Talk:Stonehenge/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Restoration

Been musing on this para for a while.

Restoration

From 1901 to 1964, there was much restoration of the monument, however this was sometimes criticised, with one historian claiming that "'What we have been looking at is a 20th century landscape, which is reminiscent of what Stonehenge might have been like thousands of years ago. It has been created by the heritage industry and is not the creation of prehistoric people. What we saw at the Millennium is less than 50 years old".

I don't really think that it adds anything to the article as there's a big section on research and restoration below. It's also a little POV (created by the heritage industry, realistically it was restored not created). The other problem is that the 'historian' isn't quite the noteworthy source you may expect when reading it - he's an archaeology student. If he was an author or archaeologist maybe, but a student interviewed for an article doesn't seem like someone who should be referenced for such a statement. Any thoughts on just deleting this section? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with its removal. Reads too much like POV to me. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Psychostevouk (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Further reading or bibliography addition (1)

For consideration --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jones, Dan; Freeman, Michael (October 2008), "New Light on Stonehenge", Smithsonian, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 36–46, ISSN 0037-7333, retrieved 2008-10-26, (subtitle) The first dig in 44 years within the inner circle changes our view of why—and even when—the monument was built{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Please add Macedonian version

{{editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Тиверополник (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, but please use {{editsemiprotected}} for semi protected articles in the future. Thanks, Amalthea 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stonehenge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:

• Too much information is unreferenced, including but not limited to:
• "Etymology"
• "History"
• First half of "Function and construction"
• "Arthurian legend"
• "Recent history" – speaking of which, "recent" should not be used; some useful essays to look at include WP:RECENT

Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I've put in a request for indefinite semi protection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection , seeing as every time I look at the page someone has just reverted another vandals work! On that subject does anyone know how you revert an edit as vandalism? The only option I see is to undo, but that doesn't classify it as vandalism - or is it only something admins can do? Cheers Psychostevouk (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a feature called rollback which does this. Not sure if you can nominate yourself for this as I was offered it and accepted without looking into it! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone not using IE can use Twinkle. It's great. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Put in a fresh request for semi protection. On the same note, thanks for the tips above - just noticed (8 months too late) that I never replied! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page could do with archiving of old sections. Unless someone wants to do this manually I'll add a bot (werdnabot). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea Derby, but I'm afraid I have no idea how to do it! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

I'm afraid that external link comprehensively fails External Links to be avoided, specifically, points 1, 8, 11, and 13. Its just a gallery of heritage sites across the country, and isn't even Stonehenge specific. It doesn't do anything to make you feel like you're there, anymore than other images already available. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think some fairly ruthless pruning could be done here as the section is in dnager of becoming a link farm. Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Made a quick start. The 2 museums don't need external links when they've already got internal ones, the ancient places site doesn't load anymore and the EH press release about the monument's reconstruction seems to have been replaced with a potted history of the stones in the 20th century. Interesting but probably better in the road saga article. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"at great historical remove from the first cultures that did leave written records"??

From Stonehenge#Function and construction:

“ at great historical remove from the first cultures that did leave written records ”

What does that even mean? "at great historical remove"? It was added on February 21, 2008. TerraFrost (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

'Remove' in this sense means 'a step or gradation', as you might have a 'second cousin twice removed', for example. In this case this means that there are considered to be a large number of historical epochs or phases between the construction of Stonehenge and the appearance of written records (e.g. stone age - iron age - bronze age, etc could all be considered as ways of grading historical development, with the bronze age being two removes from the stone age.) It's an idiomatic phrase that imparts more information that just implying a long period of time. Benea (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "that did leave" to a less pompous "that left". Would anyone object if I changed "at great historical remove from the first cultures that..." to "long before the first cultures that"? If one person thought it worth raising here, there are probably a lot more unregistered users who don't know about talk pages that don't understand what it means and we need to make this article accessible. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It reads fine to me, but then I'm familiar with that sort of phraseology, and the idiom is perhaps more obscure than it needs to be. "long before the first cultures that" doesn't quite mean the same thing "at great historical remove from the first cultures that...", but I think the underlying meaning the user who added it wanted to impart is more or less the same. I.e. that we don't know for certain what Stonehenge is for, because written records were not around at the time it was used, or for a good number of years after. No objections here. Benea (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to try and keep the point relevant to the British Isles for the reader's sake - other culture's had already formulated text, just not in Britain. Otherwise it might not be clear that Stonehenge was being built at a time when other culture's were producing written records and comparable monuments. Perhaps long before the first written records appear in the British Isles or somesuch. Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify - I initially thought the line was a reference to other contemporary cultures, rather than later British cultures, hence my line of thought. Benea's explanation does make sense of course, but if I see it that way I'm sure other readers might have too, hence my seeking to clarify the 'Brit element' in a rewrite as it were. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Access arrangements

Sorry Edgy01, but I've removed the section you added. It largely replicated info already in the article but in too much detail, and was bordering on WP:OR, especially as no sources were used. I must say I do like the photo though. If you uploaded a high res version I think it could be a featured image, although it might be better placed in the Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge or Cultural depictions of Stonehenge articles. What do you think? Ranger Steve (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Map

I visited Stonehenge via Google Maps. Very interesting. The monument is, of course, clearly visible in the aerial or satellite view as are people on the path around it. The avenue to the northeast is clearly delineated. I noticed what appears to be another avenue running off to the SSW from the monument that peters out short of the A303. Across the A303 just in from a little access road is a circular feature just visible in the tilled field. Are these things people know about? I don't see a mention of the avenue running SSW in the article. Are they ancient or modern? Has anyone done any kind of aerial survey of the area around Stonehenge? All kinds of things show up when viewed from above. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'avenue' you mention is a cropmark left from the bridleway that still exists south of the A303, it once went through the monument and north where it met the other existing bridleway in the Cursus. Eventually it was closed of after WWI. The circle in the field (I presume you meant the right one)... well all I can see is different shades of green and a very faint line that looks like the turning circle of a tractor. Not surprisingly loads of aerial surveys have been done. Not really stuff that needs to go in the article though. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

Since Stonehenge has been talked about, written about, painted, etc. for centuries, how about a section listing cultural references? I'll give one to start: Stonehenge appears in Michael Elliott's 1983 film version of King Lear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.218.49 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references sections are not a good idea as the tend to attract lists of triva. If there is one at all it should certainly not be a list of disparate bits of trivia but properly written prose (see wp:trivia sections). Richerman (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See Cultural depictions of Stonehenge. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New discovery suggests it was burial complex

CNN article says that a new stone circle named "Bluestonehenge" was unearthed which gives further credence that it was used as a cemetery. Tommy talk 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it gives us any more credence really, next to 400 burial mounds and 500 years of continuos burial in the stone circle, Bluestonehenge is fairly minor in the terms of further proof ;-). If you're interested Bluestonehenge has its own page. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmph, okie doke. Thanks! Tommy talk 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pocket watch

As a tangent (modern culture reference?) Stonehenge has been used as basis for a [pocket watch http://www.retrothing.com/2005/09/the_druids_pock.html] --18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

see Hawkins book as stonehenge IS a clock , computer for predicting timing of key events as eclipses and even more important, key times of year when "gates" open ... etc T Bone Tupac 69.121.221.97 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(further ref Stonehenge Decoded by Gerald S Hawkins; note, others say the rings ab stonehenge rep the solar system w rangs at locations of each of 9 planets - lil corna stone jr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Restoration

In 2009 a petition was started on the Prime Ministers website, calling for the stones to be restored to Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.212.210 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, started earlier today by someone who clearly doesn't know much about Stonehenge or where the bulk of the stones came from (taken from Wales unfairly?!?!?!). Should we include this in the article? Curiously, it isn't tempting in the slightest. Ranger Steve (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As no-one is likely to take this seriously I don't see why we should! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it VERY seriously, but I don't see why it should stop there. Truck all the sarsens back to the Marlborough Downs, then send most of the items in the British Museum back to their countries of origin, followed soon after (perhaps it should be before?) by all Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs.Trouble is, it'll be difficult to know where to stop. After all, the Scots originally came from Ireland, the Welsh and the Cornish from Brittany, the English from Germany, Holland and Denmark...... Rambler24 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What about that bloody Ice Age as well. Repatriate the moraines! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And take all the Portland stone back to Portland and the York stone back to York and - talking of the British Museum - send the Elgin Marbles back to......er.......Elgin? Richerman (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If there ever was such a petition, maybe it was a stunt over the Elgin Marbles. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't link to it because Wiki's filters don't like the word petition in the address, but if you go here, go to 'communicate' and then 'petitions' and type 'restore stonehenge' into the search bar, you'll find it. Someone obviously takes it seriously, but doesn't seem to realise that a) not all the stones came from Wales, b) those stones may not even have been in Wales in the Neolithic, c) we've no idea whether they were taken fairly or not, and d) it ain't ever gonna happen. I suspect the IP is the petition starter, seeing as when he posted this no-one else had signed up to it (5 have now - five!) and I don't know if they seriously think this is something that should be included in the article, but they should see point d above for clarification. I think it's just spam, but I didn't initially delete it in case anyone thought there was some element of seriousness to it. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it. As I suspected, it refers specifically to the Elgin Marbles - "Greece... has secured a UN Resolution for the return of the Elgin Marbles". The number of signatories is now up to eight, but not one of the names sounds Welsh. We can be sure there will never be a UN Resolution for the "return" of Stonehenge to Wales. I (for one) don't find this a serious proposal. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough I didn't find that one but did find this which would make an interesting addition.

A licence for the removal of human remains at Stonehenge was granted by the Ministry of Justice in May 2008. One of the conditions of the licence was that the remains should be reinterred within two years and that in the intervening period they should be kept safely, privately and decently.

Is this referring to the cremated remains mentioned at the end of the article? Richerman (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed. The remains were removed 3 months later. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Legend: Temple of Apollo

This edit introduces, before the attested history of the site, writings of Diodorus Siculus describing a temple to Apollo in an island in the north. 20th century (1905) writer Charles Squire confidently identifies this temple as Stonehenge. However Squire's work is usually described as "fiction", which would disqualify it as a WP:RS here. Even if acceptable, the prominence of the account within the article may not comply with WP:UNDUE. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I don't think it belongs here. It isn't anything that belongs in the article at all until it becomes a significant point of view (see WP:NPOV and the paragraph also contains OR. I'm afraid that I've encountered similar problems with this editor before. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Squire source is definitely out, but the edition of Diodorus he cites may be worth looking into. It's pretty old, but it does mention Stonehenge in the footnotes. He's got the citation wrong; the correct one refers to to an article in Historische Zeitschrift, though this is from 1928. Even if this is found to be worthwhile, it's worth maybe a sentence or two, at best, not a whole section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an oft cited connection, but even in reliable sources it is usually speculation at best. The writings do refer to this temple, but IIRC the traveller wasn't the person who wrote the accounts! A local historian did extend the link to cover Vespasian's Camp as the city mentioned in the text (I've still got a local newspaper report on this somewhere), and I'm sure I have quite a few more RSs at home that would cover it, but I question if this is a worthwhile addition. It might look better at Theories about Stonehenge. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this addition should be removed ASAP and that it might be better included in Theories about Stonehenge. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement to remove the text as it stands. I'll point out that the same editor has added the same material to Hyperborea.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, reverted. Interesting point in Hyperborea, btw: attributing the ancients with knowledge of the Gulf Stream. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am only putting in place what seems profoundly logical. Diodorus says there is an island in the sea north of the land of the Celts. This land of the Celts - Celtica - e.g. Gaul is defined quite clearly by the Romans, and therefore one would reasonably conclude that an island "not smaller than sicily" in the sea north of Gaul would be Britannia. The Romans found, once they had arrived in Britannia, that the Druids did indeed use Greek letters on occasion and that this supported the earlier legend written by Diodorus that ancient Greeks had indeed introduced that alphabet into Britain. Further, it is a matter of common knowledge that britain has a more temperate climate than it otherwise would have because of the gulf stream. I am not saying the ancients had knowledge of the Gulf Stream. I am noting that they made a point of saying the island's weather was unseasaonbly warm in winter and that this may be corroborating evidence to conclude that Hyperborea is Britannia. Charles Squire does conclude that Hyperborea is Britannia, and well he might. He cites Diodorus as his source, and Charles Squire is a published writer. YOU may say he is writing fiction, but he is directly quoting from primary sources on the matter. Has either Doug or Cuchullain read his book, have they checked his references. I have. I would like to add that both Doug Weller and Cuchullain both persistently attack me, to the point of victimisation. They conspire to enforce a particularly revisionistic approach to history which as an approach many profoundly disagree with. I do not see why Wikipedia cannot include amongst all it's information that there is a theory that says Hyperborea is Britannia, and that this theory is as valid as any of the other theories identifying it with anywhere else. The circular temple in Hyperborea could be a reference to Stone Henge. I gave references to the information, by all means move it to a more appropriate page or part of this page but do not act like Nazi's and burn information that does not fit Cochullain or Doug Weller's personal paradigms. I am well and justifiably sick of these attacks on me. James Frankcom (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on your dealings with other editors, but I don't think anyone is attacking you personally here and I can assure you I'm not. As I said, I just think this material is not best used here. The link is, as I said, oft cited and reliable sources do exist. Chippendale mentions it, and I believe Julian Richards may in one of his books. However, it is a theory - Chippendale explicitly states that too. As such I think it suits Theories about Stonehenge, so please feel free to add it there. Everything after the ref looks a bit OR though, so if you can more explicitly ref it that would be better. It might also warrant a line (and no more) on this page if we get a section on the first known references to the monument in literature or art.

Without wishing to get involved in any disputes you may have with other editors on this site, I might suggest that using terms like Nazi isn't that helpful. I like to think we're all trying to make use of literature - not burn it! Regards, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ranger Steve , I know you are not attacking me personally. However I have reason to believe one of them is, and I think that this site should maintain standards while allowing a plurality of viewpoints. That to one side, I was protesting - perhaps a little too vociferously (but I am weary of Doug's attacks) - about the deletion of information (describing deleting information as a process akin to book-burning). Accordingly, I wholeheartedly welcome your positive suggestion to move the main crux of what I wrote (that Squire et al have identified Stone Henge with the Temple of Apollo in Hyperborea as described by Diodorus) to Theories about Stonehenge, with perhaps one line on this page saying it could have been referred to in ancient Greek literature. I am glad to see that the small addition I made to the main page on Hyperborea has not been purged yet, it would be ridiculous to deliberately exclude the theory espoused by a number of authors that Hyperborea is/was Britannia. Frankly I was surprised to see that within that wiki there was no mention of Britannia prior to my addition. I recognise a pattern to this omission but I won't elaborate on that here!

To move forward, I will move my paragraph to Theories about Stonehenge. Perhaps you can paraphrase what I wrote reducing it to one line and decide where to place it on this wiki. As for the section I wrote initially which you suggest is moved, is it fair to say that if the Temple described by Diodorus (citing Hecadeous) was Stone Henge then perhaps the so-called "processional way" in that source might be a reference to the processional way recently discovered by archaeologists between Durrington Walls and Stone Henge? ...what do you think?James Frankcom (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

James, I'm not tracking you, I'm tracking articles (over 2000) some of which you edit. If you think I have abused my position as Administrator I suggest you make an official complaint, but I don't recall ever behaving to you in any way other than an ordinary editor. I think you don't understand our no original research policy, as shown by your use of a primary source, Diodorus, to make an argument, and also as an example " This could suggest that the Greek's at least considered Stonehenge to have an astronomical function interconnected with a religious one." You can use (unless there's a consensus against it) a source that links Diodorus to Stonehenge, but you can't make the link itself. You also can't make your own suggestions, you need reliable sources once again. Please, you could be a much better editor if you read WP:OR and maybe WP:RS. And we also expect all of us to show good faith towards other editors and not attribute malicious intentions, look at WP:AGF. Words like 'purge' don't help a discussion either. After you read the links I gave, perhaps you might want to change your edit to the Theories article as it doesn't conform, in my opinion. to our policies and guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug I really want you and I to stop going at each other. It has been YEARS now and I am fed up with it. And yes I have read all the policies. Look, I personally did not make the link between Diodorus and Stone Henge - it was made by a published author (Charles Squire) whom I cited and made a proper reference to in the first edit. Surely you noticed that. There are other authors (Chippendale and Richards) I have since been informed who have also made the same connection (between Diodorus and Stone Henge). I have listened to the suggestions the other Editors have made and accept their recommendations. Is it not true that Wikipedia should be a work in progress, if the way I have worded something could be improved then I invite others to amend what I have written and word it better. If it would be better suited on another page, fine lets move it. What I will oppose is the total deletion (purging) of new content that is valid, referenced and of interest to users. A possible 4th Century BC account that could be a description of Stone Henge is extremely interesting. The fact that this account appears to be supported by things we know now - such as the processional way and the Gulf Stream makes it all the more intriguing. Regarding the last bit about Stone Henge and astronomy, to put it simply I am paraphrasing Squire (pp40-43) in which he cites Diodorus (who takes his information from Hecadeous) and, in particular, makes reference to the veneration of a nineteen year star cycle at the site, prior to the appearance of Apollo "in the sky". The trouble is with writing everything is that you cannot tell the tone of what someone is trying to say to you. It is all too easy to be left feeling patronised or insulted, and this may not have been the writers intention. James Frankcom (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

With articles like Stonehenge and other ancient/mythical sites, it can be very easy to inadvertently wander into OR, especially when quite obvious links can be made, as in this case. However, whether we like it or not, someone else needs to have made this link first, so that we can 'report' it. Accordingly I've made some edits to the Theories article James. I've added some refs to give it some more weight (I can't find any mention in my Richards' books though I'm sure I've read it in one of them). However I can only ref what the articles say, and the weight of that is on whether the Temple of Apollo is Stonehenge or not. Regarding its possible calendar use, I've added fact tags in the hope you can fill them. The first tag is, I suspect, reference-able to the first citation in the preceding paragraph, but I thought you'd better confirm that as I can't be sure. The second tag is where I think we may be dipping into OR. James, you're quite right in the idea that this may suggest the Greeks thought it had a calendar use, but unless you can reference that to a reliable source, I'm afraid it shouldn't be included. I've also put the info into a new section and removed a rather harsh refimprove tag, especially given that whole sections of that article are unreferenced.

A couple of other points. 1) its Stonehenge, not Stone Henge, although many texts also make the same mistake. I have seen a lot worse as well! 2) The processional way, the Stonehenge Avenue has been known about for centuries, although recently the Stonehenge Riverside Project has uncovered another small Avenue at Durrington Walls, which suggests that the River Avon was a connection between the monuments. I'm not aware of the line in the writings, but if you add it I reckon it can be incorporated in a non OR way. 3) I agree that Wiki shouldn't be a work in progress and I wouldn't want to not add something for lack of an appropriate space... but I don't know where to add a line in this article without it looking out of place! I think this article could use a section on references in literature, somewhere to appropriately ref the caption to the Merlin picture, a bit on Monmouth, Constable, Turner, that sort of thing. I think that worded correctly this would make a good opening sentence for such a section. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ranger Steve. Thanks for these words of wisdom. I was going to say that part of the problem I see here and at the other article where this was added may be that James may be adding a citation but then adding material after it that may or may not be in the cited work. Anyway, I don't have anything by Julian Richards, but I've run across that letter to British Archaeology by Aubrey Burl that we can use (yes, it's a letter, but it's from a noted source):

"About four years later, I was reading a book called The Sphinx and the Megaliths by John Ivimy, who had the belief that Stonehenge was put up by Egyptian astronomer-priests because they wanted an observatory in a part of the world with uncluttered skies! Anyway, this book contained a reference to the 1st century BC Greek writer Diodorus Siculus, who had described a 'spherical temple' where Apollo (the sun or moon) 'skimmed the earth at a very low height'. Ivimy assumed that Diodorus was writing about Stonehenge, referring to an eyewitness report of an explorer who had actually seen the place.

But as soon as I read about Apollo skimming the earth I knew this couldn't be Stonehenge, because at Stonehenge's latitude both the sun and the moon are always very high above the horizon. To see that phenomenon (the moon or sun hardly rising above the horizon between rising and setting) you have to go about 500 miles further north, and I wondered if Diodorus might have been referring to Callanish."

He has more to say about Callanish but that isn't relevant here.[1].

Should the new stuff about the hedges be in this article or the theories article or both? Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The remains are physical, which justifies, I believe, inclusion here. I removed my suggestion that it was to hide "sacred activity" as too speculative, but there's more scope for speculation in "theories".--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'd missed those edits and didn't realise the hedges were already in the article, my bad. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stones Restored in Original Position?

I read in some book many many years ago that when they re-discovered Stonehenge in the 1700s, 1800s, early 1900s or whatever that many stones (or all of them) were collapsed. Then people started "restoring" the monument in what they thought was the original and correct form. How did they know if they were reconstructing and restoring the monument correctly to what it was originally? What if Stonehenge looked completely different originally and people just started stacking stones up randomly like dominoes for all we know? I'm hoping maybe someone who is knowledgeable enough in the topic could explain this. Wickland (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are obvious holes for the stones, when the stones were restored they were put back in the same holes they were in when built. No new holes were dug. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As DerbyCounty says, the holes are the best plan for the monument. To the trained eye it is possible to see which stones went where and even in some instance the order in which they were dug. Once you have the masterplan it's more like a jigsaw puzzle than dominoes! The landscape is chalk, which preserves features like holes very well (although in most cases they've backfilled with soil, the pit is still evident).

The first restoration was in 1901 (Gowland), when one stone was righted. This is, as far as I know, the only one in the wrong place. The stone holes aren't an exact fit cavity, rather a pit into which the stone was placed and then shored up with packing materials. Gowland inadvertently moved the stone (number 56, the highest one in the circle) about 50cm back from its original position. Off the top of my head I think it was 12 stones restored in the next 50 years (with concrete!) but they are much more accurate as the stone holes were carefully excavated first and cranes used to replace the stone (Gowland essentially re-titled stone 56 which is how it came to move a bit, shame because otherwise his work was a masterful bit of archaeology). Hope it helps, Ranger Steve (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Should this be made permanent for this article? The vandalism is frequent and persistent. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Everytime I've asked, I've only got a set period. This is a fairly high profile subject, so I think it should be permanent personally. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still continuing, surely something can be done? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

few questions

i'm sorry if it is mentioned in the article, but i haven't saw the answers.

Is it known WHO and built it, and why?

No. Stonehenge is a complex built over several phases spread over thousands of years. No single group of people is responsible. See Theories about Stonehenge which includes some theories about which cultures were prevalent at the various phases. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

are there places that look like this one?

See the "See also" section of this article: Similar sites. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

is it known that it was built in Ireland, and not known how was it move, or is the part that it was built in Ireland is also a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.242.36 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't, that is one early myth. See Theories about Stonehenge. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman's Point of View

Could we have a section explaining what the Roman's made of Stonehenge when they arrived, if anything is known of this? If not then perhaps it can be said that the Romans made no mention of stonehenge. LastDodo (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: there's a wee mention of the Romans, in the section called After the monument (1600 BC on). Apparently, Romans treated the monument like "a modern-day couch" - and lost coins there ;-) I do agree that any further information on the Romans and Stonehenge would be useful. TFOWR^propaganda 12:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility?

Greetings. Gentlemen, this article is hard to read. Continual mentions of new terms and bombardment by Stonehenge specific-vocabulary is making it inaccessible, whereas, if I understand correctly, Wikipedia exists for the public to read. I suggest splitting up the main article into a more generic Introduction, which can answer general questions (e.g. Stonehenge was built over several hundred years by different groups of people for more details on the Phases of Stonehenge Construction see the article by the same name which goes into more depth, etc.) and a in-depth section, That's what I think after stumbling onto the article for the first time. My curiosity is piqued, but it needs to be made more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.175.233 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

I have noticed that a lot of other pages concerning historical monuments have a popular culture section detailing the monument in modern texts/films/TV and so on. Would it be beneficial to add such a section here? (Talk) 00:08, 05 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no - such a list would be far far far too long. However, something along the lines of "in the arts" or "legacy" would be a good alternative, detailing the Stone's frequent use appearences in art through the centuries etc... Thinking more along the lines of Tess of the d'Urbervilles and paintings by Constable here, rather than episodes of Doctor Who (possibly a tiny bit of space for Spinal Tap though). Ranger Steve (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm in starting an article on Cultural references to Stonehenge, or similar - but separate from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We are at 58 kilobytes here and, according to WP:SIZERULE, we should be already be looking at subsidiary articles. That's the way to go. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We do have Cultural depictions of Stonehenge already, but it would probably be a good idea to have a short summary subsection in this article - if this article were ever to become good/featured. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged that article - it could do with a good rewrite. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article from Popular Mechanics 1929

Research and scholarship has moved on since the article linked in this addition was written and it now seems of little relevance. Suggest RV, again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting, it shows perhaps what people thought of it all 80 years ago, perhaps serves to illustrate how research and scholarship have developed since that time. It is not being used as an inline citation so there is no danger of falsely attributing relevance to out-of-date information. It's just there as interesting reading material on the subject. Is it all that bad? And is there something in the external links policy that specifically prevents it from being added? Weakopedia (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moonraker. As it stands, it could also mislead people. There are probably thousands of possibly 'interesting' links, and it clearly does not meet WP:ELYES. Nor does it meet WP:ELMAYBE. I'd say it hits 1 and 2 of WP:ELNO, we should avoid linking to:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Being merely interesting does not justify inclusion in an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

30 + 30 = 59?

The section on the stone circle states that a complete circle would have 30 vertical and 30 horizontal stones, but later a number of 59 total stones is given. Shouldn't the later numbers be 60 for the circle and 75 total rather than 59 and 74? I'm changing it, but the current numbers have stood for a while now, and so I'm wondering if I've missed something. Speight (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much - there are no refs in that whole section and some of it seems extremely debatable! Your change looks good to me, I can only think that the inconsistency is something to do with the fact that one of the standing stones in the outer circle was incapable of supporting a lintle, as it had been deliberately made too short. Theoretically it would have dropped the figure by 2 lintles though (one each side). Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

However

Per this comment on my talk page:

Hi. Please refrain from making edits which make the article worse. Please give me your rationale for the edits you made. --John (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain why I've made such "poor" edits. For one, the removal of links and icons from the infobox made by John was done without any consensus, either here, at the talk page for the relevant infobox (Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site), or at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). This has been discussed already and I'm afraid that John's edit really does appear to be along the same lines as he used at the last chat (ie. he doesn't like them). While I'm happy to have a good chat about icons in WHS infoboxes, ignoring a discussion previously had and making changes without further explanation is, I'm afraid, disruptive.

Secondly, I have reversed John's blanket removal of the word 'however' from the article (without reverting the overlinking I might add). I'm afraid I really don't understand the reasoning for removing it in the first place - perhaps he'd care to explain? There is probably a better place to have such a conversation though, given that I notice he has used his own rationale to blanket delete the word from a great many articles.

I welcome other editor's input but I won't be engaging in much discussion here. John managed to be mildly offensive last time I had any dealing with him (breaching 2 or 3 parts of wp:civility if I recall correctly). Here he's already managed to accuse me of deliberately making the article worse and describe all of the interested editor's English as 'turgid'. Charming. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly great at prose (and it's been pointed out that I use however like I'm afraid it will go out of fashion), but the instances of "however" in this articles don't seem too bad. They were perhaps not necessary, but I'm not sure they actually degrade the prose. Could a fuller rationale be provided? The essay/rationale John linked to basically says don't use "however" to "mean and or furthermore", but I don't think that's how it was being used. Taking a couple of examples from the article, "furthermore" or "and" just doesn't fit:

• "Archaeologists had believed that the iconic stone monument was erected around 2500 BC, as described in the chronology below. One recent theory, however, has suggested that the first stones were not erected until 2400-2200 BC"
• "Scholars believe that Stonehenge once stood as a magnificent complete monument. However, this may never be proven". Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's WP:EDITORIAL but that is not a hard and fast rule. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Some words can be a tricky business, but here the vast majority of them are being used in their correct sense (ie. an adverb). Admittedly they could be polished in a few instances, but that doesn't explain or excuse mass removal. I didn't know about the editorial page Doug, cheers for that (although it doesn't appear to have been the reason for the removal). There is a fine line between weasel words/POV/synth and natural prose though, and I think this is a topic that we could discuss further. A lot of the synth issues are probably redundant on this rather poorly footnoted article as well. For example if the following line contained two footnotes joined by however it might be synth. If it was one footnote it could be safely assumed that is what the source says - Stonehenge 3 IV was rather shabbily built compared to its immediate predecessors, as the newly re-installed bluestones were not well-founded and began to fall over. However, only minor changes were made after this phase. As it isn't footnoted,.... I guess its a prose issue, but however doesn't look grammatically wrong here - although I'm well aware that a certain American text disagrees! Either way I feel that the removal of words like however only makes this sentence worse, not better (prose is important): Plans to upgrade the A303 and close the A344 to restore the vista from the stones have been considered since the monument became a World Heritage Site. However, the controversy surrounding expensive re-routing of the roads have led to the scheme being cancelled on multiple occasions. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Improving the footnotes would be a good idea but I've got some other articles to work on first, ones where no one seems interested. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One day I'll get around to sorting this article out, but time is constantly against me. If we do organise a drive to improve it I'll make time though - although all my books are being boxed for a move to a new house next week! Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not doing harm is not a rationale for keeping this language. Is there one? If not, I'll be removing them again. Similarly, what is the little flag for? If there's no positive encyclopedic value, I will remove it too, as the relevant MoS page suggests. --John (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

John, you need consensus for this. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, see BURDEN, you need consensus to keep. A rationale would be a start. My rationale for removal was linked to an essay in m user space and a MoS page. Do you disagree with them? --John (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, with my vote for keep, that's 3-1. (Nev1 may be in favour, but I can't be sure). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN does not apply here, it's about reliable sourcing. The essay is irrelevant, it's not even a guideline. If your statement about an MoS page is about the flag, I don't care about the flag. It's the 'howevers' that seem to be the nub of this discussion, and you don't have consensus to remove them. We can discuss them individually if there are any that you really think are used incorrectly. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the relevant MoS page that clearly states icons should be removed in this instance. We've had this exact same conversation before, where I outlined several good reasons for keeping links and flags in infoboxes about an international topic. Your response here is the same as then; to point to an non-existent guideline or consensus. As I said, I'm happy to discuss whether we need them, but your method of discussion is not one I wish to deal with. I think it requires more input from a wide range of civil editors with an interest in the topic.

As for however, well I noted earlier that when you made the change to the article, you managed to make it only 5 minutes after you'd just edited another article. Prior to that you managed to delete every instance of the word 'however' from the article Population in only 1 minute! This is true of several edits before that, and only 3 minutes after the Stonehenge edit you deleted every instance of the word from the article Queen (band). Of course you managed this feat using wp:AWB, but it seems to me that you're just blanket removing the word without actually checking what this does to the prose. I think you'll find that is the first rule of using AWB and I'd recommend you stop making grammar and prose changes to articles unless you're actually going to read them. I agree with Doug that we can discuss individual instances, but not blanket removal. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• As no rationale was presented to restore the misused language or the inappropriate icon, I have removed them again. --John (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing "however" in the first place still isn't entirely clear; as for the flag, MOS:FLAG doesn't specifically prohibit it so unless there's consensus to remove it, it should remain. Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My rationale for removing "however" is that the word properly means "nevertheless", not "and". As WP:EDITORIAL rightly points out, there's a danger that misusing "however" in this way will mislead our readers as well as making the prose harder to read, more turgid. Manuals of style don't (at least on Wikipedia) specifically prohibit things, they make recommendations. The recommendation for some time has been not to use singular flags in infoboxes. If we were to diverge from the MoS recommendation, we would need a reason to do so. I don't see that reason anywhere on this page, do you? --John (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But in which instances is "however" being used in that way? I've already given a couple of examples where I don't think that's the case, hence why I asked for a more detailed analysis. Which bit of the manual of style recommends against using flags in infoboxes? It rings a bell, but looking at MOS:FLAG again it mostly it seems to relate to biographical articles; the most relevant part would seem to be "do not emphasize nationality without good reason", but a monument doesn't have a nationality and that's not what's going on here. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In pretty much all of them, hence my removal. Take the example you gave above of "Scholars believe that Stonehenge once stood as a magnificent complete monument. However, this may never be proven". It's a classic, the sort of misuse that prompted me to write the essay. Try running it as "Scholars believe that Stonehenge once stood as a magnificent complete monument. Nevertheless, this may never be proven". and you'll see just how awful it is. On the other hand, "Scholars believe that Stonehenge once stood as a magnificent complete monument, though this may never be proven". works just fine. So why revert out an improvement? Regarding the flags, Stonehenge is, as you say, a monument and has no nationality. The flag here is therefore a particularly horrible example of how using flags this way overemphasizes nationality; was it built by the UK government? Hence the MoS guidance. --John (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

However can mean "Nevertheless; notwithstanding; yet; still; though", and as you say in the example you give "though" works fine. You may ask why your edit was reverted, but to be honest your essay just didn't explain the reasoning very well.

The flag isn't accentuating nationality though as there's no nationality to emphasise. What's it's doing is letting the reader know that it's the UK's responsibility to look after the site. Is a flag necessary? Perhaps not. Is there a good reason for removing it? A good argument has yet to be presented IMO. For what it's worth, I don't like the WHS infobox at all; it's clunky and contains a lot of information that readers just won't care about. What type is the monument? That information won't mean anything to the reader unless they're aware of the classifications UNESCO uses and the same for the criteria a site is listed under. But that's a discussion for another day. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As John is well aware, there are numerous compelling reasons for the use of links, full state names and icons at the last discussion on this subject at the WHS infobox discussion page. Neglecting to respond to points there and just trying to enforce your own will is disruptive, I'm sure you'll agree. Equally, I don't see anything in MOS Flag that says if we diverge from the MoS recommendation, we would need a reason to do so. If that were true it would be policy and enforceable. By your own admission it isn't. In fact the wiki policy for guidelines says: Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. As there is no consensus or clear guideline about the use of icons in infoboxes about an international subject, what policy exactly are you enforcing?

I also fail to see how using the word however is making the text harder to read. In fact I'd argue that unnecessarily sterilising it is beginning to totally stilt it. Remember please that good prose is a requirement of most article classes - I think you'll find that deleting every instance of a word just because you happen to think it is turgid is going against that. However is a natural part of the English language - we've already established that it isn't violating any neutrality or POV here, so please don't make claims about an editorial that aren't there. Added to which, you didn't improve the text - you just deleted however without replacing it. So please don't accuse anyone of reverting an improvement when they haven't.

Furthermore I agree with DerbyCounty's revert. John, your odd decision to go against consensus and remove the words and icons not only damaged prose and took the infobox out of line with every other WHS infobox in the UK (at least I imagine), it also changed the full state party name as used by UNESCO (an inclusion that you actually agreed to), removed a fact tag and then deleted a reference and replaced it with a fact tag. This only reinforces my opinion that you don't actually read the edits you make. Remember not to make edits that make articles worse please. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also support a wider discussion about the WHS infobox in general by the way. Unfortunately the ones at the infobox talk page don't go anywhere. Here might be a good place for a few interested parties to bash out some ideas though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the prose thing is something that is hard to explain. You either do or don't get why "though" is better than "however". It's shorter, for one thing. Repeating the same word many times without thought for its meaning is a sign of lousy writing quality. Unfortunately, a local consensus here can't override site-wide policy about writing quality. The trouble is it is difficult to explain to someone who doesn't understand what is wrong with every fifth or sixth word being "however".

The flag is less difficult to see though. You say the flag lets people know which country Stonehenge is in; the text string "United Kingdom" would do that just as well, without introducing visual clutter and over-emphasizing nationality. So, once again, why the flag? --John (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So though is shorter than however by a whole one letter; in the example you gave, using though instead didn't make it more concise, it just seemed to fit your taste. There's more than one way to phrase something; some ways are better than others but you've not demonstrated that yours is better. It seems that you're trying to assert your subjective standard as objectively better. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

One letter shorter, two syllables shorter, same meaning; not see why that's better? --John (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Angels on the head of a pin? Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, more professional-quality writing as opposed to amateur. "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." --John (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't seriously consider using "however" to be unnecessarily complex. As for vague, it's quite clear what it means. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Complex? Seemingly this word is indeed too complex for many editors to use properly, as witness this article and this discussion. But the main problem is really one of style, where too many people who try to write articles use words like utilize (or -ise) where use would do, reside for live, pass away for die and so on. It leads to articles that are verbose, clunky, turgid, pompous and much harder to read than they need to be. This is the main problem with having this article retain 9 instances of however. Having had a read, though, this is the least of this article's problems, prose-wise. But why bother fixing it when any changes will just be reverted out? --John (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In an article nearly 6,000 words long, 9 "howevers" is hardly decadent, and you proved yourself earlier that the use of "however" is fine. Your argument for simplicity is weak. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion. It would be interesting to hear from some other editors. You said yourself that you are not particularly great at prose and maybe we see here an example of this. --John (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanket removal of one word as an excuse to use AWB yet again is hardly constructive editing. Not is pedantic folowing of MOS just to try and prove apoint. Constructive editing would iunvolve actually rewriting some of the sentences and if that were not possible/practical then in some cases removing words as necessary. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This argument is becoming increasingly bizarre; John you have already shifted the goal-posts enough times (from your own 'however' policy, to claiming the support of editorial, to your odd insistence that 'however' is a word too complex for our readers to understand or even for us to use), and you have claimed the support of some sort of policy when there is none (that the editorial says 'however' makes the prose harder to read and that there is a site wide consensus about the use of the word that would need to be overturned before it can be used anywhere at all). I really recommend (and I really do mean this in the friendliest possible way now) that you think more carefully about what you're trying to force through here. It really really isn't your place to enforce the wholesale deletion of words based on your own policy. As I've already shown you obviously aren't making these edits with due care and diligence, and if it was an IP they'd doubtless of received all sorts of vandalism warnings by now. This article isn't in the best shape its true, but I think most of us are here because we see mass removing words as a step back, not a step forward. Good English is a requirement of Wikipedia - this is from the first line of the FA requirements; its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not understand what I am trying to do. Good English is certainly a requirement on Wikipedia; after this conversation I am pretty unconvinced you would know it if you saw it ("they'd doubtless of received" is not English at all, for example). This article needs help; getting rid of the stupid flag and the turgid language would be a start. --John (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And you really think the way to do it is to insult as many people as possible? Doubtless have received; so sorry, but I'm past caring now. You have failed to answer any of the (quite obvious) issues with your lack of care in editing, and seem to be pressing the case purely because you don't like to be wrong. Looking for minor grammatical errors on a talk page is petty in the extreme and merely an attempt to deflect attention from your own poor edits in article space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger Steve (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that this is your perception. My perception is that I made some edits to this page in line with policy and that you in particular have been rude, first in reverting and then in your failure to respond to my concerns, instead making comments like "poor edits". Here are those concerns again, so they are fresh in your mind in case you want to answer them, instead of sharing your theories about my own motivation for wanting to improve the article.

Concern one: what does the flag add to the reader's understanding of the subject? WP:MOSFLAG recommends not using flags like this as they give undue weight to the current nation-state something is associated with. It looks particularly daft on this article, as Stonehenge predates the establishment of the UK by a few years. Why link and use a long form of the country name? WP:OVERLINK suggests not linking country names but instead using links to focus readers towards useful targets. What is there at the United Kingdom article which will enhance understanding of this topic? I am not seeing it.

Concern two: I think we all agree the writing is sub-optimal. How can it best be improved? If there are strong feelings that the many howevers are essential for the reader to understand, why do you think this is? I am assuming you do hold this view as you reverted my attempt to improve the language. --John (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is a brilliant distortion of the truth. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting that you think that. Do you have any response to the substantive improvements I am suggesting on this article talk page? --John (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanket removal of a particular word without regard for context does not constitute a "substantive improvemnt" DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the ones just above, where I said "Concern one" and "concern two"? I have bolded them to make them easier to see. --John (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To simplify things a little, and reduce the time-wasting on my talk page, it can be taken as read that I agree 100% with everything written in this section by RangerSteve. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON applies here and it says icon shouldn't be decorative or emphasize nationality. These notation that icon help people find information quick or scan has never been proven Gnevin (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gnevin for the links, although I think its fair to say that this isn't a wikipedia-wide policy is it? Besides I agree that the infobox needs work, but picking single instances, when John was well aware of the 'outcome' (for want of a better word) at the WHS infobox page is quite simply disruptive and not the way to proceed. Anyway John has the wrong end of the stick for the use of the flag in this instance - the WHS status is a UN designation, not anything to do with the origins of the monument. That's why I think improvements to the infobox need to be discussed by people who actually know something about the subject. For this infobox as it stands at the moment, I already outlined exactly why it is important to keep the UN designation for state party and not just our own abbreviation (John also accepted this remember). John, please don't ignore this and try actually responding to the points already made.

Similarly John, I don't have the inclination to argue about this anymore, but I'm afraid that mass deletion of words - any word - is disruptive at best, regardless of the article quality. You haven't answered the points made that you didn't actually check what you were doing, you didn't do anything to improve the text (you just removed rather than replaced the word), and you have changed your rationale for removing every instance of the word 3 times as soon as your argument was countered (and each time it still reeks of "I don't like it"). Removing a word on the assumption that it isn't necessary is not policy or even logical. I could quite easily remove the word 'but' from this article, but there is no logical reason to do so. We're happy to discuss improving the text - bulk deleting words because you don't like them is not the way to do it. Please suggest reasons for replacing or removing each use of the word and improvements instead.

Finally, if you really think that you are the maligned party here, I suggest that you get a second (neutral) opinion on your own edits. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes Steve, the Manual of Style is a Wikipedia-wide guideline. I know you have your own justification for why the flag is needed, but I haven't seen any other editors who agree with you. We would normally need a strong and compelling reason to diverge from MoS guidance and I don't see this, nor do I see consensus here to diverge. Maybe look again at that discussion? When I look at it, I see a conversation between me, you, and two others, in which you were the only one arguing to keep the flag, and the other three editors opposed and gave rationales for why the flag adds nothing. If you misinterpreted or misremembered that discussion, it would go some way towards explaining your edits which otherwise are rather mystifying. --John (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned above, I agree with Steve. Wholeheartedly. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you agree with him on? Why do you agree with him? I think we need to go beyond "me too" on this. --John (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin is correct. It is indeed Wiki Policy not to place flags on infoboxes and WP:MOSICON almost certainly applies here - I don't always agree with wiki policy, but it's evolved over time based on the will of the majority across the community... and when good cases are made, it continues evolving! In the meantime the icon should be removed. On a personal note, I'm not sure having a flagicon in an infobox alongside a entity's name does anything to an article other than make a nationalist statement - something we should try to avoid at all costs. Richardeast (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.202.205.9, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Stonehenge is called a 'prehistoric monument'. However it isn't prehistoric as this term refers to history before writing was invented by the Sumerians around 3500BC and stonehenge is thought to have been built around 2800BC. Although dates on wikipedia may vary from books i've read it reinforces that the invention of writing came before the building of stonehenge and the definition of prehistoric. Hope to see a change soon. Thank you, Zoe.

88.202.192.130 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclined to decline: we accept that different archaeological epochs in different parts of the world occurred at different times. Citing Jones, Andrew. Prehistoric Europe: theory and practice. p. 8. ISBN 9781405125963.. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Flag, turgid English

What does the flag add here? What do all the sloppy howevers add? Absent a compelling rationale, they need to go. --John (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John here. I believe the however's can stay, but an administrator should go through and make them grammatically correct i.e. ;however, --Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pleiades in 603 BC at Kokino

Can someone explain the significance of this edit—The Pleiades in 603 BC at Kokino observatory—to this puzzled reader? Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not significant, so I've reverted it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ball bearings

Interesting theory in current (March April) issue of British Archaeology: The one with archaeological evidence to support it describes how carved stone or oak ball bearings running in grooved oak tracks could have been used to move the stones. The article will probably be placed online in due course. Is it strong to enough to overcome editors' understandable reluctance to add yet another piece of speculation from a university department of archaeology?--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of methods "could have" been used to move the stone. HHowever, if there is no evidence whatsoever of oak ball bearings or grooved oak tracks then this is really just idle speculation. Personally I prefer the hot-air balloon made out of animal hides Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the animation, but I couldn't get enough lift to make it work. Is there any archaeological evidence for mulberry cultivation or silk production, to make a lighter envelope? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

At 120m diameter, 5mm hide thickness and 4 tonnes of rope you need 76C over ambient temp to lift one bluestone, 93C over ambient temp to lift one sarsen. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously they couldn't have reached such temperatures from wood; this would have required a more concentrated energy source. Has anybody considered methane, readily available from the cattle herds needed to provide the leather? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

'Axeheads' grammar

In the cause of smooth readability, please, please could we have a comma, only one little comma, after "stone 53"? Or preferably a semicolon after 53 then delete the following "and". Or simply put a period (full-stop) after 53 and delete the "and". L0ngpar1sh (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Celtic people?

Did Celtic people build stonehenge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.144.218 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. Stonehenge was built a millennium or so before the Celts came to Britain. 124.168.181.224 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Stonehenge-elipse.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Stonehenge-elipse.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What it's for

Thanks for this edit. I was wondering why I never noticed that link, and I found you had just now added it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

Open the Stonehenge article by describing the monument. I wanted to know how tall the stones are, and how heavy, because otherwise the question of how they were transported to the site is moot.

Lacking this basic information, the article is poor.

67.217.126.250 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific changes i.e. change "x" to "y"--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that numerous measurements concerning the stones are already in the article, the lead serves as an overview of the most important points concerning the monument, and detailed measurements are best described in full in the body of the article. Benea (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Romans

Is Stonehenge mentioned in any ancient Roman documents? If so, this should be mentioned. Dynzmoar (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of, although Roman coins have been found there, as mentioned in the article. There is more interesting background information in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Human sacrifice

Nowhere is this mentioned in the article yet there were bones buried there belonging to people who came from other regions. This might suggest that slaves were taken by the people (or wound up among the people) who "ran" Stonehenge. Human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Europe, certainly in the Iron Age and it may have happened (and probably did) at Stonehenge too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.232 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My theory of how and why.

Although no tools were found, most people would not leave such a valuable item behind, obviously they were master craftsmen who built this, but I think there maybe other circles buried around there, and I think its much easier to build that we consider, but ingenious to consider they did it 3000 years ago before Google. To cut the rock use the rock itself, then get two nice bulls (ox) can easily pull 100ton and pull the thing all the way from Wales. They would of had to all sit down and plan this somehow, not just one person saying do this do that, hence they had to think how, i think they used what was already there from earlier, borrowed a bit and went looking for other bits, chipped away, used wood to expand and split the rock and then tied it to the back of an ox or two maybe more and dragged it over land all the way. Then fixed the rocks. Why? well the ancient carvings are a sword and an axe, to me that sounds like religious sacrifice, the axe being a very strong symbol in ancient times of religion, the sword being of sacrifice, to find them carved on the rock suggests sacrifice to me. The fact people from france and germany were found there to me suggests they got to close, the locals executed them in ritual sacrifice being outsiders. And i think the ice age helped a bit for earlier stones being deposited there, but its just a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.2.54 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can come up with a new theory, but if you read WP:TALK and WP:NOR, this isn't the place to do it. We have a policy against using this space as a platform to premiere new theories that have never appeared in print elsewhere. A place where you can write about your pet theory to your heart's content, would be a blog. In fact, your theory can even be deleted from here, per the rules in the linked pages. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates way off

Actual coordinates should be: 51 12 44 -1 51 32 --108.225.234.26 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The co-ordinates are correct. The one's you supply are for Robin Hood's Ball. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Need an aerial photo

From the Hungarian article

I feel that the article has too many photographs taken at around ground level when it needs an aerial picture showing its circular shape. One I transcluded was deleted last August. File:Stonehenge_-_Wiltonia_sive_Comitatus_Wiltoniensis;_Anglice_Wilshire_(Atlas_van_Loon).jpg is the only such picture in the article, but seems to contain much artistic licence.

I couldn't find any on Commons or Wikipedia, so anyone with a plane, helicopter, balloon or kite camera willing? :)

Meanwhile, the render on the right gives a superb visualisation of its alignment and original appearance. File:Knight-Stonehenge-Perspective-eleveation-restored-q40-2323x888.jpg is not too bad, as well. cmɢʟee☎✉ 17:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Mike Parker Pearson

Unfortunately the article is closed for editing`("protected"), therefore I could not fix the problem: Mike Parker Pearson, mentioned in it as leader of the Stonehenge project, needs to be highlighted (hyperlinked) in the text as tbere is a Wikipedia article on him (plus an entry on the University of Sheffield Home Page). Also, the Bibliography should include at least one of his publications. So who would open the article for editing again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgissan (talk • contribs) 06:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This first instance of his name is linked. It is a wiki convention that only the ~first instance is linked therefore no more links are required. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Laser Scan

independent and bbc reports regarding english heritage laser scan - revealing many more early bronze age carvings of upward facing axe blades and a few downward facing daggers. probably needs to update this article too Laser_scanning_at_Stonehenge EdwardLane (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the BBC confused? "The laser scan and digital imaging work has also led to the discovery of 71 Bronze Age axeheads, bringing the total number of this type known in Stonehenge to 115." At least the Independent clarifies that these finds are actually carvings on the top of the lintel, plus pics showing them all in a shape confidently described as an "axehead". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed reconstructions

This isn't really discussed, but Rees cyclopaedia in early 19th century has a diagram of a proposed reconstruction on a plate in the 4th volume http://archive.org/stream/cyclopaediaplates04rees#page/n277/mode/2upCrock8 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

1877 and 1895 photos

The large leaning stone in the center, when did this fall? Does anyone know? It now lays on its side. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's the one now standing erect, one of the pair of standing stones that made up the centrepiece trilothon. I believe it slowly collapsed into the slumped position over a long period and was re-erected by Hawley in the 1920s. I'll need to check my books to be sure. Ranger Steve ^Talk 00:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

manifestation of mysticism in matter

stonehenge complex is material manifestation of mystic vision as manifested in indo europian language of vedic sanskrit in hymns of rig veda book 10.15.18 griffith's translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.80.64 (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

C- Class?

Is this article still a C class? If so, what can be done to upgrade it to at least an A? Bailo26 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is probably more like B class but it would need to be re-assessed by a number of wikiprojects to get it there and that's not likely to happen. The best way to get it re-assessed would be to put it up as a Good article nomination but you would have to be prepared to fix any problems the reviewer identifies. After that the next step would be to go for Featured Article status, but that would involve a lot of work and, realistically, you would need to get consensus on this page that it was worth doing as you would need a number of editors to get involved. Richerman (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the above answer makes it sound like Wikipedia is a bureaucracy - which it decidedly is not. I'd WP:Be bold, pick the project you most identify with, read their rating standards if they publish any and rerate it yourself (for that project only) if you haven't done too much editing here. Then inform that project of your change - they might disagree and change it back. Then I'd inform the other main projects. England, Archeology, and World Heritage Sites are probably the main projects. They don't own the article, but I'm sure would appreciate a heads up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Need an aerial photo

Aerial photo from the San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive

The article lacks an aerial photograph. All the ground level ones don't show the arrangement of the stones.

The one on the right is labelled "No known copyright restrictions" by SDASM themselves on its source page, so is that a good one to use? No information about when it was taken is available (the 2012 date specified is likely the date of reproduction of the original).

If satisfactory, I can spruce it up and include a crop in the article.

Thanks, cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Enhanced contrast, removed tint and cropped image.

Their re-use policy is here It does say in the blurb about the collection that the author, Edwin Newman, (who should be credited on the images BTW) took the photos whilst working for the RAF after the first world war. What's interesting is that the photo must have been taken before the reconstruction work done in the 1960s (mentioned here) so I think it would be a valuable addition to the article. I wonder if the white circles at the bottom of the original are actually filled post holes. If so they should be included in the croppped image. Richerman (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, the original image is more interesting than the cropped one as it shows some of the surrounding features. And because of the reconstruction work, the cropped image doesn't show stonehenge as it is today anyway. Richerman (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

{{{annotations}}}

Post-WW1 aerial photograph before 1960s reconstruction

Thanks, Richerman. I've redone the photo with only focus and contrast enhanced. I'll include it in the article. Please feel free to edit the caption or cropping. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the photo is worth including, uncropped. However there are now too many images and a block of whitespace has been created. At least one, probably two, image(s) should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out 2. One was a colour-saturated image which didn't really add anything to the article and the image with druid s showed nothing of the monument and would be more appropriate in the Neo-Druidism article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

1954 black and white photos of Stonehenge being reconstructed.

There are some photos making their rounds on the internet showing Stonehenge was being reconstructed in 1954, not 1958 as the Wiki article states. See: http://www.amazfacts.com/2013/01/stonehenge-construction-in-1954-108-pics.html and: http://ispank.me/214-stonehenge-construction-in-1954.html Should these unique photos be linked in the Stonehenge article, and also, what was the actual year of reconstruction? 1954 or 1958? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthProvider (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1958 date is supported by a reliable source - the 1954 date isn't. There have been many reconstructions, perhaps there was work done in both years. I'll add a link to the pictures. Richerman (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Richerman! :-) --TruthProvider (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)