Wikipedia

Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 7

< Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Boing! said Zebedee in topic Heading
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bosnian pyramid claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion 5

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

In lack of a proper title name for the section named it simply "Suggestion 5". @Boing! said Zebedee:@Ronz: would like to invite you for the discussion because most recently you were engaged with above discussions or article editing. I have not read the entire talk page revision, even less the archives, and perhaps my points are not something new. When I was in previous years reading the article, the main issues about it related with neutrality, but not the neutrality that some editors above or previously noted or wanted to change (WP:WEIGHT), but the twisted edits presentation of the fringe theory, and even author itself. It included little information which was unrelated with the excavations and theory, and among them some oddish claims about the Mayans and 2012 phenomenon. However, somewhere over the years, or recently, it's not anymore the issue. Another significant issue about the article is that it's written mainly by outdated sources. By outdated mean sources which are almost 10 years old, while the excavations continued since 2005-2006, it was further discussed, and were made TV documentaries, if remember right, Discovery Science Channel (2014), and History Channel (2012). This things are notable, and should be properly included in the article.

The main point of this discussion is previous statement by the user Zebedee, "we need reliable support from independent third parties published in reliable peer-reviewed sources". If we do not publish "project's own claims", then who and from which source can we cite the project's fringe theory claims? As mainly edit ancient or middle-age historical articles, often saw fringe theories even among notable academic scholars, but they're given appropriate weight and cited accordingly. There were further excavations, laboratory and multi-disciplinary research, Ravne tunnels and artefacts discovered, and probably even author's own POV changed since 2006. I agree about not citing project website, but in local library can easly access to the book Sve Piramide Sveta (All Pyramids of the World; Esotheria, 2011) by the author. In it, since was released 5 years after 2006, will probably be information on the fringe theory among else. However, as mentioned previously, cited accordingly to the NPOV principles. Another interesting thing is that even notable pseudoarchaeologists like Graham Hancock don't fully accept the theory (see 21:58-26:25 from 2015). Also in the video are shown some of the new findings not mentioned in the article (absent in both "Osmanagić's claims" and "Scholarly reception" section).--Crovata (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I stopped responding to the previous proponent of this theory because they refused to listen to the fact that there have been no updates from reliable academic sources in recent years - only more claims from Osmanagić and his supporters. Recent claims by Osmanagić, and perhaps recent publications by other pseudoarchaeologists, could arguably be added purely as claims if they appear in reliable sources (and YouTube is *not* a reliable source!) But no revision of the academic consensus can be made unless such a revision is actually published in reliable sources by reputable archaeologists, and so far it has not been. If you want to make a specific change to the article, please outline the actual change you wish to make and provide sources to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
How far in the past "recent years" go? You don't need to point out YouTube is not a reliable source to a experienced editor, it was linked only because today accidentally watched it while searching on the Bosnian fringe theory, and seemed interesting (in both facts that a notable pseudoarchaeologist doesn't agree, and there further fringe claims and rejections not mentioned in the article). There was no intention of the discussion to rise any suspicion on the scholarship consensus, only specific updates from past years to the above mentioned sections. Alright, will see if can find something.--Crovata (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if I offended you with my comment about YouTube - I've just spent too long here trying to explain the idea of reliable sources to others! "Recent years"? Nothing specific, just that nobody has so far presented any reliable academic update I've seen since what is already in the article. As I say, if you want to update the article then by all means try to find some reliable sources and do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, "try to find some reliable sources and do so", funny enough am trying almost an hour and it's not such a easy task as initially thought. Intention is to cite the claims and what are the most recent work there, which are not mentioned in the article, don't know why, but as said according NPOV, not showing them as somekind of facts. Am afraid that at some point, like you said above in the discussions, to do that there will be need to use project sources (for example, seem informative [1], [2]), and some news media. Thing is, even if above mentioned Daily Star is a tabloid, it does include what's the topic of this discussion - the project claims. For example, will link the media and what would like to cite:
BBC 2006 (revealed a narrow entrance to what could be an underground network of tunnels... thought to be 2.4 miles (3.8km) long... The team found two intersections with other tunnels leading off to the left and right. Their conclusion was that it had to be man-made... geologist Nadja Nukic is already cited (the intention is to connect this sections - claim and counterclaim)... two other, smaller pyramid-shaped hills in the Visoko Valley, which archaeologists believe the tunnels could lead to... discovered a paved entrance plateau and large stone blocks that could be part of a pyramid's outer surface... He has already named the three hills the pyramids of the Sun, Moon and Dragon... Locals have begun to trade on the excitement, selling pyramid souvenirs to tourists and visitors (note on the political and tourist aspect of the theory)... According to anthropologists there is evidence of 7,000-year-old human settlements in the valley. German archaeologists also recently found 24,000 Neolithic artefacts one metre below ground. Mr Osmanagic says the hill is a classic example of cultures building on the top of other cultures. The town was Bosnia's capital during the Middle Ages, and a medieval fortress used by Bosnian kings sits atop Visocica. The fortress was built over an old Roman Empire observation post, which in turn was constructed over the ruins of an ancient settlement.);
The Epoch Times 2013 (Two Italian archaeologists, Dr. Ricarrdo Brett and Niccolo Bisconti (need further research to prove), found a piece of organic material on the pyramid last year. They were able to carbon-date the material, and with it, the pyramid itself. This carbon dating places the pyramid 20,000 years before the Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations, believed to be some of the earliest in the world... Paul Heinrich, an archaeological geologist at Louisiana State University agreed [with Robert Scoch]... Enver Buza, a surveyor from Sarajevo’s Geodetic Institute has stated in a paper that the pyramid is “oriented to the north with perfect precision” reported Smithsonian. Some say the case of Bosnia’s pyramids has been used for political gains.);
The Straits Times 2015 (not one, but five structures... all connected by underground tunnels... unearthed a network of underground tunnels and found man-made structures there and has also found fossilised leaves tested scientifically to date back 34,000 years... Curtis Runnels (more recent account on his POV) from Boston University, for instance, says that he is "not persuaded" by the arguments in favour of the so-called pyramids because cultures capable of producing such "colossal buildings" came about in that region only about 2,500 years ago. Even then, they did not construct buildings of that size and form... before them Stone Age hunters and gatherers, did not have populations large enough or social structures organised in ways that would have permitted the creation of pyramids on a large scale... Pyramidal shapes offer the least resistance to such forces [wind and rain], and are common forms in nature... Dr Brian Stewart, assistant curator at the Museum of Anthropological Archaeology at the University of Michigan: "There were very worrying reports that he and his team have essentially sculpted the sides of these natural hills into something they think resembles pyramids, in the process stripping away sediment which contains layers of actual archaeology from mediaeval and earlier periods.")
Smithsonian 2009, already used in the article (the Pyramid of the Moon, the world's largest—and oldest—step pyramid... A third pyramid, he says, is in the nearby hills. All of them, he says, are some 12,000 years old... [embraced by] Bosnian officials... drawn to the promise of a glorious past and a more prosperous future for their battered country. Skeptics, who say the pyramid claims are examples of pseudo-archaeology pressed into the service of nationalism, have been shouted down and called anti-Bosnian... Souvenir stands... Pyramid of the Moon, with three triangular sides and a flat top." Upon consulting a compass, he concluded the sides of the pyramid were perfectly oriented toward the cardinal points (north, south, east and west). He was convinced this was not "the work of Mother Nature"... [geographic information about the valley]... In early 2006 Osmanagich asked a team of geologists from the nearby University of Tuzla to analyze core samples at Visocica. They found that his pyramid was composed of the same matter as other mountains in the area: alternating layers of conglomerate, clay and sandstone... It was just as the geologists had predicted: the excavations revealed layers of fractured conglomerate at Visocica, while those at Pljesevica uncovered cracked sandstone plates separated by layers of silt and clay. "What he's found isn't even unusual or spectacular from the geological point of view," says geologist Robert Schoch of Boston University, who spent ten days at Visoko that summer. "It's completely straightforward and mundane"... agrees Paul Heinrich, an archaeological geologist at Louisiana State University. "They're called ‘flatirons' in the United States and you see a lot of them out West." He adds that there are "hundreds around the world," including the "Russian Twin Pyramids" in Vladivostok...
...unperturbed by the University of Tuzla report, Osmanagich said Visocica's conglomerate blocks were made of concrete that ancient builders had poured on-site... This theory was endorsed by Joseph Davidovits, a French materials scientist who, in 1982, advanced another controversial hypothesis—that the blocks making up the Egyptian pyramids were not carved, as nearly all experts believe, but cast in limestone concrete... according to Schoch, workers carved the hillside between the layers—to create the impression of stepped sides on the Pyramid of the Moon. Particularly uniform blocks and tile sections were exposed for viewing by dignitaries, journalists and the many tourists who descended on the town... Osmanagich's announcements sparked a media sensation, stoked with a steady supply of fresh observations: a 12,000-year-old "burial mound" (without any skeletons) in a nearby village; a stone on Visocica with alleged curative powers; a third pyramid dubbed the Pyramid of the Dragon; and two "shaped hills" that he has named the Pyramid of Love and the Temple of Earth... Enver Buza... Ruins of the 14th-century Visoki Castle can be found on the summit of Visocica Hill—on top of the Pyramid of the Sun... "The pyra­mids have been turned into a place of Bosniak identification," says historian Dubravko Lovrenovic of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Commission to Preserve National Monuments. "If you are not for the pyramids, you are accused of being an enemy of the Bosniaks"... For his part, Osmanagich insists he disapproves of those who exploit his archaeological work for political gain. "Those pyramids don't belong to any particular nationality," he says. "These are not Bosniak or Muslim or Serb or Croat pyramids, because they were built at a time when those nations and religions were not in existence"...
...Wellesley College anthropologist Philip Kohl, who has studied the political uses of archaeology, says that Osmanagich's pyramids exemplify a narrative common to the former Eastern bloc. "When the Iron Curtain collapsed, all these land and territorial claims came up, and people had just lost their ideological moorings," he notes. "There's a great attraction in being able to say, ‘We have great ancestors, we go back millennia and we can claim these special places for ourselves.' In some places it's relatively benign; in others it can be malignant"... "I think the pyramids are symptomatic of a traumatized society that is still trying to recover from a truly horrendous experience," says Andras Riedlmayer, a Balkan specialist at Harvard University. "You have many people desperate for self-affirmation and in need of money"... "Anyone who puts their head above the parapet suffers the same fate [pressure, attacks]", says Anthony Harding, a pyramid skeptic who was, until recently, president of the European Association of Archaeologists... Tihic invited Koichiro Matsuura, then director-general of Unesco, to send experts to determine if the pyramids qualified as a World Heritage site. Foreign scholars, including Harding, rallied to block the move: 25 of them, representing six countries, signed an open letter to Matsuura warning that "Osmanagich is conducting a pseudo-archaeological project that, disgracefully, threatens to destroy parts of Bosnia's real heritage"... Brankovic told reporters at a press conference following a visit to the site. "The government will not act negatively toward this project." Haris Silajdzic, another member of the national presidency, has also expressed support for Osmanagich's project, on grounds that it helps the economy... Osmanagich says his foundation has received over $1 million, including $220,000 from Malaysian tycoon Vincent Tan; $240,000 from the town of Visoko; $40,000 from the federal government; and $350,000 out of Osmanagich's pocket. Meanwhile, the National Museum in Sarajevo has struggled to find sufficient funds to repair wartime damage and safeguard its collection, which includes more than two million archaeological artifacts and hundreds of thousands of books... For now Osmanagich has gone underground, literally, to excavate a series of what he says are ancient tunnels in Visoko—which he believes are part of a network that connects the three pyramids... The tunnel was partially filled, he says, when sea levels rose by 1,500 feet at the end of the ice age. 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... Nadija Nukic... Osmanagich says he plans to dig all the way to Visocica Hill, 1.4 miles away, adding that, with additional donations, he could reach it in as few as three years".
The above mentioned Joseph Davidovits who researched the concrete material, like G. Hancock said in the video, on his website can be found that although initially supported, in 2013 dismissed, stating "The geopolymer concrete analyzed is a kind of Roman concrete, which in no way corresponds to the materials that constitute the casing of the pyramids and look like pudding stone".
The four cited sources support each other, and have statements which some only note while other discuss, and many of it is not even cited in the article. They wouldn't be cited word-by-word, but roughly, hope you get the concept.--Crovata (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That's far too much for me to give a quick response to, but I'll try to take a look at those sources and will comment on each one individually - but it might take me some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No rush, also would be appropriate that the article includes images in sections (also "Gallery" should be made) showing the tunnels, some stones, and concrete blocks discussed by the author and scholars in the text.--Crovata (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there proposal somewhere in all this? --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not going to have time for this, sorry - my time for Wikipedia is limited and I don't have enough interest in this pyramid thing to spend it on this. I hope someone else might be able to help - and as Ronz suggests, an actual proposed change to the article would probably get more assistance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested too, but also don't have time for writing proposals, to discuss and so on. It's a simple update, there's no need for further assistance. Will edit the revision then you can review it.--Crovata (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's probably best, I'll leave it to someone else to review. Once again, sorry I don't have the time to spend on this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Crovata I'm not sure how much we should use Osmanagic's own claims vs independent sources, but I would like to you search above for my mentions of Tere Pruitt and the links I give as Tere seems to be a very valuable source. Also Irna's website, search for "The book Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology by archaeologists Ruth M. Van Dyke, Reinhard Bernbeck and published by the University of Colorado says " For an excellent series of articles, blogs, exposes, and links, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html," in the text way above. That endorsement is enough to use it as a source IMHO, and it's a great one. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks for the input, previously when edited saw the website (only checked its reliability, not exact content for inclusion), think currently is listed under "Furter reading". Will see these days (or weeks, when have time) how to properly include the information. Osmanagic's ie. the project research claims, although fringe, should be included in the proper section, there's no need for somekind of censorship on Wikipedia. However, the information which considered to be included (mentioned above) it was in previous edit, and think there's no need for more (especially not for the alleged healing properties or frequencies about the pyramids(?), we should stick to the scholarship claims/counterclaims). The scholarship consensus is intact, and were added more counterclaims.--Crovata (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Crovata: Yes, Irna's is listed, but did you read the two Pruit papers? They deal with an aspect that needs coverage. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Only quick view, currently really don't have time, am working on other article. Nice find, well written sources. The aspect is partially covered in the article from now, "[Robert Schoch] He also accused the workers for carving the hillside making impression of stepped side on the "Pyramid of the Moon".[4]"--Crovata (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

POV-pushing removal

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just removed a whole load of new POV-pushing, uncritically trying to make the claims seem more respectable than mainstream archaeology judges them to be. Anyone watching, please keep an eye on future attempts at more of the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Demeaning phrasing

Latest comment: 8 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion

On what basis is this described only as Pseudo archeology? It is inaccurate and demeaning.

The processes used have been similar to those used at Giza and at the Mayan pyramids in South America. One could easily argue that it was pseudo archeology at Giza to date and attribute a pyramid based on some tools found at the site, whilst overlooking water damage that they can't explain within their dating. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly sourced, with a ref right after the phrase "pseudo-archaeological" itself, and if you have a look at that you'll find it's a paper in French called "Les « pyramides » de Bosnie-Herzégovine : une affaire de pseudo-archéologie dans le contexte bosnien" ("The "pyramids" of Bosnia and Herzegovina: a matter of pseudo-archeology in the context of Bosnia"). If you read the rest of the sources from respected archaeologists, you'll find the same kind of criticism throughout. (As an aside, we've had a lot of attempts to whitewash this article and make it sound like a genuine scientific discovery in recent months, but Wikipedia articles are based on the consensus of academic opinion as published in reliable sources and those are pretty much unanimous that the Bosnian pyramid claims are incompetent at best - and possibly even fraudulent). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I reject the comparison in any case. What pyramid at Giza is dared by tools and your source that says water damage was ignored? The "evidence" here is either but guys or misinterpreted and there are no clouds of negative energy or beams of energy shooting into space as claimed by the Foundation. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Guy, for now there's no enough evidence that both Bosnian "pyramids" were built with the same technology (even civilization) like those in Giza. What you're mentioning is related to the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis mainly proposed by Robert M. Schoch. @Doug, think that the image they present about the Bosnian pyramids (with that lighting-beam) is a visual misconception (which as you say look unlogical and ridiclious), but by it they mean a specific frequency/energy others really measured there. It's some natural(?; due to "pyramidal shape") or manmade(?) anomaly - look at February 2015 37:00- for "10. Energy Phenomena", and 56:00- for "Energy beam". That's something archeologists and historians cannot explain, yet physicists.--Crovata (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he's probably confusing a pyramid with the Sphinx and hasn't read how Egyptologists date them, just fringe stuff. Anyway, you don't need archaeologists or physicists for stuff like Kirlian photography or PIP. You just need to know about Osmanagic's source, Harry Oldfield. The foundation[3] describes him as a biologist, Honorary Doctor of Sciences, visiting professor at the medical faculties of the University of Grenada and member of the Royal Society for microscopic research at Oxford. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and patents in the field of Kirlian photography and its computer and microscopic improvement through variation of energy fields." He calls himself a biologist [4] and gives his CV as "DHom(Med), qualified as a homeopathic physician in 1982 and received an Honorary Doctorate (Citation of Honour) from the World Peace Centre in Pune, India, in 2000. Harry is also Professor Honoris Causa, Department of Alternative Medicine, Zoroastrian College, Mumbai, India; Visiting Professor, Department of Medicine, Grenada University, 2001; Visiting Professor of Energy Medicine, Holos University Graduate Seminary, Missouri, USA, 2007; and Fellow of the Royal Microscopical Society, Oxford." But take a look at Irna Lautre's comments. Color me unimpressed. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Discrediting a person due to being part in alternative medicine is not right as in some parts of the world, like India, it's an official way of medical treatment beside conventional. As well, he has degrees, and as such is capable of handling such technological devices, which beside others, showed there's evidence for energy "visual" waves and "frequencies" which are not normal for natural hills, at least that's the interpretation. However it is interpreted, you cannot fool devices, it seems there some anomaly. Hopefully someone more "scientifical" will go there to prove/dismiss this waves/frequencies. Just trying to be neutral.--Crovata (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Whether something is "official" somewhere says absolutely nothing about its scientific validity. As for those supposed inventions and devices that you say can't be fooled? Well, I don't claim to be a top scientist, but I do have a scientific education and a lifelong interest in various fields of science, and those technological claims are plainly ludicrous nonsense. And there is absolutely no evidence presented for these "frequencies" or any "anomaly" that stands up to even the most cursory scientific examination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have two genuine degrees from prestigious universties and several postgraduate qualifications but I am not qualified to handle such technological devices. He says he has a DHom(Med) but not where he got it. That stands for "Diplomate of Homeopathic Medicine", not Dr. This source[5] is either wrong or he is as it says it hasn't been granted since the 40s. But the college (no idea if he went there) does something similar stil.[6] - it's not a degree. He doesn't claim any actual degrees and it's interesting that he gives no details about his qualification to practice homeopathic medicine. The UK doesn't regulate training, for instance. Anyway, I see no reason to take any of this seriously. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am just neutrally replying, and would like to note that anyway this is not the initial topic of the section, it's closely related, but am not interested to continue discussing it. Both of you seem to have a specific point of view which was created somewhere before. Think that you have not seen those minutes in the video (presentation images, as well of the devices) - that was the initial point of reply - that they don't exist, while actually were measured. You cannot deny and ignore that devices physicists or engineers use (if remember right) measured something, was it unnormal or normal. You cannot call something "ludicrous nonsense" if didn't saw the video, and don't know what you're talking about, was because you didn't saw it, or simply because as both of you stated - we don't have enough knowledge about physics (and technology) to approve or dismiss those phenomena for granted. What homeopathy has anything to do with years of experience with those devices? And again, you're only talking about those "waves" and Oldfield, not energy "frequency". Also how do you know that there's no "cursory scientific examination"? Did you check before?--Crovata (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
First: A YouTube video is evidence of nothing.
Second: It is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to make these determinations. In fact, we're not allowed to. We only publish what we find in reliable sources, as defined here: WP:RS afaict there are no reliable sources that support any conclusion other than "pseudo-archaeology". In fact, multiple specialists in the field have reached the "pseudo-archaeology" conclusion. On the other side we have... someone who claims as their credentials a no-longer-issued certificate in a field that claims that chemically pure water can be medicinally effective. It is well within WP editors' purview to decide that this person is not a reliable source. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (see WP:FRINGE), and so far there isn't even ordinary proof of the extraordinary claims. If you want to write essays defending this nonsense, I'm sure you can find blogs that will "publish" you, or you can start your own. But it won't appear here, and to those who are offended by what they see as a "demeaning" label, too bad. Go argue with the degreed specialists who said that, not here. (p.s.: It would help if what you wrote was far more intelligible than it is.) Jeh (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Jeh has it spot on there. It's not whether you or I think there's any valid science behind any of the claims, it's whether reputable academics in the relevant fields think there is. And every single publication I have seen in any reliable source (which, in the case of science, usually means peer-reviewed scientific journals - *not* YouTube videos) has refuted the claims. Oh, and yes, when I read that the guy claims to have invented instruments to record the "interference between photons and the human energy field" then I am entirely entitled to call it "ludicrous nonsense", which is what anyone with any knowledge of science would know. It is utter unmitigated pseudoscientific bollocks. (If the guy wants to have such claims taken seriously, he needs to publish the science behind these devices in a peer-reviewed journal and have it reviewed by actual scientists - not stick it on YouTube). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't help noticing that after a number of pyramid supporters have had their attempts to rewrite this article rejected over the past few months, and after attempts to whitewash it by IPs have been stopped, we now have editors coming along with more attempts to get it rewritten - only this time they're using stock phrases like "balanced article" and repeatedly claiming they're coming from a neutral view and aren't actually pyramid supporters at all. Does anyone else smell a coordinated attempt somewhere to get this article rewritten by pretending to be neutral observers? I might be overly suspicious, but to any pyramid supporters reading this - if that's what you're trying to do, it will not work. The only way anyone will get this article changed to imply any validity in the pyramid claims, or to "balance" it away from the universal academic rejection that currently exists, is to present support for the claims in reliable academic sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I've seen the same sorts of attempts at articles like Perpetual motion. See WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, etc. Just because a few misguided souls think the Earth is flat does not mean we have to include the slightest mention of them in the Earth article in the name of "balance". See also Concern troll. "Oh, I don't support these wild claims, but Wikipedia must present a balanced view, don't you think?" In some cases there are simply not two credible sides.
And regarding the oft-repeated defense that "we don't know everything, science can't explain everything", that is true. But that does not require science, or Wikipedia, to give credence to every wild conjecture that's invented to explain phenomena which themselves lack any documentation - particularly when those conjectures contradict widely accepted theory without offering viable replacements. Jeh (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an organised attempt[7] at Heartland Institute so it certainly happens. Here's Osmanagich's comment about the article.https://thebihlover.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/interview-with-dr-semir-osmanagich/] A complaint from last year.[8] I'm sure there are more. While searching found this[9] about Crimean pyramids older than the dinosaurs. As for Oldfield, why would he mention the Royal Microscope Society, which has no qualifications for membership and is even free to students. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller@Boing! said Zebedee@Jeh First and foremost, think this should be a lesson to all. For community health, next time don't write false assumptions, labeling other editors "pretending to be neutral observer ... coordinated attempt somewhere to get this article rewritten", without actually understanding his intentions. It's really offending. I am not defending or trying to prove or find extraordinary sources for inclusion. It's all in the realm of discussion. That's just an example what I am talking about your previously created standpoint - due to it you react, also logically due to previous disruptive experience, a bit unreasonable for a normal discussion. Second, you don't need to point out Wikipedia principles, in general WP:NPOV by which Wikipedia is edited, to an experienced editor. If your reaction is a benefit for the Wikipedia - ie. alert for other IP or suspicious accounts, alright then. Third, probably is not just on the YouTube, but wherever it is, generally don't discuss something without checking it beforehand.--Crovata (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Crovata: I have checked *everything* that has been presented here in support of and against the pyramid claims - every source used in the article, and everything offered here on this talk page since I have become interested (and a good bit more that I have found for myself). So please do not accuse me of not doing so! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's incredible how misunderstanding someone can be. Who says that I was thinking about, even less accusing, specifically you? Low down your ego. I was talking about the video on YouTube, not article sources, in relation to Doug's initial comment, and later because you guys stuck with one device and measure, while there were two-three devices and measures mentioned in the video with other people involved.--Crovata (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, until we have Reliable Sources (have you ever bothered to read that?), we *do not* have "two-three devices and measures". (I could make a YouTube video today in which I show measurements of the ion-flux field around a human anus using my electro-capacitative trombone (which I invented myself) and it would have exactly the same validity as this guy's YouTube claims - precisely none.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you ever bothered to read replies with links by Doug, or *every* source as you claim, because in some of them are really mentioned, if not all, at least some of those mentioned devices and measurements?--Crovata (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Crovata: AGF does require me to assume that you are opining in support of what you feel is best for the encyclopedia. But it doesn't require me to ignore my past experience with concern trolls. And it seemed to me, based not only on what you wrote but also the person who started this thread, that I most certainly did need to point out that NPOV does not require the inclusion of WP:FRINGE theories. In fact, NPOV has its own little section on how pseudoscience should be handled, which in turn references WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, all of which are essentially consistent with what I wrote on those points above. So, I stand by my previous. Jeh (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

((ec))@Crovata:I have no idea what a "previously created standpoint" is, but I have certainly experienced disruptive editors here and elsewhere. I also know quite a bit about the subject and own a couple of Osmanagich's books. Just found an interesting site which also talks about Oldfield's work there.[10] By the way, the page mentions Amer Smailbegovic. He in fact is pretty contemptuous about Osmanagich's work (I've discussed it via email with him). Doug Weller talk 13:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A specific standpoint - perspective, which often is more subjective, less neutral. Thought pattern. The site mentions both PIP and thermal (thermography) measurements. A phenomena (or anomaly) like I said above - due to natural pyramidal shape, or anthropological activities.
However, not all measurements I was talking about are mentioned like in the video.
Since the discussion is currently focused on this topic, could we do this - was it discussed here or some other talk page (generally used for discussion) - watch the parts of the video I mentioned before, ignore the part of the Osmanagić/Foundation data interpretation (which often really is ridiculous), be focused on the devices, measurements and personnel who done it, and call two-three editors who are experienced (preferably professional) physicists and engineers who can explain us this devices, measures and if they are officially used and approved. As well, find sources who discuss them (generally), and like the one linked above in relation with the Foundation research, and cite them here under each related device/measurement point. Obviously we lack knowledge and experience about that stuff, and simply are not competent to discuss it, to give adequately neutral and relevant explanation and thus correct conclusion. When that is done, and some consensus is reached, it could be used as topic's reference point and for future disruptive attempts.--Crovata (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
No, we can't get where you apparently want to get by discussion, and we cannot use expert editors to validate anything. All we need is published Reliable Sources which validate that these devices do what is claimed and explain how. If those sources do not exist (and none has ever been proposed so far, as far as I am aware), then these so-called device readings have absolutely no factual value in Wikipedia. (My personal view is that no such sources *can* exist, because what is being claimed of these devices is pure woo-woo bullshit, but I'm open to revising that if you can find any...) The bottom line is, if you want these "device measurements" to be taken seriously, then you need to provide reliable sources to validate them. And until you do, we already have our reference point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Boing! said Zebedee I'm going to disagree with you. We don't want sources discussing these devices unless they discuss their use in relationship to Bosnian pyramid claims. Otherwise it's only the sources we are concerned with, not the gadgets they use or misuse. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. The point I was trying to make is that unless these are scientifically validated devices in the first place (like, for example, a camera or a Geiger counter) then any "measurements" are worthless in any context. Then beyond that, we'd need sources verifying the relevance of what they're measuring in the context of the pyramid claims. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee, "my personal view is that no such sources *can* exist" - who cares what's our personal opinion, and especially when you're not following the discussion - Doug already linked above at least one reliable source which discussed two of those devices/measurement techniques, ie. PIP (Kirlian photography) and termal images (thermography). May I ask why there's no possibility for such activity on Wikipedia? Since when open discussion is not adequate on Wikipedia?--Crovata (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Since we have had SPAs like you pushing a fringe POV in direct contravention of WP:FRINGE: "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." We are not required to give any credence to mumbo jumbo like "he invented PiP camera, through which he can view bio-energy fields" (the YouTube video at 37:10) A picture-in-picture camera is an app that enables creative photo-editing. It's not related to Kirlian photography, which requires the object photographed to be connected to a high-voltage source and the hill in the video could not possibly be connected to that. The idea behind these "pyramids" is pure unadulterated rubbish, using a lot of fancy-sounding terminology and pretty video effects designed to fool the lay reader, and it's the very definition of pseudoscience. This article ought to be reduced to a stub saying "Osmanagich made up a load of pseudo-archeological nonsense that nobody in mainstream science takes seriously." --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Crovata, my personal opinion was offered merely as a parenthetical aside. My point is simply that if you wish to assert in the article that "bio-energy fields", or any other such woo-woo guff, actually have been measured, then you need to find a reliable source (as per WP:RS) which supports it. Please feel free to provide a reliable source if you know of one, already used in the article or not. If you cannot find a reliable source to support the claim that these things have actually been measured, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they have not been measured. It really is as simple as that, and evading Wikipedia's policy on these issues will get you nowhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS, you're already third or fourth editor who thought that my intention is inclusion of those information in the article, while it is not at all. We're only discussing the topic. What's with editors/admins this days, we cannot even openly talk about controversial topics without being labeled, or misunderstood. Labeling me a "fringe POV" pusher, again, in violation of Wikipedia principles is almost like a personal attack. @Boing! said Zebedee, I don't want to, all this discussion started when Doug said that there's no energy (not in the sense like Foundation visually represents), but as energy is everywhere, some of those energy phenomena were actually measured, whatever the interpretation. Doug linked above The Bosnian Pyramids (2009), by Brian Dunning. As well look at The geophysical (satellite) analysis (2006). About the third measurement (electromagnetic field) read here (doubt it's reliable source, just to understand what's about, and that at least were done three different measurements), actually 9 articles here (2007-2014). Below will cite Dunning:

  • The Foundation commissioned one of its members, geophysicist Dr. Amer Smailbegovic to study available thermal images of the area, looking for thermal inertia. Basically, looking for areas that cool faster at night, and warm faster in the morning, than the surrounding area. Smailbegovic's report claims to have identified nine pyramids in this manner, five of them in Visočica's valley. Neither Smailbegovic nor Osmanagić offer any plausible explanation of why man-made pyramids might exhibit such a property, but it turns out there is a good reason that they do. The large pyramids in Egypt and Latin America are the highest points around, and a comparison of Smailbegovic's thermal images with topography maps show that (big surprise) it's generally the highest geographic points (hilltops, ridges, pyramids, whatever they are) that exhibit the lowest thermal inertia. If Smailbegovic did control for this fairly obvious correlation, he did not mention it in his report. When you choose your conclusion first, and then look for data that supports it, you're virtually guaranteed to get the results you want.
  • Further evidence in favor of the pyramid comes from Harry Oldfield, an enthusiast in New Age energy crystals and aura photography. He took video of Visočica using a camera that digitally replaces colors, to which he gives the scientific-sounding name Polycontrast Interference Photography, and which he claims provides a "real time, moving image of the energy field." Technically, replacing colors just alters the visual image, it does not change the fact that the camera is capturing only visual data. Osmanagić, who refers to Oldfield as Dr. Oldfield for reasons known only to himself, analyzed this video and stated: "..The energy fields are vertical, as opposed to horizontal, which is the case with naturally occurring hills. In contrast to natural phenomena where the energy fields are fixed, these electromagnetic fields are pulsating and non-homogenous. The Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun is in fact acting like a giant energy accumulator which continually emits large quantities of energy. It is the proverbial perpetuum mobile, which got its start in the distant past and continues its activity without respite." In Oldfield's color replacement video, brightness gradients in the sky appear as different colored bands, as is fairly obvious from a glance at the video. In explaining how he chose which colors to replace with which, Oldfield says "Some clairvoyants and mystics with their gifts helped me develop some of the filters in PIP which simulate what they see." If you understand what simple color replacement means, you should be able to judge for yourself the validity of Oldfield's video as proof that Visočica is a man-made pyramid.--Crovata (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That is only documenting what pyramid supporters have *claimed* they measured (and this "Polycontrast Interference Photography" is indeed utter unmitigated woo-woo crap and did not measure anything, especially not through the assistance of "clairvoyants and mystics with their gifts"). We do not give any credence to such claims unless backed by scientific support in reliable sources. So as far as this Wikipedia article goes, I'd say it really is time to put up or shut up. If you want a change made to the article, suggest the actual change you want to make and provide the sources to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Crovata, the first paragraph you cited describes why the "thermal images" show nothing but high points in the terrain; they do not prove that those high points were constructed by people. The second paragraph... well, you can really stop reading at "New Age energy crystals and aura photography," both of which are complete crap. "Energy fields," my ass. You can't get evidence of "electromagnetic fields" at any other wavelengths than visible light with a visible-light camera, even by rendering the images in false color. But false color images that take minor variations in color and make them major variations will commonly show the visual effects seen in the video.
      • "The energy fields [by which he really just means the variations in color] are vertical, as opposed to horizontal, which is the case with naturally occurring hills." Says who?
      • "In contrast to natural phenomena where the energy fields are fixed, these electromagnetic fields are pulsating and non-homogenous." Actually if you take movies of just about any area of sky and then use false color to over-emphasize subtle changes you can find variations that move around. Glider pilots call one reason for them "thermals".
      • "a giant energy accumulator which continually emits large quantities of energy" - uh, yeah, anything in sunlight does that; it absorbs heat in the day and simultaneously radiates it away - if it didn't there would not be an equilibrium temperature.
This reminds me very much of the "ghost hunters" who wander around with EM field meters and proclaim "we've found ghosts!" when the needle wiggles. The readings on such meters are essentially picking up background noise, which varies greatly in level for completely ordinary reasons. Even citing the above as an example of how poor the evidence is, and of how self-deluded the "investigators" are, would also fail WP:DUE. Crovata, please stop wasting our time. Jeh (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Guys, what's wrong with you? I said from the start that I don't want to change the article, we are just discussing the topic, and while you insisted that there was no energy-measurements, Doug provided reliable site with articles and links to sources which talk about some measurments being done, whatever devices, credibility, result, as well ridiculous interpretation. That was the whole point. You diverged the discussion on a totally different track, labeling me a POV pusher, relating to some agenda, or that want to change the article. Just...? We all get that most of the stuff Foundation claims is far-fetched. You're wasting my time explaining you things you, who read *every* source, should already know.--Crovata (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you see, what's wrong with us is that we're using this Talk page for its intended purpose. It is for discussing the article and changes thereto, not for discussing the subject itself. So as you apparently have no interest in changing the article, well, goodbye then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
And I repeat, Smailbegovic doesn't think there are any pyramids there. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion
This is just a rehash of the same discussions that were had in December, above, in which it was carefully and repeatedly explained that any sources to be added to this article must satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements detailed in WP:RS. Repeating the same attempts to get the same sources accepted again is not going to succeed. RexxS points out that there are currently weak sources used on both sides of the argument, and suggests a serious pruning might be good, and that's one avenue that could perhaps be explored. But once all weak sources are rejected, it remains that there are multiple independent reliable sources refuting the pyramid claims, and none supporting them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is this article semi-protected? This articles contains references from an anonymous blog (Irna France) and is very subjective. The article is not telling about the recent excavations and energy measurements by a couple of scientists. Furthermore, this articles does not contain information about the five different conferences, where tens of scientists have been and talked about the Bsosnian Pyramid project. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to constant disruptive activity which is against Wikipedia principles. About some of those "scientists" and measurements, as well their factual issues, you can read above (and follow the links), as well think that your concern was already answered by other editors months ago.--Crovata (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@TheBIHLover: It's to prevent you logging out and making edits that look like they come from someone else. It also makes it much harder for you to use meat-puppets recruited online via Facebook, etc. to spam the article. HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are still problems with this article and it lacks objectivity. Furthermore the article is using irrelevant references for this article, for example Sub Rosa. Sub Rosa site states: "Where science and magic, myth and history meet." Link: http://subrosa.dailygrail.com/download.html Now tell me, what kind of reference is that and why is that reference relevant for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There may well be problems with the article, but objectivity is achieved only through the use of good-quality, reliable, independent sources, from publishers who have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources #Overview). How about I go through the article and remove all of the unsourced content and the content that is only supported by non-independent sources? Sub Rosa is an equally poor source and should be removed, along with all the stuff sourced to piramidasunca.ba, robertschoch.net, The Epoch Times, cleopatris.net, davidovits.info, Klix.ba, and so on. How does that sound? --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree. This article is all about the subjectivity against the Bosnian pyramids. If you remove all those sources, then you have no sources that support the pyramids in Bosnia. Sub Rosa is a really poor source, because the site has nothing to do with the Bosnian Pyramids. It's an advertisment for their books.

I have given you archaeological reports from the site and a lot of articles, that are independent from the foundation, that support the Bosnian pyramids. This whole article needs to be rewritten, because it slams the Bosnian pyramids into an hoax. An hoax can't have over 50 different scientics that have been to the five different conferences, 2000 volunteers that have worked for the foundation and numourous og testings that have been done. I would say that this article is covered with conflict of interest to slam the pyramids in Bosnia and Dr. Osmanagich. TheBIHLover (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"If you remove all those sources, then you have no sources that support the pyramids in Bosnia." Hooray! That's what we've been trying to tell you all along. There are no reliable sources that support the pyramids claim. So there's no way that a Wikipedia article can provide any support for such a claim. It's as simple as that. --RexxS (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Meat-puppets? Look, RexxS, I would like you to respect Bosnian pyramids supports. No one here are meat-puppets. Here we are trying to change this article to something more objective, while the Wikipedia editors still slams the Bosnian pyramids and evidence that are pointings towards them, the best examples are the energy investigations. TheBIHLover (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The article correctly slams the ridiculous pyramid claims. This idea is designed to bring visitors, as this nonsense article is excited to report. "Energy investigations" are just more fiction for the gullible. Wikipedia is not going to help Dr. Sam pull the wool over people's eyes. Binksternet (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@TheBIHLover: Yes, meat-puppets. Are you telling me that nobody has been trying to drum up support offline for this blatant piece of fringe nonsense? Respect has to be earned and I have none whatsoever for shills and charlatans who try try to peddle snake-oil with rubbish like "energy beams" and "PIP cameras". I've pointed you to WP:RS and you've chosen to ignore all requests for reliable sources. So I'm warning you now, the next time you come here, wasting editors' time, with more woo-woo pseudoscience sourced to some crap site like piramidasunca.ba, I'm going to ask for you to be banned from this page under the discretionary sanctions for tendentious editing. Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Great minds, eh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You are giving me an article from 2011. The energies are there and it's proved by numourous resarchers.

What about looking into these articles?

http://www.ancient-origins.net/editorials/healing-energy-prehistoric-tunnels-beneath-bosnian-pyramid-complex-004096

http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/latest-news/item/9788-science-proof-fence-resoundingly-breached-89-scientific-papers-delivered-at-five-international-scientific-conferences-on-the-bosnian-pyramids.html

If Irna's blog is a reference, then I want the archaeological reports to be a reference too. These kind of slams does not belong to an encyclopedia. TheBIHLover (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

TheBIHLover, Last time you spent ages wasting our time here (and trying to persuade us using videos on your own woo-woo YouTube channel), you were told what you need to do. You need to present reliable sources to support whatever changes you want to make to the article. I won't explain what constitutes a reliable source again, as I explained multiple times before (and it's still up above on this page), yet you refused to pay any attention to it. Once again, you repeat the claim that "I have given you archaeological reports from the site and a lot of articles, that are independent from the foundation, that support the Bosnian pyramids". You have, in fact, not provided one single reliable source that supports the pyramid claims, and all your "archaeological reports" are from the pyramid people who make these nonsense claims in the first place. I will shortly post a notice of discretionary sanctions on your talk page - as far as I understand it, your continued disruption of this talk page by repeatedly making the same demands against consensus and against Wikipedia policy, while refusing to listen to people who point out what you are doing wrong, is covered by such sanctions. But I do hope no sanction is actually needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Your suggested sources are unreliable and cannot be used. Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
When academics of the status of Ruth Van Dyke[11] and Reinhard Bernbeck[12][13] write "1. For the geology, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html., accessed March 14, 2012." and particularly "For an excellent series of articles, blogs, exposes, and links, see Irna (2011), http://irna.lautre.net/-Bosnian-pyramids-.html" in an academic press book[14] we might consider them. Those comments alone are enough to use Irna's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You have, in fact, not provided one single reliable source that supports the pyramid claims, and all your "archaeological reports" are from the idiots and charlatans who make these nonsense claims in the first place.

You have now disrespected the whole community of the Bosnian pyramids and all the degrees that the scientists have. Shame on you! If you give me sanctions for using my freedom of speech, then it is absurd, because I have every right to discuss this topic. If you give me any sanctions, however, I will write about it in my new article and send it to some internet portals. I have already made an article about our last situation.

Irna is a blog and I can't believe how an encyclopedia is using her as a source. My point is to have articles that are supporting the Bosnian pyramids, in an objective way, as a reference. I have given you at least five articles from five different news-stations. TheBIHLover (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disrespect? Pah! I have nothing but contempt this kind of woo-woo stuff. I also have very little respect for those who keep insisting they have provided suitable references while refusing to follow Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy. Oh, and threatening to write nasty things about us elsewhere will gain you no traction here. Finally, you have no freedom of speech here and no right to anything - see Wikipedia:Free speech. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@TheBIHLover: You're completely wrong again. This is a private website and actually you have exactly two rights: the right to fork; and the right to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --RexxS (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth should I follow the references on this Wikipedia, when most of them are ten years old and the reference is linking to blogs and other irrelevant sites? Well, I'm not breaking any rules whatsoever. I'm discussing the situation on a talk page. I'm giving you references, but you keep ignoring them. Calling people idiots, will not get you anywhere by the way. TheBIHLover (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheBIHLover: - will you have the integrity if you mention Irna's website to also point out that it's recommended by at least two academics (more actually but I was just pointing out those two)? Doug Weller talk 12:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If Irna's article is going to be a reference on Wikipedia, then I think that the article from Paul LaViolette should also be a reference, so we balance the different views. TheBIHLover (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE theories don't get to participate in "balance". Jeh (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a fringe when I give you five different links from five different news-stations. You have references from Hurriyetdailynews, that are against the pyramids in Bosnia and as far as I know, the news-station is not checked by some acadamic. But you don't want to place those links I gave as a reference? Wow. TheBIHLover (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at who attends these international conferences is interesting, and I detect a downhill trend. We have Dr. Lee Pennington, who is evidently quite a good poet and I think his doctorate is in a field related to poetry as he used to teach it. Klaus Dona is a "spiritual archaeologist".[15] Dr. Baumann's background is in medicine.[16] Where are the archaeologists and Egyptologists? They seem to have vanished. The participants all appear to be New Agers. While searching I found this.[17] I also have his book about Akashic readings. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many gullible "news" stories are dredged up about this nonsense. The archaeologists and geologists of the world have made their statement against it, and that statement stands until it is withdrawn or at least challenged by archaeologists and geologists of good standing. You can point us to tens or even hundreds of New Age articles but none of them are reliable—none of them are authoritative enough to contradict the topic experts.
So stop wasting everybody's time here. TheBIHLover, you are becoming a net negative, a drain on the Wikipedia community. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Egyptian experts confirmed the Bosnian pyramids when they first were in Visoko. [copyvio link redacted by Doug Weller]

Egyptian resarcher Ali Barakat also confirmed the pyramids while he was on the site, but after he returned to Egypt he got sacked by Zahi Hawass and Mr. Hawass said that there are no pyramids in Bosnia. Like I said, there are many photographs and videos of the Egyptian experts on the internet. [[copyvio link redacted again] TheBIHLover (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Barakat was a geologist working for the Egyptian Mineral Resources Agency, haven't you even read this article? Hawass couldn't fire him and didn't (and please don't post urls claiming he did unless they are official or mainstream Egyptian news media, there's a lot of nonsense out there). We give Barakat quite a bit of space in the article. You seem to be suggesting we haven't mentioned him. Don't post copyvio links, you can see it's not on an official tv channel site. Again, the earlier non-New Age people seem to have vanished. Of course Barakat didn't think they were as old as the Egyptian pyramids.Doug Weller talk 19:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia community? What are you talking about Binksternet? So the four people that are discussing with me are the whole community on Wikipedia? Well, you are wrong. There are thousands of Wikipedia editors. TheBIHLover (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller ,er but he confirmed the pyramids in Bosnia. The video I gave you, is evidence that the Egyptian resarchers confirmed the Bosnian pyramids. I would like to add some more articles that can balance this article. TheBIHLover (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you censure the video of the Egyptian experts, Doug Weller? TheBIHLover (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't allow links to pirated videos, and I've now given you a formal warning. Don't add it again. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Have you forgotten again that we need reliable sources as per WP:RS, like peer reviewed academic journals and not YouTube videos? You can't possibly have forgotten, since I've told you multiple times since you started this crusade in December, so I can only surmise that you are deliberately ignoring Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright? What are you talking about? If it was copyright, then it would have been removed from Youtube.

Ok, no youtube-videos, but what with the five different links I gave you? The links are from independent sources. This article is using a news-stations as a source anyways, so why don't you put some of the articles I gave you as reference?

The article that this Wikipedia article is using: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=bosnian-pyramid-created-by-nature-say-european-experts-2006-06-12

I don't think that the article was reviewed by an academic. TheBIHLover (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_pyramid_claims/Archive_7&oldid=1026781359"