PottersWood

You can also consider this page

Your text also has another integration point. Check this Science and Technology in the Ottoman Empire--OttomanReference 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

help

If you want you can add the economic views to Socioeconomics of Enlargement Era (Ottoman Empire), but do not just paste, integrate the text.. please --OttomanReference 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Iconic

Nice edit. I agree with your stance. --John (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, but it is the word 'Stonehenge' that is overused. Why? Well if Stonehenge was a single phase structure, then fine, but it isn't. Hence we a whole host of attributes that refer not to the 'iconic' monument, but, for example to events that happened long before the sarsen structure was built. So if we were to ask people to imagine Stonehenge, do they think of the Neolithic hengiform earthwork? Perhaps the pre sarsen ‘burial ground’ (just a bunch of casual secondary cremations that’s all), or do they imagine the circle of 56 Aubrey Holes? Maybe they picture the long removed Bluestone Circle? I would say no, they imagine the ‘iconic’ monument of the postcards, so in this case ‘iconic’ is just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitehut (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitehut: I see what you're getting at, and that is a worthwhile point to get across. And therefore all the more reason to find a way to make that point with the greatest clarity possible, which the current debased and blurry state of the word 'iconic' is unfortunately no longer fit for purpose to achieve. Wikipedia is predicated on an encylopedic style of writing above all else. If someone (yourself?) with knowledge of the subject (certainly that's not me!) can make this point in a sentence (something along the lines of "the familiar Sarsen Stone construction of the monument that we see today, which archeologists believe to have taken final form around ?BC is but one of many stages etc" that will surely be the best solution. (Lewvalton (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)