not, too bad. Wikipedia does not allow original research and we're not terribly interested in anyones personal opinions, either. Kleuske (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thats the point lol. By definition ommon sense has no need to been sourced. Burocracy is killing wiki. -- (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


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)

Wrong. Structure allows natural formation too. We cant deny what wiki has not 100% cleared :-) .-- (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, please see structure. Structures can be built by humans, animals, nature, et al. There was nothing amiss about the previous description. Seligne (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
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 Weller talk 06:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)