Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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 [1]. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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^[1] 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."[1] 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."[12]

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".[14]

is not a scientific explanation, nor is

In June 2006, Zahi Hawass's name became linked to the excavations[19] 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".[20]

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.[2]. 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[3]. And this article[4] 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/wiki/User_talk:SterreHart) apparently is a stronger argument than photographs and video footage taken on-site..... I feel sorry for the quality of Wikipedia. SterreHart (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The requirement for reliable, published sources is a core principle of Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia Tendentious editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#Bosnian_Pyramid_Hoax. Ideabeach (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions on renaming this article:

--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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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"[5], "Bosnian 'Pyramids'", "supposed pyramid"[6], "Bosnia pyramid story", "Bosnian pyramid story"[7], "Bosnian pyramids"[8], "Pyramid in Bosnia"[9], "Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun"[10], "Bosnia pyramid"[11], "Bosnia pyramid"[12], "Bosnia 'Pyramid'"[13] "Bosnia pyramid mystery"[14], "Bosnia's Pyramid of the Sun"[15], "Bosnia pyramid claim"[16]. 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. --Elnon (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [shallot] (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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia editors?) wouldn't be making any money now would he. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. --Elnon (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? --Elnon (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 Wikipedia 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." [17]

"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 Wikipedia. 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?" Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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

Discussion to continue at Talk:Semir Osmanagić

Semir Osmanagić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ronz has hastily reversed my attempt (here and here) to clarify Mr. Osmanagić's personal page. Namely, the page is craftily written to portray Mr. Osmanagić as a distinguished scientist. So for example, and contrary to the first impression on the uninitiated audiences, he is not a member of the distinguished national Russian Academy of Sciences, but of a private company called confusingly similarly: Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. For some reason, Ronz doesn't like making a clear distinction between the two. Secondly, Mr. Osmanagić's claim that he is an anthropology professor is highly suspicious because: (A) the American University in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he claims to be lecturing in anthropology, offers no such course and is not science-oriented institution but a diplomacy one, and (B) his University of Sarajevo thesis adviser is not an anthropology professor but most likely an ideology (Marxism) professor, who according to his own faculty page has never published a single paper about the Mayas, yet he has endorsed a PhD to Mr. Osmanagić for a thesis on the Mayas. For some reason, Ronz doesn't like having Mr. Osmanagić's claim of being an anthropology professor clarified either. Based on the above demonstrated consensus by both scientific and Wikipedia communities (that the core reason this man has his own personal page was actually a hoax and that all subsequent claims by this man must be taken with caution to say the least), I hereby move that we clarify the man's personal page in the above manner also. The reason why I'm doing it in here and not at the personal page's Talk, is because Ronz originally proposed that we discuss the personal page edits in here also, and I agreed. Ideabeach (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disrespectful just as I thought. Anyways, can you provide a reliable source saying that the American University in Bosnia and Herzegovina does indeed offer anthropology program or a course? Annual Calendar, at least? Because their list of Academic Majors lists neither anthropology nor archaeology in the lists of majors and courses (use the right-column menu to open Java tables with every single course they offer from undergraduate to doctoral, in all four undergrad divisions, both Masters divisions, and all three doctoral divisions). As far as we can tell, calling Mr. Osmanagić a "professor of anthropology" is his own claim or a webmaster's deed if you saw it somewhere on the Internet, which means unofficial and thus unreliable as well. Please provide a reliable source as I said, or remove his professorial title. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Russian Academy of Sciences membership, that topic has been removed from the article (by Ronz). Does that take care of that problem? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd hope so. Seems like a waste of time to dispute content that is no longer in an article without first noting that the material has been removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, some of us may not log on as often as you on an encyclopedia which is supposedly ran by volunteers instead of 24/7 professional staff. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The article should not directly comment about whether Osmanagić holds proper qualifications or actually teaches what he says he teaches or whether his thesis advisor was the appropriate kind of professor to supervise his claimed degree. That is WP:Original research, which is not appropriate. If there are reliable sources that say those things, the article can refer to those statements by reliable sources. But if there are no reliable sources, there should be no commentary. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The article should provide reliable sources on Repovac's professorial title as well. So far, we have no reliable sources that can confirm his title as Ronz stated it in the artice, of "professor of the sociology of culture and history of civilization". Repovac's personal faculty page is the prime source, more reliable than any secondary sources like the interview Ronz quoted, in which only the editorial subtitle calls him a "professor of the sociology of culture and history of civilization". His Faculty page doesn't state that at all. Ronz: please find a more reliable source than an interview's editorial subtitle. Those are always (without exception) a part of the normal editorial process in journalism, and you should know this if you want to reference newspapers properly. Editorials are entirely made up by the journalist or an editor. In other words, the Repovac's professorial title as you misquoted it in Mr. Osmanagić's article did not come from Repovac or his Faculty, but as far as we know it is the journalist's or editor's own interpretation. Please provide a reliable source or remove Repovac's title. Ideabeach (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using this page to discuss disputes on another page that are unrelated to any dispute here. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You know I did it in here only to accommodate you, after you suggested we do it in here. (Was that another of your booby traps?) Of course, I have no problem with moving the discussion to his personal page's Talk, as the most appropriate avenue I wanted to take in the first place, but was diverted by you to come over here. If you care to check it out, I started a new section on his personal page's Talk. Ideabeach (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. While discussions here on how to label the pseudo-archeological claims with words like "hoax" are directly relevant to the other articles, that's as far as it goes that I can see. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. In case you missed it again on his Talk page, here I copy per your wish the latest update:

All i'm saying is that a magazine's editorial subtitle can't be considered a reliable source. If the professorial title has indeed come out of the mentor's mouth during the interview (but we see it didn't), or can be verified on the mentor's Faculty page, I'd say leave it. The title must be removed until a reliable source is found that verifies his title. But somehow I doubt such a source will ever be found. Just look how pompous that title is, it reads like Abner Ravenwood's: "it is said that Ravenwood disliked the British for their "armchair anthropology" ". Now if that doesn't sound like Osmanagić, I don't know what does. The whole affair reads as if copied straight from the Marvel's original comic book. Except it's not as funny. Ideabeach (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to the University's page on Osamangic's talk page, Ideabeach must not have read it entirely, it calls him "Director of the Center for Archaeology: Anthropology Professor Sam Semir Osmanagich, Ph.D. in Mayan Studies" and has a long list of fringe subjects the center will presumably cover.[18]. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I read it, but you didn't. Please see more at the Osmanagić's Talk. Ideabeach (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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. -- tariqabjotu 07:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia somehow supports the notion. It merely describes it under its most common name. --Joy [shallot] (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)

IIRC that's not a distinction POVTITLE makes, it refers exactly to those kinds of situations. Think Final Solution or similar. But more to the point, I don't think you're correct to describe the phrase "Bosnian pyramids" as merely a description - at least in Croatian media, that phrase has been consistently used as a name for this whole story from day one, regardless of whether they promoted it or mocked it. I don't know about elsewhere, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE: "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." Agricolae (talk) 23:29, 27 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)
Note I've added a section heading so editors can easily find where "Osmanagic Pyramid Hypothesis" was proposed and the subsequent discussion: Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#Osmanagic_Pyramid_Hypothesis.3F. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I changed that section heading to an anchor template tag. It will function the same way if someone clicks on it, but you should not modify the content of an archived move discussion like that. There was no section heading there while the discussion was happening. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Support any move to a title that does not refer to them unequivocally as "pyramids". --Article editor (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Leaning toward 'oppose'. I think the title should contain "Bosnian" and "pyramid", yet not flatly imply that they are pyramids the way the current title does. "Hypothesis", while technically accurate, has connotations of scientific legitimacy. Maybe s.t. like "Bosnian pyramid claims"? — kwami (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Roughly neutral, and a change of title doesn't really seem necessary: As with "Flat Earth", "Luminiferous aether", and "Global cooling", entitling an article with the name of a concept does not imply validity of the concept. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Support. The pyramid thing revolves around one "alternative" author and his publicity efforts. Thus the article's title should refer to his name. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:17, 25 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.

How is 6:1 NOT a valid vote for Wikipedia? I am reverting the title to Bosnian hill hoax

I was away from Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

It was not 6:1. The proposer does not vote separately, as their act of proposing is taken to represent support. Likewise (and this is exactly why I tried in vain to get them to modify the way they expressed their position), Ronz wrote "Oppose use of hoax in title", which is actually support for a move from 'pyramid hoax' to simply 'pyramids'. A weak support cannot be dismissed simply because it is weak, and there was a 'Comment' that was dismissive of the 'hoax' name, so that's more 5/4.5. The Closer concluded that if there was no consensus for the proposed move, there must not have been consensus for the opposite move done right before the formal proposal was made, a perfectly reasonable decision falling well within policy. I wish the outcome had been otherwise, but part of participating in the Wikipedia community is respecting the outcome of such processes, or at least using proper procedures to try to get them overturned. If you think the Close decision was in error, then you should formally challenge the closure and not simply unilaterally negate the outcome. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Agricolae is entirely right. From a strictly procedural point of view, if an article is moved from A->B, and a RM is promptly opened to move it from B->A, and the result is "no consensus," then that no consensus should imply it be moved back from B->A to the previous stable title. Otherwise, this would reward "shooting first" and moving without opening a RM in controversial cases. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You two can try bury the facts under piles of nonsense as you attempted in the above, but 6:1 remains 6:1 for everyone who can add and subtract. Ideabeach (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Move protected

Sort it out - I've protected it against being moved again for 3 days. This move warring is unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Endorse protection: I was going to do the same thing. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

3 days is probably short given that some of the regular editors involved in these discussions don't contribute on a daily basis.

As a procedural note, if we do end up moving it again, the talk page archives shouldn't be overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, extended for 2 weeks, that should be enough time. If things settle down ask someone to unprotect it, I'm going on a break. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is total BS. To call an absolute amateur's hoax (to quote the EAA) a scientific hypothesis is like saying Dr. Josef Mengele was performing scientific experiments in Auschwitz. I mean, how dare you go against mainstream science and majority vote on Wikipedia so openly and laughingly? Some nerve! Ideabeach (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

We've got a header on the article that says its neutrality is disputed. Is it really? As far as I can see the article portrays the scientific status of the Osmanagic hypothesis correctly. I suggest we get rid of the header. What does everybody think? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. I was waiting on responses from Ideabeach (talk · contribs) and for Nickneachtain (talk · contribs) to take his comments to this talk page. Editors should summarize any remaining pov-related concerns here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

When will you revert the section title that was saying hoax and that you renamed without discussion? It now says mildly "Scholarly reception", in case you forgot what section it was. The EAA calling the case a cruel hoax should reflect on the section title. The EAA is the most relevant referee on the subject matter. Ideabeach (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Ideabeach

Whomever it may concern: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ideabeach and "Bosnian pyramids" No such user (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Title, again

I don't find the title debates overly productive, but I can't help myself finding that "Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis" is rather ridiculous. First, nobody calls it like that. No reliable source uses that phrasing. It does not lend itself to a good lead sentence [19]. In grammatical terms, it is rather awkward, with two adjectivized nouns acting as modifiers (why not proper possessive, Osmanagić's?). As Ideabeach pointed out, the subject is not even a valid hypothesis, i.e, it is not even wrong. Actually, I edit-conflicted with Tariqabjotu when he was closing the previous debate, and gave up after I found it closed. I think it is one of situations when people, finding a problem in every alternative, in the end pick up the worst choice (fixed-wing aircraft, anyone?).

I'm reluctant to open a formal WP:RM, particularly because the WP:POVNAME I favor, Bosnian pyramids, was moved away from (under reasoning that still escapes me), but I'd rather try to calmly discuss the matter in a less heated atmosphere than the last time. No such user (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It does strike me like moving astrology to astromancy because the former implies that it's a science. I'm not sure the title is the place to push a POV, even if consensus is that it's correct. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The POV-pushing alluded to would surely be to call those hills "pyramids"? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's what they're normally called, AFAICT. Calling them something else because we wish to make sure the reader understands they are not actually pyramids is pushing a particular POV. Of course, we need to push that POV in the text because it's the scientific consensus, but I'm not sure the title is the place to do it. Do we want to move Barak Obama to 44th President of the United States to counter Birthers? Is debunking FRINGE one of the components of TITLE? Should we rename extrasensory perception to claims of... because such a thing does not actually exist? How far do we deviate from COMMONNAME in order to avoid unscientific suggestions? — kwami (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that the hills are normally called Visočica hill etc. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's the nub of it. Perhaps Osmanagić's "Bosnian Pyramids" [sic] could be put in their place in a quite lengthy subsection of Visočica Hill - which would probably be an otherwise very short article. To put it another way, Osmanagić's "Bosnian Pyramids" are his deluded notions about several hills in the vicinity of Visočica. The "Bosnian Pyramids" have no material existence, they're a pseudoscientific idea. Haploidavey (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, but I rather doubt it. I personally have come across "Bosnian pyramids" far, far more often than I have "Visocica Hill". Anyway, the article is not about the hill, it's about the pyramids, even though they don't exist. Cf. Loch Ness Monster. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We have an article Visočica hill. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, so we do. Haploidavey (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And should the title of that be Hill or hill - we certainly need a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But that article is really unnecessary. All that the hill is famous for are the Bosnian pyramids 'theory' and the Old town of Visoki. We don't normally have articles about 213 m-high hills (distinguish Visočica (mountain)), and List of mountains in Bosnia and Herzegovina, listing only mountains higher than 1500 m, is terribly red-linked (many links are misdirected). It should be merged somewhere, but at the moment it is the smallest problem around. No such user (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So let's put the material about the hypothesis into the article about the hill, then, and make this article a redirect. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see several problems with that suggestion: 1) The hypothesis is about more than one hill, so saying something in an article about one particular hill would seem insufficient. 2) There's your own previous remark about "a real-world geological formation" versus "a discredited archaeological hypothesis". 3) Cutting this topic down enough to turn it into a small section appropriate to merge into some other article would be tough and would greatly reduce the depth of information that is provided. 4) I also think we should avoid beating up on this hypothesis too much. Our job is to provide information to readers, not to provide advocacy or the ultimate truth or to avoid giving prominence to things we don't approve of. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another source?

[20]. Maybe for his bio as well? Tera Pruitt has an article on this in [21] a recent British Archaeological Reports International Series report also.[22] which I/defaultAll.asp?QuickSearch=stefanou]. I've just bought this. Irna's site is always good for background.[23] Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting quotes by a former Foundation employee & archaeologist: [24]Bibbers (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this pseudo-science?

I say it is unfair to call Dr. Osmanagic's work Pseudo-science. It is real true scientific investigation and I wish people would not be unjust. The pyramid has tunnels, just as the Giza ones do. Much more digging could be done to locate chambers which have been found by geo-radar or whatever it is but orthodox science is hindering the work by its PREJUDICE. Thanks. 68.35.36.34 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC) P.Knoebel, Aug.23,2013

This is a forum to discuss improvements to the article, not discussing personal viewpoints on matters, nor for ideological battles. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps imperfectly articulate, I think that was a criticism of the content of the article. The very first phrase of the article currently refers to the subject as "a pseudo-scientific theory", and the article later repeats that theme further – and, under "see also", lists Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience. This person seems to disagree with that part of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is not a forum for discussing personal viewpoints. If they are something other, then not only do new sources need to be offered, they need to have such authority and weight as to fundamentally change the pov of this article. I think it's a safe bet that no such sources will be offered, and that what we're dealing with is simply an ideological battle. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

hoax???

dunno if any of u have actually visited the site... i have, 3 years ago when whole project was shot down. still i managed to see some of it. i don't have any references, archeological background or "sources" n even thou i know all kinda natural born shapes, colors n structures do exist, things i saw there with my own eyes just can not be natural. maybe someone has power of placing and hiding humongous fake pyramid with tunnels n all inside of mountains in order to create hoax. but how and with what machinery and so no one hasn't noticed??? we are talking ab so huge magnitudes n weight, n technology that's needed to move mountain sized objects just doesn't exist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.89.82 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your hunches aren't a substitute for academic sources here on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Improved sentence

I am pleasantly surprised, that despite the year long bolloxing around that particular editors tried to entertain me with, that the sentence "Scientific investigations of the site show that there is no pyramid there" has now, actually been replaced with a phrase (not dissimilar to the one I used in the edit I made [that threw some editors into a tizzy]) that is supported by the sources, which is, after all, what I was after, only having asked for provision of a quote or details per note 2 of V to prove me wrong no less than five times. Well done to those who eventually arrived at what I had done in 2010 on that line, whoever you were (even if it was the editor whose name may sound something like the common name for that alloy of copper and tin).--163.1.147.64 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

deleted

Garyduddingaucklandnewzealand (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New evidences 2013

I think it is about time to get a more updated and neutral sources. most of the links are from 2006, today it is 2013, and much more has been learned about the Hills (Pyramids)

Artificial Concrete Used to Build Pyramid Walls

Scientific Evidence Reports that Bosnian Pyramids Built Using Geopolymer Cement, a Man-made Material - Conclusive Proof of Authenticity of Bosnian Pyramid.

Quote - The New Era Times http://www.tnetimes.com reports that independent analysis from five separate Institutes of materials confirms that the Bosnian Pyramids contain high quality man-made concrete construction material eliminating all skeptical claims about the authenticity of the Bosnian Pyramids. Since it was discovered in 2005 by Dr. Sam SemirOsmanagich Ph.D., director of Center for Anthroplogy and Archaeology at the American University in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Bosnian Pyramid complex has been stonewalled by mainstream archaeologists until recent scientific evidence has made it impossible to deny the authenticity of this history changing discovery.

Apparently this is the proven facts of 2013 that have been verified by scientific analytic testing include:

Radio carbon dating shows the pyramid to be at least 24,800 years old.

Material Analysis shows that the structure is from man-made concrete.

There is an 8.000 kg ceramic block under the pyramid in the underground labyrinth.

An energy beam, electromagnetic in nature with a radius of 4.5 meters and a frequency of 28 kHz,has been detected and measured coming from the top of the Sun pyramid.

An ultrasound beam with a radius of 10 meters and frequency of 28-33 kHz has been measured on the top of the pyramid.

The pyramids are aligned with the earth’s cardinal points and oriented to stellar North.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10657023.htm So what do you guys think? 86.52.97.110 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Press releases are worth the paper they are printed on. When this gets into peer reviewed scientific journals then we shall quote them. Energy beams? This is all New Age stuff. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Terribly poor quality sources. No. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't radiocarbon date rock, or the supposed "man-made concrete". Have they even said what it is that they had radiocarbon dated? I've read the radiocarbon date was from "soil", and any organics found in soil are likely just remnants of dead plants. How does that implicate any human activity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.44.131 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

how about this for a source...

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/eng/latest-news/item/8855-the-carbon-dating-of-the-bosnian-pyramid-29000-years.html --85.157.89.82 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hoaxing is deliberate

We just had a change to the article calling Osmanagic's project a hoax. Now, a hoax is "a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth". An overwhelming scholarly consensus (to which I subscribe myself) agrees that the Osmanagic hypothesis is false. But I'm pretty sure that Osmanagic himself believes strongly in it. He ain't fakin'. So it's not a hoax. Am I right? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not privy to Osmanagic's intimate thoughts, but whether he genuinely believes in what he says or not, his claiming, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that what geologists identify as flat irons are man-made pyramids can certainly be construed as a fraud rather than a "concept" (of all ludicrous words) or "hypothesis". --Elnon (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No it can't. Fraud is just as deliberate as hoaxing, by definition. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A detail analysis of the cultural and personal dynamics associated with the Bosnian pseudo-pyramids can be found in:

Pruitt, T. C., 2012, Performance, Participation and Pyramids: Addressing Meaning and Method Behind Alternative Archaeology in Visoko, Bosnia. In A. Simandiraki and E. Stefanou, pp. 20-31, From Archaeology to Archaeologies: the 'Other' Past’. Archaeopress, Oxford, England. 105 pp. ISBN 9781407310077 Paul H. (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Another online publication is:

Pruitt, T. C., 2007, Addressing Invented Heritage: The Case of the Bosnian Pyramids. Unpublished Master of Philosophy dissertation, Trinity College, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, England. Paul H. (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Great find.

I can only access the latter of the two. It looks like some very nice research.

I don't keep up on when and how such references can be used. I expect that some here would know. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting thesis. BTW, for those who aren't going to read it, she is of the opinion that it is fraud, but that "pseudoarcheology" is a better term than "hoax", because a hoax is intended to deceive the academic community, while the pseudo-pyramids are intended to deceive the lay public by pretending to be archeology. But they do match the common understanding of the word "hoax", so I'm fine with that. The current title, with "hypothesis", is no good, because a fraud is not a hypothesis.

BTW, since this article is about the claim that these are pyramids, rather than about the hills themselves, shouldn't we give a little background on the claimant? That he's published books saying the Mayan are aliens from the Pleiades with technology from Atlantis? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

See my additions to the talk page of his BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to the phrasing used by Pruitt, as well as by Harding, "Bosnian pyramid scheme". This restores the common name (Bosnian pyramids), sidesteps the issue of whether it's technically a hoax, as well as removes the incorrect description "hypothesis". If this is objectionable, I'll make a formal move request. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion below. This was strongly objected to already in the previous move discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly interesting development

I am uncertain if this is sufficiently notable to be included in the article. There is currently a project on Kickstarter to create a model of these "pyramids" which has reached its minimum funding amount and will most likely be funded successfully in the next few days. The person in charge (Timothy G Moon) claims to be running the "archeological" dig, which may make it of some interest. 41.133.30.112 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if it gets a lot of publicity. I'm trying to find out who this Moon guy is - all I can find out is that he is from New Zealand. I find it hard to believe he is an archaeologist though. To quote him: "We know we are dealing with energy systems, energy systems beyond our current technologies." and "Radio Carbon dating on organic material recovered from the colossal pyramid has been dated at 29,200 years ago. "The dates we are getting back are consistent to our expectations" commented Timothy Moon (New Zealand) in charge of the archaeological project. "We are working at an horizon in knowledge, we know we have a structure from the time before, the time before the Ice Age when H.Sapien Sapiens were suppose to be archaic hunter gathers. Our discoveries turn this thinking upside down and will require a reexamination of human history. This is an unknown culture presenting highly advanced arts and sciences, technology capable of forming truly massive structures and we believe in that process demonstrating an ability to harness pure energy recourses".(sic) "An ability to harness pure energy recourses"? Really? I've never met an archaeologist who believed anything like that, nor read anything about energy transfer in any of the many academic books or reports on archaeology I've read. The C14 date may be accurate, you just have to believe that there is a pyramid there to believe that organic material found dates a pyramid. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for keeping such a close eye on this Dougweller. I guess that there's no reason to think the C14 date is not accurate, but the sample is listed as being 'soil deposit with carbonate', there's absolutely no reason to assume that a human being had anything to do with its presence in the soil. The 'construction material' it was supposedly below doesn't seem to be described in any further detail. There are plenty of naturally occurring materials in calcareous soils that have similarities to construction materials. PatHadley (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the accuracy (validity) of the radiocarbon date is unknowable without having detailed information about both the exact nature of the organic matter that was dated and the accessory data from the other analyses that are part of the radiocarbon dating process. In case of a radiocarbon date as old as 29,000 PB (C14), it is quite possible for it to be an apparent date from "dead" "fossil" organic material that is contaminated by modern carbon. More detail in addition to 'soil deposit with carbonate' is needed to evaluate this date as carbonates readily exchange old for modern carbon in groundwater and the certain parts of the organic fractions of “soils” are also quite problematic for dating as they can readily exchange old for modern carbon in groundwater. Depending on the specific type of organic matter that dated, it is quite possible that the 29,000 BP date came from “fossil” Miocene organic matter in the local bedrock that has been contaminated by the exchanged of modern carbon from groundwater. The problematic nature of dating of such “fossil” organic matter is illustrated by the repeated radiocarbon dating of fossil dinosaur bones by Young Earth creationists that, in one case, yielded apparent radiocarbon dates of around 22,000 to 38,000 years BP C14. Paul H. (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Timothy Moon, who runs the archaeological dig, is a record producer

See [25] "My back ground is in music management and copyright law, co-owner of indie record labels Pagan Records and Antenna Recordings and Director of Media Music Productions a music soundtrack company."

"Project Manager Archaeological Park 2011 – Present (3 years) Bosnian in Herzegovina I fly between New Zealand and Bosnia in Herzegovina managing the Worlds largest archaeological project. I currently have 450 volunteers from 32 countries participating in an International Archaeology Field School. My skills are varied from media to curating Museum exhibitions, operating technical laboratories, GIS technologies and actively involved in field excavations, artefact recovery, dating and identification. "

In other words, they couldn't get an archaeologist to manage and interpret the archaeology. That explains a lot. This should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm for keeping it out until we've sources that are not primary, especially given the BLP issues with him not being in any way qualified to make statements about the archeology. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought that he might be Bosnian, based on his English, but it's starting to look as though he might be a semi-literate native speaker. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, all I am suggesting is that we note that the person in charge of the archaeology is a music producer, with no comments about his being or not being an archaeologist. It is really irritating to see him called an archaeologist by the BP Foundation.[26]. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If Moon is relevant enough to mention at all, IMO we should say that he's "a music producer, not an archeologist". No need to hedge about it. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The BP Foundation is in business to promote a hoax. It has no credibility, and isn't a reliable source for much of anything. We're not here to detail all their mistakes, exaggerations, incompetence, deceptions, etc. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Readers should be able to come to this article and get a reasonably clear view of the situation, and that includes debunking some of the considerable claims that fool people who take their statements at face value. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami and Dougweller, to an extent. I think this is important enough to be mentioned, but briefly and directly. I don't want to go deep into debunking unless an independent source does so. bobrayner (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Section on the Foundation?

As has been suggested before, the article needs (the sources warrant) a section on the foundation. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that it's mentioned, it's obvious. It might be hard to find sources that aren't primary however. I'm not sure if the Foundation is mentioned in this.[27] I do know that [28] is an excellent source. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Another page to look at for leads is[29]. We can't use it but it might lead to sources we can use. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked in a long time, but there should be enough to establish quite a bit about them. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramid scheme?

I think we're far into NPOV and possibly even BLP violations with the new name. Please provide the sources. What are the policies/guidelines specific to titles? How about revert back and discuss? --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see a dozen sources, as old as early 2007: "The great Bosnian pyramid scheme", by Anthony Harding. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back given the discussions on the previous move. It's no pyramid scheme as the name implies, and even "scheme" might be considered a NPOV/BLP vio.

Titles are often sensational in press. They are not in Wikipedia. Are their any sources that don't use it as a title, where the use of the words/phrases are actually justified? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Smiths was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Smiths-1] Cite error: The named reference Smiths was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]