Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 22 July 2013

Bosnian pyramid claims received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Bosnia and Herzegovina C‑class

Bosnian 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More Refs

Note: This is a list of possible additional references. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" 10 Aug 2006

Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" Sep 2006

John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine 22 September 2006 (article available here --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)

Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims" --Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument --Ronz 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pyramid No More: Sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell report from Bosnia", Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006. --Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 --Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (article available here --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 --Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 --Ronz 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"An open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina" 14 Mar 2007 (Haven't found other copies of this letter as yet) --Ronz 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Come see the pyramids ... in Bosnia?", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2007 --Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. .

"It is not possible that those are pyramids," says Mark Rose, of the Archaeological Institute of America, who organized a petition asking Unesco, the United Nations' education-and-science agency, not to send a proposed expedition to the site. "Every major media outlet that initially covered this story got it wrong. It's clearly crackpot stuff, but apparently nobody bothered to check the story."

But as pyramid mania has grown, spread by credulous accounts, those who have expressed skepticism have been savaged in the Bosnian news media, deluged with hate mail, even labeled traitors to their nation. Many observers now see the debate in stark terms: Will a pseudoscientific project, even one that serves to restore Bosnia's wounded pride and dignity, win out over peer-reviewed archaeological research?

Unesco does not intend to send a mission to Visoko, says Mechtild Rossler, of the organization's World Heritage Center, in Paris.

--Ronz 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters" Independent Online, May 21 2007. --Ronz 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding" Javno.com, 11 June 2007. -- Ronz  16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia Pledges Renewed State Support for Study of 'Pyramids' Whose Existence Is Doubted by Scholars" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 July 16 2007. --Ronz 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Egyptian Geologist: Bosnian 'Pyramid' Likely Man-Made" Fox News, 17 May 2006. (Looks like the typical rehashed press release from that time) --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Mystery of Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids" Smithsonian. December 2009. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Pyramid" Discover Magazine. 22 Oct 2008. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptians and Semir Osmanagic’s Theatre of the Absurd - Science against deception a translation of Blagoje Govedarica. Berlin. 25 Mar 2009. Published in Oslobodjenje. 4 Apr 2009. - Might need to be reviewed against WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning ICBP

LoL, why on earth was my editing erased? Are the names appearing on the list of the attending people of the first ICBP not relevant? Is the information irrelevant? Or is someone (I'm prepared to bet on my kidney it's Ranz!) just not fond of positive news on the pyramids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, am I going to get an answer or is someone just going to erase my question as well? LoL, this is getting childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninhursag - Ki (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

LoL, I've put it up again, let us see for how long this vital and very imporant information shall remain intact. Ninhursag - Ki (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable (by Misplaced Pages standards, see WP:RS third party source for this? The ICBP itself is just another Osmanagic organisation and like the Foundation cannot be considered reliable. The Foundation made claims, for instance, that it had staff that in fact were never affiliated with it. On the ICBP page is a report which I know is censored as I have seen the original report from its author. In any case, yes, a list of the names is not relevant. Also, and the article may need cleaning up a bit, as I only learned a few months ago we do not call people Professor Smith, Dr. Jones, etc, and certainly don't say 'with 3 degrees' -- see WP:CREDENTIAL to see how we deal with this sort of thing. dougweller (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? You need proof this meeting happened and those people where there? Ok, pics and videos? Can be done. What on earth would be a more reliable source than that? Do I need to personally make videos of those people attending, interviews in which they clearly testify they were there? Many of the mentioned stuff in the article comes from totally unreliable sources btw or they're just conradictory (Like no scientist has ever been to the site and Osmanagic lied about yet, still there somehow seams to be a lot of scientific investigation indicating there is no pyramid. I didn't know archeology was a fortuneteller job). The ICBP is not just the organisation of Osmanagic since the president of the ICBP is a name very well known in the business, but of course he probably hoaxed the attendence of all those so important people present at the ICBP. I think the list of the names is very important and relevant, it clearly makes sides with a bunch of very imporant and famous names in the business. But of course, the videos and pictures are just a hoax, there was no meeting, it were aliens probably, or the same crew that hoaxed the first landing on the moon. Jesus, talk about paranoyed. Ninhursag - Ki (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about Misplaced Pages policy on reliable sources, which I asked you to read and you didn't. Your opinions of what is reliable - or mine - aren't important. You need to understand more about Misplaced Pages works.

But also read these comments on the conference and on the Oxford report .

Just because a person gathers a group of like-minded people together in a meeting to give talks does not mean it is a valid scientific conference. For example, the Creation Science Fellowship and the Institute for Creation Research jointly sponsored International Conference on Creationism. Like the ICBP, they gathered togethered at an event called a "conference", gave what they promoted as "talks", and even published proceedings from their "conference". However, just because they did all of this failed to validate what they did as being credible, "scientific conference" in any form or fashion.70.177.42.4 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you go by that logic, you should remove a majority of the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.36.196 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Clastic?

Under Expert interpretations we have Professor Dr. Sejfudin Vrabac quoted as saying:

made of classic sediments of layered composition and varying thickness..

Shouldn't that be clastic sediments? Pterre (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should be clastic. Paul H. (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reference 17 says "classic": "klasičnih sedimenata", but the original by Vrabac, reference 18 ( http://irna.lautre.net/IMG/pdf/Output.pdf page 6), has "clastic": "klastičnih sedimenata". I felt that also "classic" makes sense: "just normal, well known", so I checked. Hooray for WP good references. --46.115.23.8 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Please add this picture

http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i587682_n11005744381777069141.jpg"

Believe it or not, this is Pyramid Of The Moon'.And I believe this add a brand new light to this article, don't you agree?. This picture was taken by my friend, so there is no violation of copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it shows it to be a natural geological formation, not sure what your point is.

It's not our job to judge anything. This is Misplaced Pages which is supposed to be neutral.But this photo must be added because it's much better than previous ones.--Truthseeker1412 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But you want it added because you think it adds a brand new light to the article. Leaving aside any othe problems, what light is that? Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion

Modern science identifies Illyrians from 1000 BC and after making claims prior to that made by Osmanagić of Illyrians (12,000 BC to 500 BC) unrealistic.

Without access to the reference, it's hard to make sense of what this might have been intended to mean. Looks like a criticism of the dating. Given that we have references on the same topic specific to the Bosnian pyramid claims, I don't think additional information is needed sourced by a general reference. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on logic. At one point the article says there is no evidence it is an archeological site, but at another point the excavators are accused of damaging an archeological site. You can't have it both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.240.34 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The hill has been the site of human activity for a very long time, and there's been harsh criticism that the digging for evidence of a pyramid has damaged multiple real sites. --Ronz (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But this article says it's an archaeological site and so it's not, at the same time. Moreover, what you present here is a purely socialistic view. There should be no-once rights placed over the other rights in general, or based on any common good values, in democratic system it has no value. 178.72.244.250 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following. The hill is not a pyramid, so in that sense the entire hill is not an archaeological site. On the top of the hill is Old town of Visoki, an archaeological site. I believe the southern portion of the hill, the areas rarely shown in any photos because it looks absolutely nothing like a pyramid there, has some old (ancient?) cemeteries. The western portions contain burial sites and other artifacts - I believe it was this area where the foundation unearthed a burial and then lost the body. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudoarchaeology"

How come this is categorized under "Pseudoarchaeology" but other archaeological forgeries and hoaxes are not? Hoaxes and frauds are hoaxes and frauds, and sure aren't real archaeology, so wouldn't they all be "pseudo" archaeology? If not, why not? mike4ty4 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid Hoax

Should we rename the article to include the word "hoax" as this seems to be the overwhelming consensus in the archaeological community? BrendanFrye (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be premature at this point. What references do we have to support that it is a hoax? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the intro,

Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there. Additionally, scientists have criticised the Bosnian authorities for supporting the pyramid claim saying, "This scheme is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public and has no place in the world of genuine science." BrendanFrye (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's overwhelming evidence that there is no merit to archeological claims of a pyramid, ancient construction, etc. That's different than stating that those meritless claims are part of a hoax. Without better sources on the issue of it being a hoax, I think it would be a WP:SYN violation, and possibly WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it more I would have to agree. There is no evidence that it was a deliberate hoax. I'll bring this up again if I come up with a different term/name. As of now, I can't think of anything better. Thanks for you opinion. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the second paragraph date from 2006, 4 years have passed since then and it is now obvious that the diggers have found something. Even if its not as old as Osmanagic says, it is still an archeological find hence it can not be a hoax. It may just be a wrong theory.Adriatic_HR (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Faulty logic. BrendanFrye (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Implying it's an hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg noodles (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is more than interesting that 'pseudoarcheologist' after his reports on pyramids in Bosnia is admitted to Archeological Society in Alexandria and become a member of Russian Academy of natural Sciences. Something is wrong here. Or there is some truth in what he is claiming or those two societies aren't prominent societies. Answer yourself to that question. Borchica (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the place for debates like this, but politics and religion are important aspects in this whole thing, and probably are a reason for membership in those groups. I know other pseudo-archaeologists who belong to various societies. I'm pretty sure he's not a Russian so I don't understand his membership there, which we can't confirm in any case. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse Russian Academy of Natural Sciences with Russian Academy of Sciences. The latter one is the real one (similar to the US National Academy or Royal Society in Britain or French Academy etc). The former is a self-proclaimed alternative and while it included (from googling it seems to be defunct) some genuine scientists (perhaps majority), it's more like the New York Academy of Sciences - anyone can acquire membership if they have minimal qualifications (bona fide or not) and willing to pay a small sum. It's like internet PhD. Firebug2 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific investigations"

On visiting the page I tested what the lede said re "scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there." - I checked and read each of the sources (excepting the last, which is behind a paywall), none of the sources describe any scientific investigations at all, one does state that he was 'equipment all ready to do measurements of pyramids' but then doesn't actually say he measured anything. So what exactly are these "scientific investigation" then, based on the given sources, that have now been reverted three times to a false claim (it might be true but the sources provided certainly do not say such things). I re-wrote the line to say who and when had visited the site, leaving the original conclusion as that is a fair summary 'there aren't any man-made pyramids there', thinking it an all round improvement on the clearly incorrect summary of sources given. If editors of the page want it read that way they had better go find better sources that actually say that, I'll certainly have no objection to reliable sources being provided, the current ones don't cut the mustard however.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a list of potential sources above, if it's unclear and needs further references. However, I think it is clear. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Scientific investigations" does not have a valid cite. If you wish to retain that wording, you may attribute it - I have already spent time checking the provided sources and re-wrote it to match what the sources actually said. My improvement has been reverted so now the onus is on those re-instate that version to supply cites, not get me to go chasing.163.1.147.64 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a proper synthesis of the sources in the lede and Bosnian_pyramids#Expert_interpretations. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It fails synthesis of the three (only) sources provided in the lede, it if didn't one should be able to quote what the scientific investigation was comprised of. It's not there, so one can't.

As for it being a summary of the section cites - do not mention any scientific investigation, doesn't mention any scientific investigations, it mentions excavations (possible clue for a better wording for summarising the sources?) and states they evidence medieval occupation (original research therefore must be used to determine it prohibiting a 'real pyramid', doesn't mention it, nor does the repeat of the lede source.

It's unclear where one should look to verify the last part of text using - and doesn't mention scientific investigations anyway. Vrabac's reports may well have been based on some of the elusive scientific investigations but the source of doesn't mention him, nor the six drills holes, nor the supporting council. I have no clue what's going on there.

- are about the Barakat saying 'they are man-made' but how he is no expert. has Schoch visiting and looking, not conducting any scientific investigations. is about how shocked Schoch is by O's behaviour and doesn't mention any scientific investigation.

In summary the claim that "scientific investigations show" no pyramid is patently flawed, using the sources given. It may well be the case that some have, I don't see sources saying that though. I too, am unhappy with my most recent version "Expert visitors" as it clearly strolls into OR, despite being logical if not entirely common sense, that's why I stated who had visited and when in my first version, which I found much more informative and a better 'call to authority' than the previous version and I still stand by that.86.3.142.2 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (163.1.147.64 at home, drinking tea)

Two things to start:

Is it proper to describe the scientific research and conclusions as "scientific investigations?" Perhaps not. This seems to be a matter of semantics. Schoch and Harding both investigated the foundation's claims and the site itself. Bosnian scientists have done the same. "Scientific investigations" seems to be a good summary.

It is a fact that the foundation has made a pr campaign dismissing all reputable scientific inquiry and consensus into the site. Let's be sure that we don't perpetuate their pr campaign. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. This is not just about investigations that occurred in response to the foundation's pr campaign. The geology and archeology of the area has been well-researched prior. I think it would be best to document this better in the article, but the lede is accurate. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, ignore that the cites don't actually support what you'd like to say, thought it would be a waste of this editors (two FAs, various DYKs, 60K+ edits) time. Thanks for fuck all.86.3.142.2 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm ignoring nothing. Care to respond to my comments? --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you address the fact you are unable to quote even one of the "scientific investigations" conducted that "show" no pyramid. I doubt this crap as much as you, but I won't abuse the sources to 'make sure O's campaign doesn't succeed' or whatever it is you think you doing this shit for.86.3.142.2 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All of them.

Meanwhile, care to respond to my comments? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You say first that it's proper to describe the scientific research and conclusion as "scientific investigations" and it seems to be a matter of semantics. When the sources do not mention any investigations other that attending the site and viewing it, it is a misrepresentation of of the data provided by the sources to say there has been some, that is hardly "semantics", it's utter non-adherence to the source content.

My edit changed this to "In 2006 Anthony Harding, anniversary chair in archaeology at Exeter University and president of the European Association of Archaeologists as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell visited the site and state". That does not misrepresent the sources but it may not be what you think ought to be said, and if that is the case find better sources.

Secondly you state H&S investigated the claims and the site. They did visit, they do have expert knowledge, they looked and they stated what they thought. The current version is open to the question "How did H&S investigate the claims? - please show the steps the investigations took, other than visiting the site and looking at the excavations".

Thirdly, you mention the Bosnian scientists, which I pointed out above has a section that is shot to pieces and bear no resemblance to the sources whatsoever, the archeologists may well have done what's described in the text of the article, but it is not shown by the sources provided.

If there are better sources for any geo. and archeo. previous, they would need to be pertinent (as in having a statement in the sources about how this prohibits the pyramids - otherwise OR must be occurring somewhere in the chain) "Scientific investigations" does not seem to be a good summary as it is plainly open to (currently valid) criticism of not being verifiable.

The fact that O is a <insert favourite abusive label here> and may not be fighting fair is irrelevant to the text of the article as is any 'duty to observe' its non-perpetuation, but if this view is in multiple reliable sources, that viewpoint would be for inclusion in the article.

When in comes to erring on any side of the line, sticking to the facts per the sources (as my revision left it) is better than statements that have a hard time being clearly shown in reliable sources.86.3.142.2 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum The closest I can suggest to how the text reads at the moment (that one can get out the sources) is "Various scientists, such as Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, as well as sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell, have visited the excavation sites and concluded that there is no pyramid there." Is it possible to live with that until better is possible?86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"When the sources do not mention any investigations other that attending the site and viewing it, it is a misrepresentation of of the data provided by the sources to say there has been some, that is hardly "semantics", it's utter non-adherence to the source content." I disagree. I find that describing these scientific investigations as such is proper synthesis. Certainly, each is a scientific investigation, whether or not we use that phrase.

No, it is not the just the opinion of various scientists or individuals. It is scientific consensus on the matter. Presenting it as anything else is a NPOV and FRINGE violation. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Secondly you state H&S investigated the claims and the site." I don't know what you mean by "H&S", nor what statement I made that you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

When the only tool noted as being used to investigate is the mark one eyeball it is not scientific. There may well have been a variety of measurements taken, and samples collected for analysis but none of the source describe such things. They are not investigations plural they are all just looking at the excavations. Scientifc consensus? - cite me with a quote. Ah, the good ol' Fringe and NPOV line - if as you say, there is scientifc consensus on this and that O's views are fringe, this will be in multiple reliable sources, please state how my version falls foul of not being neutral. H&S = Harding and Schoch. You stated they had examined the claims and the sites. If you are not going to start discussing what wording is acceptable I will back out here, because as I said before, you are wasting my time. I've made the right edit and backed it up and answered your questions, you fail to address the issue by quoting any of the so "investigations" per V note 2 and it appears that all you can say is "it's a good description". I've pointed out the egregious error of misrepresenting sources and suggested alternatives, you've offered what as a solution - nothing. Good day and happy editing, no further comments from me on this page.163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"When the only tool noted as being used to investigate is the mark one eyeball it is not scientific." I'm unaware of any encyclopedic sources that would support this opinion. Pseudoscience (or anti-science) sources, certainly. Hence FRINGE. If we have any reliable, independent sources expressing this viewpoint about the hill, we could include it with proper characterization per FRINGE and NPOV.

The hill is not a pyramid. This was known long before Osmanagić set his eyes on it. Osmanagić's eyes don't invalidate all research done into the area. The scientific investigations into the site built upon the prior research. I think it's important that we reference some of this prior research. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The author of this Misplaced Pages entry systematically ignores the fact that Anthony Harding in referenced article in "British archeology" (reference 3) claims that there haven't been any scientific investigation at this site. "On our way down, Predrag Novakovic (EAA secretary), Sylvie Kvetinová (administrator) and I called in at the hill of Visocica, on the edge of the town of Visoko, and looked at the excavation trenches that had been opened. We did this solely in order to avoid the charge, already laid at our door, that we had condemned the project without seeing it for ourselves." "We would all agree that the taking of such samples would need to be done by trained personnel, who could vouch for the true stratigraphical context and ensure that the sample was not contaminated at any stage prior to its reaching the lab. Do we, as trained archaeologists, agree to take part in such work? Without the presence of an experienced person one would be very suspicious of any result that emerged; but those who agree to take part in any of the Visoko work quickly seem to find themselves billed as supporters of the project. Several websites record how some archaeologists unwittingly found themselves enlisted without their knowledge and certainly, had they known, against their wishes." Later on, Harding mentioned various researches which support his belief that Visocica hill is not a pyramid. However, he concludes this section: "This does not absolutely exclude that they could have existed: but a manned landing on the (non-) planet Pluto in the next 20 years is more likely."

For the sake of truth, this Misplaced Pages article was submitted to peer review in 2007, and one reviewer insisted twice that the article is "too optimistic about the pyramids" and proposed word "hoax" as more appropriate than "controversial" simply on the grounds that scientific community is against the idea (without ever properly examining it!). The author at first replied that he didn't understand what reviewer wanted to say, and in the end agreed on everything, concluding that the article should be rewritten, since it "gives too much weight to Osmanagic and his foundation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.149.5 (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you're proposing. Harding most definitely did not say there hadn't been any scientific investigations. The scientific community has most certainly examined it - Harding did himself. They found that the hill is naturally formed, and there is no evidence of any pyramid. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Harding didn't say he investigated the site, merely that he and his colleagues visited it in order to dismiss any claims that they had made conclusions without ever visiting the place. He testified of only taking a brief look, which hardly qualifies as scientific examination. He than asked himself: "Do we, as trained archaeologists, agree to take part in such work?", explained why it would be necessary, and why it DIDN'T HAPPEN. He finally concluded that, however improbable it may be, research done in Balkans so far concerning this archeological period "does not absolutely exclude that they (the pyramids) could have existed".

I'm not implying that these hills are pyramids, simply that nobody inside scientific community bothered to properly determine that they aren't, and that you refuse to acknowledge that fact. Proposal made on this subject earlier seems logical to me. Is it possible that you are unable to see it?

89.216.149.5 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)ZBN

No reliable sources support these interpretations of the situation.

As I've pointed out in the past, I believe we have enough reliable sources to have a section focusing on The Foundation and their campaign of misinformation. However, this is not a forum to spread that misinformation or present it as anything other than misinformation. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No reliable sources support your interpretation about "scientific investigations" and you have routinely dismissed any and all of those of us who've said "oi your sources DON'T say what you're saying" on multiple occasions.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From the pictures and other information alone that has been published by both the Foundation and others, it is quite blatantly obvious anybody with any training in geology that the so-called "manmade stonework" and pyramids are natural rock formations. The natural origins of the so-called "Bosnian pyramids" is so clearly seen by the examination what has been already published about them, there is no need for any expert to conducted an onsite investigations. An onsite "scientific investigations" into the validity of the artificial nature of the Bosnian pyramids are as necessary as "scientific investigations" into the validity Young Earth creationists proposals that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.Paul H. (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not concerned with what is "quite blatantly obvious" it is concerned with what has been verified. Someone has to have to have said there has been scientific investigation for the article to say it. The scientists themeselves don't say they did. No-one has profferred a source/cite that states they did. I don't believe it for a moment myself but I don't put into Misplaced Pages what I believe, I put in verfiable information. If anyone is able to provide a source stating that scientific investigations have happened - fine, please go ahead but at the moment "scientific investigations" as is used is worse than poor putting what you think it says. I suggested some forms of alternative text, I'm now asking for anyone who wants to keep "scientific investigations" to quote from the sources to prove that the sources say so (per the verifiability policy) - imho editors should have the courtesy to either negotiate on better wording, prove me wrong, or shut up.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would read what has been published on the alleged "Bosnian pyramids," you will find that people have conducted verifiable, scientific investigations of their validity of the alleged "pyramids" in either one of two forms. First, some people have actually visited the alleged "pyramids" and evaluated the validity of the interpretations that they are artificial structures by firsthand, on-site observations. Finally, other people have made scientific investigations of the validity of these features being artificial structures by studying what has been published on them by the Bosnian Pyramid Foundation and others and basing their opinions on an analysis of this published material. Both are valid, verifiable means of scientific investigations, which people have published as listed below. Published investigations based on a scientific analysis of information, either from on-site observations or from the published literature exist and are cited in this Misplaced Pages article. Published investigations, i.e. Harding's writings, of the validity and significance of interpretations made by people about specific archaeological (or pseudoarcheological) sites that are based entirely on an examination of only what has been published in the literature without any fieldwork or site visits involved are quite typical in archaeology and are just as scientific and verifiable as on-site investigations.Paul H. (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember the bit about Misplaced Pages being a blind man, only knowing what people say of things? You are trying to convince me of what can be considered as a scientific investigation - that's original research. I'm pointing you back to the matter that Misplaced Pages reports what others have said - who has said that scientific investigations have been conducted? Note 2 of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says "hen there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy."

It's been stated a number of times now that the current text cannot be supported by the current cites. The options are:

• provide quote or details per note 2 of V to prove this false
• quote another reliable third party source stating that scientific investigations have been conducted
• engage in discussion of more realistic text
• another route I haven't thought of but someone else might

I've already suggested a form of text that is supported.--163.1.147.64 at home on 86.30.189.230 (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:LETGO. There's a partial list of scientific investigations below. I don't think it's original research to claim they are scientific investigations.

The real issue isn't how many or the type of investigations, but the scientific consensus. That's perfectly clear: there are no pyramids, only natural geological formations. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Then quote per request, please. Thanks.--86.30.189.230 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No quote is needed. References and a thorough discussion have been provided. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note 2 of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says "hen there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." Neither quotes not details have been provided to back up your preferred wording, despite multiple times of being asked.

There is a difference between the current version (unsupported):

"Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there."

and what can be supported;

"Scientists investigating the site conclude that there is no pyramid there."

Or, to keep the current wording, provide another source for this "scientific consensus"--86.30.189.230 (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect, but I see no point in continuing this discussion. Choose another method of dispute resolution if you'd like to continue. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I've made the required edit to make this article comply with both verfiability and the no-original research policies.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your pointy edit per the obvious consensus above to keep it the way it was. You've been advised to WP:LETGO of this issue as you are not correct. Heiro 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So now we have 2 IPs that geolocate to the same place pushing for this POV. I'm now at 2vts on their pov pushing insertion, would someone else care to step in and help informing them that their edit is against the consensus put forth here? Heiro 18:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah right, the old "sockpuppet POV pushing, admin come sort him now" routine. Did you miss the "163.1.147.64 at home on 86.30.189.230 (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)"? The version you and Ronz insist on is against the policy of verifiability - I have asked multiple times (per note 2 of said policy) for evidence to support your preferred version, I've suggested alternative wording to avoid the original research your preferred wording includes but neither of you have negotiated on that. Other editors have raised this issue again and again - it won't go away because the wording you prefer is flawed by any standard and against two core policies on Misplaced Pages to boot.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for an outside opinion, we'll see where it goes from there. Heiro 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's constructive, thanks - and to Dougweller too - seen lots good of that account - but a bit unfair to ask them to look at the conversation starting only a few comments ago (maybe you didn't mean to and it just reads that way) - the whole matter goes back to May when I made the original attempt at getting this article to state what the sources state, reading the very first post on this thread very carefully would be essential, if not the whole darn ugly thread.--163.1.147.64 at home on 86.30.189.230 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Going over some of the diffs following the original toing and froing I noticed Dougweller has made quite a few edits to this page so I will have to point out that his will not be an entirely "outside opinion", with no disrespect to the editor behind the account, obviously.--86.30.189.230 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked for his opinion specifically because he is a good, level headed admin who has real world knowledge of archaeological subjects and has shown some knowledge of this subject (Bosnian pyramids) in particular. If you notice my wording to him, I tried to elicit his opinion without asking that he side with a particular faction in this current debate. Also, please notice when I linked the last few posts of the talkpage discussion(which I thought explained the current situation), I also linked the entire discussion a few words later so he could read the entire discussion. Heiro 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tick tock another two months and a year will gone past and the violations of policy are still there.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has demonstrated there are any violations. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple requests have been made to quote the sources proving the claim as stated - no-one, NO-ONE, not one person has given those quotes as requested, the policy of verifiability demands it be verifiable - it isn't - despite multiple requests. Please end the chararade of endless talkpage discussion and represent properly what the sources actually say without resorting to original research.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Swelim's report

Talking about scientific investigations of the site and the general conclusion, what about to mention also the Nabil Swelim's report: "The Pyramid Hills: Visočica and Plješevica Hrašde, Observations, and Analyses, 30 August to 12 September, Sarajevo, 2007"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.147.254 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this report, I would characterize it as a pseudoscientific report. For example, it repeatedly misidentifies naturally jointed bedrock as "stones tiles," "cobble road," "tiles," "tilted surfaces," "terraces paved with thin tiles," "tiling," and so forth. On page 36, this report identifies classic examples of Ripple marks (Linguoid ripples) as a manmade "basket weave pattern" on "tiling." There are Young Earth Creationists, who have a better understanding of basic geology than Nabil Swelim exhibits in this report. Misplaced Pages would become the laughing stock of geologists everywhere if his report was accepted as having any scientific validity.Paul H. (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this report in .Paul H. (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when Is Nabil Swelim's report not valid because of any aimed discussion on the anonymous forum? The value of here presented reports is either being criticized on this page. (78.108.147.254 (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Swelim's report is of questionable reliability, is obvious pseudoscience, and deserves no mention here until independent, reliable sources are provided that mention it. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nabil Swelim's report is being criticized on this page because it exhibits a profound lack of knowledge of aspects of basic geology that any archaeologist or geologist should have learned as either a Sophomore or Freshman as an undergraduate in college. This report exhibits a lack of understanding of geology that would earn a student either an "F" of a "D" as a term paper in the typical entry level class or laboratory in either historical or physical geology.Paul H. (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

His most recent report says "If nature creates a geological pyramid shape, why don’t we give it the proper descriptive term: pyramid hill ?"  ; "At Visočica the calculated base is found to be rectangular but in fact there is no physical base for this natural structure." ; "Field archaeology is a tool which can reveal information about the object and if the pyramid is manmade or if there are any human interventions. If no traces are found then our pyramid hill becomes a geological case." ; "archaeological finds, when unearthed, will show the true status, this has not been attempted and until then we may dismiss human intervention." and "If nature creates a geological pyramid shape, why don’t we give it the proper descriptive term: pyramid hill? The arguments on this nomination at Visočica persist because of: 1) little knowledge on PYRAMID SCIENCE, 2) wrong belief that pyramids are MANMADE; and 3) opinions driven by DISAGREEABLE ATTITUDES.!" small pdf file. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Listing scientific investigations

As I pointed out above, we need more and better references into the scientific evidence concerning the hill. I think we have everything we need in current references, it's just a matter of citing the research directly. I'll start going through everything, listing what I find. Anyone care to help? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Harding - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Schoch and Dowell - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Vrabac and his team - already referenced - include ref in lede? --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Imamovic - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Runnels - already referenced --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
6. The signatories of the letter to Schwarz-Schilling - not referenced directly --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tunnels

Regardless of whether the "pyramids" are actually hills that have been worked, or pyramids -- what about the tunnels. There are lots and lots of videos of massive networks of tunnels that branch, connect, and run all through there -- without any evidence that they were used for mining. See a single example here (and yes, the supporting timbers are clearly recent). What is up with the tunnels? Why were they cut? What was their purpose? There is all this heat and noise about whether or not those are pyramids while meanwhile the whole tunnel thing is kind of ignored -- yet that is very interesting in and of itself.

Yes, they may be natural formations that were shaped by the peoples of the past -- plenty of that all over Europe. And yes, the discoverer appears to be rather a nut. And yes, the archaeology work there appears to be of poor quality. The tunnels, though, are interesting. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

SunSw0rd please read the "Scientific investigation" section carefully which points out the lack of any scientific investigations whatsoever (in the sources provided) and how that is brushed aside with non-policy bump and insistence that "scientific investigations" is a correct descriptor anyway and then consider whether any time spent on trying to improve this article is worthwhile.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

Here is reported a breakthrough : http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/UNDERGROUND-LABYRINTH-RAVNE-BREAKTHROUGH-FINALLY.html

Mayor of town of Visoko came first day to visit us. He was delighted. Local TV followed. Next day we had a state TV. Major Serbian TV showed up, as well…

We’re looking for exciting winter here in the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids.

Lamiya El Hadidy

One of the more noteworthy aspects of this nonsense has been the amount of misrepresentation made by those arguing there are pyramids here. At the start, a number of people's names were used by Osmanagic, claiming that they were participating when in fact they had nothing to do with the project. Lamiya El Hadidy (a specialist in the conservation of artefacts) however did indeed take part, but she never endorsed the idea of pyramids. These hills a lot of archaeology (less now as some has been destroyed by these excavations, and she confirmed that a vertical wall was manmade. This is a small rectangular structure on Pljesevica, not a pyramid. But her statement has been turned into an endorsement of the pyramid claim. If you see this page which is the official site, you'll see that there they are simply stating that she said the structure is manmade. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What source are you referring here? In she is cited as supporting the idea that the stone structure on the Pyramid of the Moon is man-made, not that it is Pyramid. (78.108.147.254 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Recent blanking

I've reverted recent blanking and change of perspective and that removed reliable sources, and added an unreliable blog as the only new source to justify the changes. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I was extremely surprised to come here and the very 1st line says: "The term Bosnian pyramids has been used for a cluster of natural geological formations" This is a one sided statement. The origin of these structures is under great scientific debate, and the evidence is certainly pointing to them being manmade and not geoligical formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.164 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In reliable sources: what debate, what evidence points to a manmade origin, refuting the cited research? The theory is discussed in due proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Acroterion _(talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess somebody is actually struggling very hard the truth not to be revealed. Anyway it is a battle just against time. I wonder how can one after reading Swelim's article post this. 'Swelim released a report in 2010 in which he makes it clear that he considers it to be a geological and not a man-made pyramid. He still refers to the hill as a pyramid on the basis that it has the appearance of a pyramid. ' It is far from what Swelim wrote and claimed. He is saying that pyramid is manmade. He wrote a 50 page expertize on that. So if I posted something which is in favor of pyramids it would be deleted as it was before no matter what kind of evidence would I quote? No matter how hard somebody is trying to shut down the project they will not succeed in my opinion. In fact I do not care much but I see every two or three months something new is discovered and some new evidence is found. The interpretation of most of scientific research in this article in Misplaced Pages is also very strange and Swelim will be more than happy when he sees this misinterpretation of his words. So my question is: Who stands behind this conspiracy theory? Borchica (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)B

His English is so bad that I can't tell what he's saying. Perhaps the summary in our article needs to be changed. But it is clear that being man-made or natural is irrelevant to Swelim's use of the term "pyramid" (thus "pyramid hill"). If you can quote where he says it's man made, please do—I can't find it.

As it is, I'd be comfortable with Swelim released a report in 2010 in which he clarified that he does not claim it is a man-made pyramid. He uses the term "pyramid hill" for a hill which has the shape of a pyramid.

— kwami (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be obvious English is not my mother tongue but I bet everybody (including you) perfectly understood what I was trying to say. In fact this discussion is so bizarre. And here is Swelim's 50 page report http://nabilswelim.com/downloads/Pyr_Hills.pdf.pdf from 2007. In which he concludes: “Arguments in favor or in disfavor have no effect on the fact that the pyramid concept and the properties are there for everyone to see”. In 2011 - four years later and after thousands of hours of excavations a 5-year old kid can tell those structures are man made after visiting the archeological site. There are so many scientific proofs about artificiality of pyramid hills but Dr. Osmanagich doesn't care much about negative publicity as he knows what he is doing and that his work leads to a phenomenal discovery which will be acknowledged worldwide sooner or later. Borchica (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean your English was bad, I meant Swelim's! I can read a paragraph four times and still not understand what he's trying to say. As far as I can tell, he neither says that it's man made nor that it's geological, but asserts that this is irrelevant to whether it's a "pyramid", which in his definition is a shape, not a construction. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

I had an edit conflict while I was deleting the copyvio text, I was posting: Deleted text as copyvio, but it can be read here: or downloaded from various sites such as Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked the OP to post a link in any case. Acroterion _(talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Osmanagic's current team

The best source of information I know of for this is Irna's blog, and she has an article on his current team, see . --Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagged source (Ezra B.W. Zubrow)

We used to have an article on him, but it was deleted 3 years back as inadequately cited to secondary sources. It's hard to say how notable his opinion might be; but according to his page at Buffalo edu., updated 2008, he's a professor of Geography and Anthropology, not an archaeologist. See here. I'm sure Dr Zubrow's opinion on the Bosnian Pyramids was offered in good faith, but he doesn't claim to be an archaeologist, so why should his opinion on the archaeology of the pyramids be included in this encyclopedia entry? Haploidavey (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We now have a link pointing to his professional archaeological background. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Apologies for the confusing edit summary. Without a secondary source, his personal opinions simply don't belong in this article per WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. That seems sound. Regardless of the professional background I was very doubtful of the source itself, but not quite sure why; so thanks for the link. Haploidavey (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr Zubrow teaches archeology at the Universities in Buffalo, Toronto and Cambridge. And that link proves that. See here What is disputable? Or you want to see his diploma scanned? This whole discussion is becoming ridiculous. Where are diplomas of all other 'scientists' which opinions are published? Osmanagich is crucified like Galileo Galilee was. Thank God it is just in writing. I don't see a neutral approach here. It is far far from that. And people who hold notable positions use their strength to defend their opinion which is based on 'historical' books from which they learned. And we all know history our fathers learned is not the same one we learn. And I can hardly wait to see the day whatthe ones who are so eagerly defending the nonpyramid theory will say when the pyramid is unearthed. Probably that Osmanagich built it himself during the night. And I really wonder who is behind those people trying to hide the truth as long as possible and what are his intentions. Borchica (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:secondary sources. — kwami (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the term secondary source and faculty biography as well as polartec page are secondary source and not close to Dr Zubrow so I am putting his statement back backed up with both links now. Borchica (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

An interview is a primary source. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Then all the claims and statements quoted are also a primary source, aren't they? What makes an interview with Dr. Zubrow a primary source and an accusation that Osmanagich's team was reshaping the 700 ft hill a secondary source? Borchica (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Primary sources may be used with care per WP:PSTS, especially to provide details on information sourced in secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources & deletions

I've taken the recent deletions to WP:RSN. So far as I can see they meet our criteria although we could make it clear what the Smithsonian magazine article is quoting Schoch. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronz your POV doesn't have anything to do with Misplaced Pages regulations. You are strictly struggling to hide the truth and to promote the fairy tale about the hoax. Anyone and I repeat anyone with a sane mind who visits the site can see clearly on their own that the structure is artificial. I am not entering further debates about other discoveries here. And all the scientists that have been there and deny the existence of evidence are perfectly aware what this discovery brings when it is proven. But like I said the truth is always revealed at the end and no matter how hard you try Ronz to win this personal vendetta against true history you are going to lose at the end. I am just wondering why. Are you paid for it or what? And I read today almost whole discussion from the beginning and I realized that from very beginning of this article facts in favor of pyramid existence have been attacked severely and always erased. It is interesting that Swelim's report was not published until he said that these are pyramidal hills. Before that it was disputed and sourced as primary or unreliable and so on. At once it is rellevant. of course - it is contra and not pro. There is a saying that the smart one always back off first. And it always happened that neutral Misplaced Pages aspect was bulldozed by negative judgments and opinions. If we take a look those are just that. Personal opinions of (here you are correct) of some prominent scientists. But some of them even haven't been there. What makes Zubrow's (archeologist, anthropologist) personal opinion less relevant of personal opinion of Nick Hawton (journalist)? So I suggest allow also positive reliable sources to be published and don't make fool of yourself as this is what you are eventually doing by not allowing pro opinions to be published. I am not a wikipedia freak as you are but I bet there is somebody who can take a look at what you are doing and who is neutral and who is above you and who will delete your account and ban you from wikipedia for being one-sided and biased. Take care, Borchica (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS to understand what we mean by reliable sources. You must also stop attacking other editors, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And, as this is a fringe article (mainstream archaeologists and geologists in Bosnia and abroad have said these are geological features), probably WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. I don't see much difference between Zubrov's comments (which don't say much about evidence) and Schoch's comment about the inscription, shall we include them both? If you think the article is biased, you can complain at WP:NPOVN.

Accounts are never deleted and bans are only done by community discussion usually at WP:ANI, but that is extremely unlikely to happen here. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've warned Borchica about personal attacks on his user talkpage as well. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Statements without any references...

References 15-19 which are supposed to cite and back up Vrabac and his team claims are dead links and/or links pointing to some institution main page but there is absolutely NO evidence those claims are real so I suggest them to be removed. Borchica (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The first of these - Bosnia's rich heritage is live for my UK-based server - as I'd fully expect for a Times online link. It fully supports the first sentence. The rest (16-19) are dead but it seems likely that they were live when added, and supported substantive content: we might assume good faith here. Let's tag and seek new links, rather than hastily delete. Haploidavey (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Duly fixed . No such user (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also references 13, 20and 22 don't exist. So now I am asking one more question. Is it justified to put sth without references which goes against Osmanagich's theory and not ANY referenced proof and/or evidence which supports this theory. It sems like people are deleting their claims because they don't want to be publicly attacked for their claims and because they don't have any evidence to support tjheir claims beside their personal judgment. It is undeniable that there is less and less people and statements that try to stop Osmanagich and on the other site more and more proofs and evidences and scientists that favor his work. So I am askin the editors when the first true referenced sentence which supports Bosnian pyramids theory will be published on the main page. Borchica (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you're after here. Have you yet read Misplaced Pages's policies on fringe theories, linked above? In providing a balanced, informative article on the "Bosnian pyramids" we should summarise well-informed, preferably scholarly opinion, which should be drawn from reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Thus far, scholarly consensus finds the pyramids natural formations, not man-made. Osmanagich's theories are fringe. Haploidavey (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Link rot and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. When something was put in the article, it most probably was supported by the online link. When the link gets defunct, it should be updated, at least using {{wayback}}. It is not acceptable to remove the citations supported by rotten links unless that is tried first. No such user (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I put citation needed where were dead links... Borchica (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have just replaced two very much live links I just added.

And please do not replace dead links with {{citation needed}}. Use {{dead link}} to mark the link as dead. No such user (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So what we do with references with dead links? It is ultra stupid to keep them there. They should be deleted or replaced with lčive ones. Isn't it so?Borchica (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Sources do not have to be on the Internet. Note also that our article on linkrot says "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead" Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC

It is ridiculous that everything it is written by somebody who gives poitive statement on pyramids no matter whether it can be validated or not is reversed or deleted. Even Swelim who is definetely rooting for pyramids is misquoted and persons doing wrong interpretations on purpose can be prosecuted as we all know....I will request arbitration committee to intervene here if necessary. Borchica (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to check my edit against Swelim's report? It was copy and paste. Meanwhile Borchica is blocked (not by me, although I reported him to WP:AN3 for legal threats (such a block stays until they are unambiguously retracted). Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Izmo Guglich Affair

The article Izmo Guglich Affair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable blog, a parody on Bosnian pyramids phenomenon; much more notable criticism abound, nothing particular about this one

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. No such user (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Schoch quote

I brought this up at WP:RSN and my interpretation was that we could use it. This is a WP:FRINGE article so we must use "In-text attribution", but that's been done. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hillgate?

The whole story is just like a small global warming story. No matter how absurd both parties sound, one has the power to silence the other one and it uses it. Climategate shown, that it is not hard to buy scientists not only of one field, but most of the scientists around the globe. Global warming is still not marked as a hoax in wikipedia, which is unbelievable in the light of the discussion above. And I remember some of the battles that happened around it here. So, as long as money is involved, mirroring scientific journals is just mirroring scientific journals - nothing plausible, nothing real. If half of the foundation claims prove half true, it really would rewrite not only the history books but first of all the tourism map of europe. So there is no big reason to call opinion of scientist a scientific research if there is no specific discussion of specific claims in any of the opposing texts I came across.

Thus I think, the article should be put in much more neutral way, as those hills are clearly shaped as pyramids, the triangle positioning, their orientation and layers of blocks with 90 degrees between all sides is a bit too much to be just natural coincidence. Maybe those really were rebuilt from hills just a few thousands or even hundreds years ago. Note that the great pyramid of Giza is also just a hill in it's internal core that was rebuilt to look like a pyramid. Silver Nugget (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

However, article talk-pages are not places for coathanging, soapboxing or original research. They're for discussion of article improvements, which should rest on reliable sources. Haploidavey (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I was talking about and I backed that by reasoning which is what you are disputing. Silver Nugget (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it another way - reliable sources deny that the hills are clearly shaped as pyramids, that they have the blocks you claim, that the orientation 'too much', and give other explanations (geological) for some of the claims. The GP is not a hill, there are no hills on the Giza Plateau and whatever core there was is insignificant compares to the 23 million blocks required to build it. I think you are at the wrong place, our reliable sources policy says that we should rely on scientific journals. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And to put it yet another way, the theory itself is fringe; this has been noted above, several times over. Thing is, scientific journals tend to fill their pages with scientific articles, not fringe theories with no scientific basis. Their silence on the topic is in some ways unfortunate, but has an eloquence all its own. Silence on the topic in scientific journals does not mean we give scientifically unsound evidence a fair hearing by default. That's not what WP:NPOV is about. Haploidavey (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller - It would be cool then to have them in the article as those contained simply are as reliable as the foundation - unreliable, biased and absurd like most of both pro and anti global warming zealots were. Thus space should be provided either for both of the claims or, article should state that there was no specific reliable research in the area to support either view. The site seems to be open to anyone, so if there was a feeling that it could really be proven that the whole thing is plain natural, someone would have been paid to do it well - as i stated above, the tourism thing means a lot of money available to support both sides.

Haploidavey - To put it in the real outside view way: wikipedia is just a mirror of mainstream science which makes it sadly next to useless. All those battles in many areas where people are thrown of institutions for forming an opinion in so many fields makes this source simply not enough. I was used to use it as portal for keywords and links to search for and that was the way it worked well for me, now I may skip all the wikipedia articles in search results because they are just plain one sided opinion and it would lack sources (this article stil contain some) for other views. My last words here, I do not want this talkpage to run in circles again and I have given all my thoughts on this that were not presented by others before. Silver Nugget (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You mistake NPOV, RS and V for a free-for all, balancing all kinds of fringe theories against mainstream material. That isn't how encyclopedias work, and it certainly is not how this encyclopedia works. It is entirely intentional that "wikipedia is just a mirror of mainstream science;" you will have to go elsewhere to find intentional promotion of fringe opinions. A recent example of Misplaced Pages coverage of fringe information is Shakespeare authorship question, a featured article and subject of arbitration which examines the issues and which reflects the mainstream consensus that Shakespeare did, in fact, write the material attributed to him.Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You mistake OR for accurate relaying of source material which never has claimed ANY "scientific investigations" per the section so headed and yet to be properly addressed.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to be clear for those that haven't read the above thread about the opening line of the second paragraph, I fully agree with those scientists who've investigated and concluded that there are no pyramids there, however, as the three sources do not mention any scientific investigations having been conducted, stating that there have been (scientific investigations) is wrong, stating that such (scientific investigations) show that there are no pyramids is doubly wrong. I have proposed alternative wording (see above thread - a very simple change from "scientific investigations...show" to "scientists investigating...conclude") to correct this policy violation, I have asked for proof from the sources that I've somehow missed said proof, none being supplied and none being found when a reasonable search is conducted, suggests to me that there is some form of wording that would accurately portray what the sources say which we have not yet arrived at. I am firmly convinced that if we all take a deep breath and press the save button on my proposed wording, those who believe there is a/are pyramid/s there will be satisfied that the sources are being properly represented even if their preferred overall write-up tone (of them being real) isn't given.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Masters thesis: "Addressing Invented Heritage : the Case of the Bosnian Pyramids"

See and another paper, "http://cambridge.academia.edu/TeraPruitt/Papers/118276/Contextualising_Alternative_Archaeology_Socio-Politics_and_Approaches" "Contextualising Alternative Archaeology: Socio-Politics and Approaches", in T. Pruitt and D. Yates (eds.), Invention and Reinvention: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24.1. Looks like a lot of useful stuff for the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not neutral at all.

The Scientist,(dying Science's superstitious people) trying to Smeared out the FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hoax is in your mind

===> Hoax ?? In fact, They're founding a lot of Prehistoric proves there. And the ancient script, which dated back 30,000 ago. and found similar to other civilizations. FACT IS FACT,use power of hand to quiet people exactly a Hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.236.193 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 November 2011‎

There are no such ancient scripts. And see WP:VERIFY. No sources which meet our critera there and at WP:RS back these claims. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See also

Regarding the edit-warring over the unexplained replacement of links: --Ronz (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hoaxes probably should be kept, or linked within the article. --Ronz (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Pseudoscience should be kept per WP:FRINGE/PS. --Ronz (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Semir Osmanagić should be removed, as it is already linked in the article. --Ronz (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Prehistoric civilization should be removed, as there is none. --Ronz (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it back.

Seems like Gravettian culture should also be removed. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Presentation of the names given by Osmanagić and the Foundation

Given that these aren't pyramids, I don't believe we should use the Foundations' names for the hills other than when specifically mentioning someone's viewpoint who claims they are pyramids (e.g. Osmanagić's, the Foundations', and possibly Swelim's). --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a try, but am not sure about it. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

I think we should be cautious what images we present and how we present them, given that many have been chosen to misrepresent the geology. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to tag the images for that very reason. They offer undue weight to a particular, unscientific POV. Haploidavey (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the recently added images, as they present a POV cherry-picked picture of the sites. We really need another picture of the main hill as from other views it looks quite different. Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple at http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Colette-M-Dowell?page=4 : http://www.dailygrail.com/images/schoch/VisocicaAirOverview.jpg is fairly good, giving a view from the northwest, showing the triangular northern face. http://www.dailygrail.com/images/schoch/VisocicaAirSummit.jpg shows it from the southwest.

I see absolutely no need for more than a single image from the north, which shows the triangular northern face. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I should have thought of that source. I might be able to ask her to donate them to Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure whether she will be able to. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Ronz' retitling of the two close-ups helps, but only up to a point. I'm not sure they should be included at all. Are these pics representative of the sites as a whole? Do they show archaeology in progress, or something a little more creative? Haploidavey (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to look through the sources and see what locations are mentioned regarding the excavations where the exposed areas look like steps on a pyramid or where the exposed natural rock layers look like stonework. In that context, the images might be useful. Presenting them without explanations as to what is shown is improper. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Images

With respect to images in this article, I have been looking for images of the alleged / so-called "Bosnian pyramids" to use in a couple of articles. As a result, I have have been examining the copyright status of the pictures in the articles, specifically in the gallery, and found that their copyright status appears to open to question and unverified. They are so lacking in in any clear documentation as to their copyright status, there are none that I can use. This certainly raises questions as to whether they meet Misplaced Pages standard for copyright permission. What is needed are people to contribute to Wikimedia are pictures with clear documentation of who created them and clear permission for their use in Misplaced Pages. If I am wrong, which I might be as I am not a copyright lawyer, please correct me Paul H. (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, but they seem fine. I didn't look carefully, but most (all?) are from HarisM (talk · contribs) http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Mhare . --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Archaeology blog article

• http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/the-bosnian-%e2%80%98pyramids%e2%80%99-of-semir-osmanagic/

Bad Archaeology (badarchaeology.net and badarchaeology.com) is currently used as a source in multiple articles, as well as pointed out as a valuable source within articles. The blog hasn't been used as a source. What do others think about using it? --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We can use it in articles such as this one, no problem. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:MoonPyramid.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MoonPyramid.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pm s1 5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pm s1 5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Youtube Videos?!

I'm sorry, but has no one been following MULTIPLE youtube videos on this?? videos which show paved stones and brick walls? the caves with multiple enclosed drywalls?? what? why the complete denial that this could be a pyramid complex?

paved stones, clear as day

Natural formations??!

Dr Sara Aconcci's excavations of a possible man made channel of water in the tunnels. I suggest watching the whole conference (its 40 minutes long, but she goes into great detail) as she validates multiple times of very likely man made construction work

A detailed video of a possible artifical structure in the tunnels underneath the complex, attempts of digging it out and a discovery of a closed off area which is very probable man made

Dr Zubrow's opinion's on the Pyramid Complex, and a list of scientists that support the theory and reserch and are willing to associate themselves with the project

I'm guessing this isnt credible evidence? and this huge project and the people involved that are willing to put their careers on the line are just being duped?? No doubt i'll get this comment deleted but at least look at the first link, that is undeniable that those are paved stones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.190.28 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to debate whether these are hills or manmade pyramids. Geologists see natural formations there, whatever your opinion might be. You might want to look at . Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

erm, these arent "my" opinions, if you followed the links, you would see all the various scientists supporting the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.190.28 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Beams

We've established that the foundation is not a reliable source. Let's not let them use this as a soapbox for their claims. I'm sure they're going to play up the 2012 phenomenon as much as possible. We need independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the material deserves mention and provide us context for presenting the information per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

By which I think Ronz means the stuff removed here, quite agree, if it's for inclusion non-related (and reliable) sources will cover it, we're in no hurry to finish this right?--163.1.146.16 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pity though. If we needed an illustration of the foundation's "scientific credibility", we could do a lot worse than those "beams" - not just any old beams either. Mystic beams, measured in hertz, no less. Haploidavey (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just any old Mystic Beams™, measured in hertz, but ones that defy the inverse-square law mind you :) --163.1.146.16 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the diff. There are many sources we could use to better illustrate the pseudoscience and general propaganda being peddled by the foundation. A list of some possible sources is at the top of this page. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If they are for inclusion, we have plenty of time to add them in. My interest is in getting this article to adhere to core policies, for which I will open a section up beneath this. I do note other issues such as LEDE and minor issues of SYNTH (such as the second line of the second paragraph beginning with "Additionally"), but more important things first.--163.1.146.16 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V issue redux

Over a year ago, I requested, per policy, quote(s) from the three sources to support the language "scientific investigations... show", to date none have been supplied, despite repeated requests. It is still the case that in those sources, there is no mention of scientific investigations being undertaken, and even if there were individual tests detailed, which again there is no mention of, that would be OR. I have suggested an alternative form of text which is supported by V, and can be supported by quotes from the sources, which also helps LEDE by the use of the word "conclude" (as per the fifth para of the "Scientific explanations" section). No one has suggested anything other than sticking to the text which cannot be supported by the sources. I am therefore going to change this back again to a text formula that adheres to our most important core policy - V. Changing the text back to a formula that breaks policy is not acceptable and will only entrench us further into problems rather that solutions. If you can prove me wrong by quoting the sources, by all means do.--163.1.146.16 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The concern is discussed at length. There are other, more important policies that apply, most importantly NPOV. I've changed it to a different synthesis of verifiable information.

The bottom line is that we present scientific consensus, and do so more prominently than any other viewpoint when it comes to scientific findings. Geological surveys and archeological investigations happened long before any of the "pyramid" nonsense began. These scientific investigations and their conclusions are referenced multiple times in our sources, and were pointed out to the foundation from the very beginning. We're not going to ignore these investigations like the foundation is doing. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes we talked it over at length nearly two years ago and again since. Being neutral can only come after one has established that sources can verify text, having been an administrator, a producer of FAs and DYKs, I am more than aware of the core policies. You are again stating that there have been scientific investigations, if that were the case, you could have quoted them. I cannot find any note in RS of geophysics, nor trial trenching nor any other kind of inverstigation except analysis (which is, as I pointed out earlier, mentioned in the bulk using "concluded"), you state they were done before the pyramid nonsense began, this is not so noted in the article, do you have RS for that? The problem continues as you chose the text "Geological, archeological, and other investigations" so the same remains, quoting from the sources would prove me wrong. I do thank you for appearing to start to take this seriously enough to compromise, we have still some to go. Either there needs to be different sourcing if this is the best text possible, or a different text based on what the sources can actually support needs to be arrived at.

Every time I look at this I ask myself "what must readers think when they read about investigations happening, check the sources and find no such investigations being described whatsoever?"--163.1.146.16 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation #4 (John Bohannon, Mad About Pyramids, Science Magazine, 22 September 2006): "That vision is not shared by any of a halfdozen archaeologists and geologists who spoke to Science after visiting Visoko. The truth is plain, says Stjepan Coric, a Bosnian geologist at the University of Vienna, Austria, who was invited by Osmanagic to examine the site: The stone slabs are nothing more than fractured chunks of sediment called breccia, the remains of a 7-million-year-old lakebed that was thrust up by natural forces. “This is what gives the mound its angular shape,” Coric says. As for the tunnels, “if they were made by humans, without establishing their age, I would assume they are part of an old."

So let's cut to the chase. A halfdozen archaeologists and geologists investigated the site on a professional capacity. That should be good enough. --Ronz (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, I think we have a winner with your last edit, it's supported by both sources and bulk text of article, which improves LEDE issue to boot, nice.

I was clear earlier and I'll be clear here. I don't doubt for one minute this hoax is as fishy as a fish that's just gone to fish university and got a Ph.D. in fishyness, that is not the point. Despite 100%/wholeheartedly/totally agreeing with the quote you give, it doesn't, however, support the text we had formerly, however correct it may be. Thank you for your help in achieving V with the most problematic sentence in this article.--163.1.146.16 (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad we got that worked out. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramids

Can ANYONE tell me why the most recent information on the subject (Bosnian Pyramids) is from 2006? It is 2012 & MUCH more information has been presented all over the web! EXCEPT for Misplaced Pages. I updated Bosnian Pyramids by using information from the "First International Scientific Conference on the Bosnian Pyramids" & yet it's been deleted 3 times & without just cause. Again, the information I posted clearly has scientific data backing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchozZz (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed sourced material and replaced it with unsourced fringe material conforming to your own apparent point of view. You have provided no evidence of "scientific backing" and you removed a great deal of material that contradicted your point of view (twice, not three times). Please review WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, all of which are Misplaced Pages policies that you are obligated to observe.Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not 2006, Swelim's 2010 report. You can't say "Announced to the world in 2007, by Dr. Nabil Swelim the “Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids” are manmade" since he's no longer making that claim - he's backed away from saying they are manmade although he doesn't exclude the possibility (although he seems pretty dubious). But then Exchozz deleted that. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Can ANYONE tell..." Yes. WP:FRINGE. There's been absolutely nothing new to report, unless we want to give an up-to-date presentation of the pseudoscience and confidence tricks from the foundation. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line, if you quote a scientist who said they are real pyramids, your quote will be deleted. There are scientists on both sides of the fence but a group of editors here are trying to force only one side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.16.10 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is scientific consensus, not personal opinions. Editors try to force their viewpoint on this article despite the sources and scientific consensus. Such viewpoints will and should be removed per the policies and guidelines cited. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Seems one more time that an interesting and TRUE story is COVERED by the official LYING and BLIND science, editors, system etc.... Please a lot of NPV. hahaha --Kim FOR sure (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of pyramids.svg was altered

This image was recently edited, with the remark "Removed Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.180.102 (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad you noted this. I've removed it from the article. Even when it had a representation of Visočica hill in the image, it had multiple problems: it presented the hill as a pyramid, it was undecipherable within the article, and is extremely hard to understand when viewed at full resolution. Additionally, the use of a template made it difficult to edit and maintain. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"has involved reshaping the hill to make it look like a Mayan step pyramid"

It's the opinion of Robert Schoch, but is presented in the opening of this article as fact. Suggest it be rephrased as in revision 521657704:

In a letter to Science, Schoch observed that the digging has caused the hill to resemble a Mayan step pyramid and stated his belief that this is intentional. 07:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific explanations" contains extraneous material

first paragraph contains no scientific explanation:

Osmanagić's claims, widely reported in the mass media, have been categorically refuted by a number of experts, who have accused him of promoting pseudo-scientific notions and damaging archaeological sites with his excavations. Amar Karapus, a curator at the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, said "When I first read about the pyramids I thought it was a very funny joke. I just couldn't believe that anyone in the world could believe this." Penn State University Professor Garrett Fagan is quoted as saying "They should not be allowed to destroy genuine sites in the pursuit of these delusions It’s as if someone were given permission to bulldoze Stonehenge to find secret chambers of lost ancient wisdom underneath."

likewise

Enver Imamović of the University of Sarajevo, a former director of the National Museum of Sarajevo, concerned that the excavations will damage historic sites such as the medieval royal capital Visoki, said that the excavations would "irreversibly destroy a national treasure".

is not a scientific explanation, nor is

In June 2006, Zahi Hawass's name became linked to the excavations as recommending a supposed expert, Ali Abdullah Barakat, to investigate the hills. Upon being contacted Hawass denied any involvement, accusing Osmanagić of "giving out false information", and clarifying that Barakat "knows nothing about Egyptian pyramids".

The section could more accurately be titled "Criticism by the scientific community" or this material should be moved to an additional section or just stricken. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? These are reliable sources, and the topic here is WP:FRINGE (some say an outright hoax). --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, a scientific explanation is an attempt to answer some question by applying findings from science. Not all statements made by scientists are scientific explanations. Concerns that antiquities are being destroyed is not a scientific explanation, nor is controversy over someone's expertise, nor is the "I thought it was a very funny joke" comment. The latter, in my estimation, adds nothing worthwhile to the article. If the section were called "criticism by the scientific community," would that somehow impugn these sources? You seem to be implying as much.

24.24.214.15 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"To my mind" Exactly. We're going to stick with the sources rather than editors' opinions. --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Online Petition signed by lead archaeologists against Bosnian pyramids hoax

I think this Online Petition against Mr. Osmanagich's vandalism deserves to be mentioned in the article, see the following notable reference:

http://www.online-archaeology.co.uk/Contribute/ArchaeologyForums/tabid/58/aft/1163/Default.aspx

The petition is signed by some lead archaeologists, not only British. 178.78.212.42 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead link. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Works for me (from UK). Registration required to contribute, and most recent post there is dated 25 Apr 2008. Not sure if it would count as a reliable source, though, except on itself. All it seems to do is offer (in very haphazard fashion, as one might expect from a forum) links to various internet articles on the topic. Nothing we haven't already got. PS: sorry, Doug, now I see what you meant. The links to the petition itself are dead. Duh. Haploidavey (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Google the Magnificent: http://peticija.comyr.com/eng.htm 89.253.105.39 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

New information and excavation

Excavation has started: https://www.google.com/search?q=Bosnian+pyramids&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0uK&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=f5jWUMT0CcqU2AWDzYH4BQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1280&bih=961

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbrjs1_semir-osmanagiy-the-bosnian-pyramid_news

They've supposedly uncovered tunnels, streets, stairs, a lot of stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.194.247 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, you are posting stuff 5 1/2 years old. 5 1/2 years and still nothing but wild claims. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

recent study reveals an energy beam emanating from the Pyramid of the Sun (lol)

"scientific evidence supporting the theory that the pyramids around the world were used as an energy source. The recent study reveals an energy beam, 13 feet in radius that transmits an unexplainable electromagnetic signal measuring 28 kilohertz coming from the center of the Pyramid of the Sun" and " pyramids were built by ancient civilizations with far greater technology than we now possess and that they were used to produce energy. The placement of the tens of thousands of pyramids around the globe on the earth’s energy grid, aligned with the universal energy field is a lost science that is now being rediscovered" - from an official press release.. Might be worth including as it gives a very good flavor of what is happening there. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

National Geographic program

This is interesting. And this article says " professors British Royal Institute of Jerry Dugal geologist and archaeologist Henry Chapman, concluded that there was no High P from ancient pyramids 12,000 years.Moreover, they studied archaeologist Osmanagic and came to the conclusion that it is the trick that can turn into a real disaster for this small town in central Bosnia." Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

neutrality ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"what matters is not truth but verifiability."

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

"Bosnian pyramids" instead of Bosnian pyramids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

Previous discussions on renaming this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 1

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

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

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

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

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

• Reliable sources call them various things: "Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids", "Osmanagich's pyramids", "Bosnian 'Pyramids'", "supposed pyramid", "Bosnia pyramid story", "Bosnian pyramid story", "Bosnian pyramids", "Pyramid in Bosnia", "Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun", "Bosnia pyramid", "Bosnia pyramid", "Bosnia 'Pyramid'" "Bosnia pyramid mystery", "Bosnia's Pyramid of the Sun", "Bosnia pyramid claim". When I look at these various terms, I see the thread running through them is "Bosnia" or "Bosnian" "pyramid" or "pyramids". Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please WP:FOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd rather not use "pyramid."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hoax" & NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Again, please WP:FOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to clarify Semir Osmanagić's personal page

Requested move 2

It has been proposed in this section that Bosnian pyramid claims be renamed and moved to Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

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

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

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

• Support. Calling it a hoax does seem to go a little far, even if we have some sources calling it that. The "pyramids" are clearly there, after all. "Hypothesis" does work better, as it's just a wild and false claim about the origin of the "pyramids", not fake pyramids (which is what "hoax" implies). SnowFire (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How is 6:1 NOT a valid vote for Misplaced Pages? I am reverting the title to Bosnian pyramids hoax

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

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

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

1. The Illyrians (The Peoples of Europe) by John Wilkes,ISBN-10: 0631198075,1996,page 39: "... the other hand, the beginnings of the Iron Age around 1000 BC is held to coincide with the formation of the historical Illyrian peoples. ..."
2. Cite error: The named reference Smiths was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Old requests for peer review
• C-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• Unknown-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Requested moves