Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 2

As a next step, perhaps you can reach out to this scientist to inquire when his findings will be reviewed (or if they already have). This may provide you with a verifiable third-party source which you can use to place this language back in the article. Hiberniantears 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being confused, but how do you make an academic peer review a website or a blog? I have never heard of this before. I am aware of science magazines doing it, but I had no idea that a website could go through an academic peer review as well. If that is indeed possible, how exactly was Dr. Schoch's website peer reviewed? If you please would answer these questions, then I can ask Dr. Omerbashich when I see him whether he intends to have the same done with his blog too. Piramidosta 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"remove them if necessary" I did. Sorry if there was any confusion. --

Ronz

19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't object to you being the person who removes the text, I just didn't see any notice from you saying that it was you who did it. You will agree that, in a situation like that, it could be anyone [removing the text] even though you perhaps wouldn't want it removed. But, that has been straightened out now. I did however object to the deletion of the link to Dr. Omerbashich's blog in the External Links section. I still object to that because, in my opinion, Wikipedia can only benefit from including a link to Dr. Omerbashich’s blog since the information contained therein is relevant, important, well put together, scientifically sound, solid-referenced (for an Internet medium), and potentially crucial for the entire topic. I hope it won't sound impolite if I say that Law 101 teaches us that laws and regulations exist so that people who obey them could benefit and prosper; laws and regulations must not be read rigidly in situations where potential benefits for the community of breaking those regulations outweigh by far potential damages from not imposing those regulations to the letter. Piramidosta 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that one of you two has removed again both the text and the link before waiting to read my response (above). However, I can see now another external link that I find relevant to the above discussion: who and how did the peer review of the last external link shown (the "Irna")? Piramidosta 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out the discussion:

Ronz

22:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is another practical demonstration of why the above link deserves to be included in the External Links section: there, you have listed a link to an article (http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1169078.php/UNESCO_to_join_search_for_pyramids_in_central_Bosnia) announcing that UNESCO is taking part in the Visoko research. However, nothing could be farther from truth, and more than one year later UNESCO, of course, hasn’t showed up. How's that for including (un)verified reports? Or was that information too peer reviewed as well? Related to that: do you see Dr. Omerbashich's blog containing any information that is nearly as untrue? Piramidosta 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the monstersandcritics link. I've removed it per your comments. --

Ronz

22:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, glad I could be of some help! Next, please look at your last post in the talk that you pointed at: "We're making an exception with this article because it's so difficult to get current information in English. This doesn't mean we should list every blog though. I don't see this one keeping very current, nor offering anything that the others don't. --Ronz 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)" Now, if I read this correctly, you stated two criteria for making an exception: (1) information contained in the linked source has to be current, and (2) the linked source must offer something that others don't. Based on these criteria (to not repeat myself on additional reasons pro, such as high quality and seriousness of the source I'm advocating here), it's quite obvious that, by the same token, a link to Dr. Omebashich's blog should be posted as well. Piramidosta 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm still wating for instructions or hints on how and where one can submit a website or blog for academic peer review, so I can suggest Dr. Omerbashich to do just that. Piramidosta 00:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Piramidosta, I would like to suggest you read through some of the following resources, as I think they will answer many of your questions. Peer review is perhaps a bit too extreme a phrase for me to have used, and it appears to have tripped you up a bit. First, read through Wikipedia:Verifiability - This should give you a pretty good idea of why Omerbashich's blog is not ideal, as it deals with the need for third party involvement. If Omerbashich were to get his research published in a third party source, then his work would be an ideal source here. I believe you may also find Wikipedia:Featured article criteria to be of some use, as it gives a good break down on what it takes to move an article through the process of becoming featured article quality (which is to say the article would be reliable enough to be presented on the Wikipedia main page). I add this link because this article on the Bosnian pyramids is something of a disaster... as you are noticing with some of the additional links you have pointed out. Our goal here is not to add more blogs, but rather to eliminate this type of "source" material in favor of third party published sources. For the time being, the responsibility for getting the research in your links to the level that is would warrant inclusion here as a source is in the hands of Dr. Omerbashich. Hope this helps. Hiberniantears 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sounds reasonable for a featured article (as you call it), in theory. In practice however (see my reply to Ronz, above), we can see that there are exceptions to the rule particularly when it comes to the External Links section. Since Ronz seems busy, can you please tell me why can't there be an exception for at least a link to Dr. Omerbashich's blog? It seems that both of the criteria that Ronz stated above for allowing exceptions are well met in this case too. Please note that I don't insist on including my text as a featured article any more (I agree that Dr. Omerbashich's ideas need to be verified), however I do insist on including the external link (to the blog), for all the above stated reasons. Piramidosta 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent questions, and you have a reasonable point. The real issue here is not the inclusion of your link, but rather the need to clean this article up and remove the links you are pointing out as exceptions to the rule. I'm rather busy today and tomorrow, but I'd be happy to spend some time running through this article over the weekend in an attempt to bring it in line with some higher standards on sources. I know its not the perfect answer, but like I said before, this article needs a great deal of help... Hiberniantears 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are taking my points seriously. It seems Ronz has lost interest in this article (which would be unfortunate), so it's good that someone is taking over. Of course, we should thank Ronz for watching the article for this long, as it probably was not the easiest Wikipedia article for one to be responsible for. Looking forward to your edits. Piramidosta 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't lost interest. I just have nothing more to say about Omerbashich. If anyone wants to work on editing the article, I'll try to set some time aside to contribute. --

Ronz

22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to say something just for the heck of it. Of course, I did expect you to respond to my question on the exception criteria you stated. Piramidosta 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems Hiberniantears didn't keep his/her promise and edited the page over the weekend. I hope this doesn't mean the things remain as they are. Piramidosta 03:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

POSTED FROM MY PERSONAL TALK PAGE: Piramidosta 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you read

From what I can see,

WP:AGF is conerned with advising you, the oldtimers here, in dealing with us, the newcomers. So I don't see why you wanted me to read it. The same seems to apply for the other document you recommended. May I remind you that it is not me who is overseeing this page, and therefore obviously, having no power whatsoever in here, I am not the person to resolve any issues either. I can only point at some, which is what I did. By the way, the criteria you used in the past for justifying the exceptions you had made with listing some "sources", are not contained in the readings you recommended. Piramidosta

03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you reread them. AGF applies to all, though there is a section specific to newcomers.

WP:DR

gives you guidelines on how to handle disputes.

"By the way, the criteria you used in the past for justifying the exceptions you had made with listing some "sources", are not contained in the readings you recommended." If you mean that the exceptions are not part of the policies and guidelines, then yes, I know. Did you look to see who put those links into the article and what discussions occurred concerning them? My part with these links has been to point out the relevant policies/guidelines, as I did with you. When we've made exceptions, I've tried to document the exceptions them for future reference. --

Ronz

04:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It all boils down to the (now established) fact that there are exceptions selectively applied, despite the fact that there are no Wikipedia regulations to support such exceptions. Since you or anyone else seems unwilling to level the ground here, I conclude I have done everything I was supposed to. Consequently, I re-posted the text as well as the link to Dr. Omerbashich's blog. I also posted this correspondence on the talk page for everyone to see. Piramidosta 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are exceptions. Omerbashich's brand-new blog doesn't meet any of them. Sorry you don't like this. --

Ronz

19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you suffer from amnesia, let me remind you of your own criteria as stated in the above: (1) information contained in the linked source has to be current, and (2) the linked source must offer something that others don't. Don't you realize how funny you sound when you say that Dr. Omerbashich's blog does not meet the above two criteria? One would think there is someone at Wikipedia who actually cares about Wikipedia's good name, and subsequently deals with editors like yourself and the person below who obviously misuse their privileged access to knowledge distribution in order to twist Wikipedia's regulations. Don't tell me you two are doing this to protect national interests. Piramidosta 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronz

01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that some insiders' joke? Because I do not get it, I am afraid. Another thing I do not get is your violation of Wikipedia regulations by inventing new regulations on your own that are not written anywhere. Another thing still that I do not get is how it is possible that no one with a higher authorization level than yours has reacted yet so to restrain you. Yet another thing I do not get is why has this individual below promised to bring the article in tune with Wikipedia regulation, but has not done so ten days later. Another thing (Obviously, I could go on like this for hours, but something is telling me that you are not interested in logics here, or in Wikipedia regulations, for that matter. Except, of course, for those regulations that you pick yourself selectively indeed). Piramidosta 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an insider's joke. You shouldn't say that someone suffers from amnesia and misuses their privileged access, or imply that they don't care about Wikipedia's good name. These coments are uncivil and close to personal attacks. Comment on the contents, on the edits, not on the editors and their motives. As for the blog: I agree that it should not be linked per

Fram

07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Omerbashich's theories reversion

I removed the text and link once more from the article. Piramidosta, please try to respect the consensus on this. Numerous Wikipedia guidelines have been provided to you, and both Ronz and myself are working with you in good faith. For the time being, please do not add the information back to the article as per the lengthy discussion above. Hiberniantears 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see that you too (besides Ronz) have made re-appearance just in the right moment to delete the text I re-posted, while you did not keep the promise you made last week (that you would level the ground here). Oh well, the world is full of injustice. But while you are here, could you please update me and the readership on that incident of two weeks ago, when the Wikipedia owner said CIA (etc.) effectively controls Wikipedia? (News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm) Piramidosta 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the biggest miss-quotes of a story I've seen. The story never stated that the CIA has control over wikipedia nor does the tool (wikipediascanner) have the capability to detect the IP addresses of those who are editing with accounts.

In addition, to address the rest of this dispute, blogs are almost never permitted as a source. Blogs and other self published non-fact checked sources are often unreliable and usually including them in an article violations the "due weight" section of our

neutral point of view

policy. Content needs to be published in a third part source such as a scientific journal, newspaper, etc.

When we talk about making exceptions to the rule the question is not "why not?" the question is "why?". To make an exception to the rule those involved in the article must reach a consensus to that effect. Thats how it always works. This isn't some kind of CIA conspiracy to keep a blog down (wtf?)... this is just how wikipedia works. Our policies are there for a good reason. ---

WRE

) 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you always put words in people's mouth? I didn't say the article had said the CIA has control, I said "effectively" meaning: "for all practical purposes". Anyone who graduated from a high school and has read the above BBC article can conclude the same. So, you are disputing a fact, and how outrageous is that!

Next, what in the world does it mean "almost never"? Who is to put the limit on "almost", the admins or the Wikipedia regulations? Free and out-of-the-blue interpretations such as those you have just made, only intensify the doubts people increasingly have about the whole thing called Wikipedia.

Just look at your "cleanup" posteriori: it is now obvious that you people (admins) really believe it's fair to include several external links to what an American Doctor (Schoch) has to say on "pyramids" (on his private .COM site, which is better than a private blog - how?!), but to not allow an external link to what a non-American Doctor has to say? Not to mention the actual link to Osmanagich’s commercial website where he sells his book. Or did you just make up a regulation that allow Wikipedia to be used for free advertising?

Since you boys seem to have lost your compass, let me tell you what you now make Wikipedia look like from aside. The only effect that your biased actions (and as-you-go-invented justifications for those actions) produce is make people believe even more that: Oh yes, this indeed smells like g.o.b.'s of the CIA! Piramidosta 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Before making any response to the above, please see

Ronz

03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That page is sub-titled. "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice." So stop dodging the issue. Piramidosta 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Omerbashich's site should not be lined. For the reasons given, but also see this commentary on his claims: http://antibarbarorum.blogspot.com/2007/08/pozdrav-gospodinu-omerbashichu.html

And another site with a discussion with Omerbaschich: http://irna.lautre.net/Pyramids-shaped-by-Romans.html?var_recherche=Omerbashich

I continued the cleanup work started by J.smith on the external links. They should still be checked for redundancy with other links and references. --

Someone has removed this twice and referred to the talk page. However I can't find a reference here. This is the paragraph removed:

However UNESCO has published a report entitled: "Bosnian Pyramids: A Pseudoarchaeological Myth and a Threat to the Existing Cultural and Historical Heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina" which is extremely critical of Semir Osmanagić, stating that he has suppressed findings which contradict his views and the whole enterprise is being run as a money making exercise rather than a scientific investigation. [23]

Please explain why it has been removed or I will reinsert it. --Dumbo1 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO did not publish it. It's a letter to UNESCO. --

Ronz

16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[24],

[25], [26] Dr. Hawass' letter.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Mr. Mark Rose Archaeology Magazine

Dear Mr. Rose, In response to your question regarding the ipyramidi in Bosnia, here is my answer:

The discoverer of the ipyramidi in Bosnia, Semir Osmanagic, who claims that a hill near the Bosnia River is a man-made structure built before the end of the last Ice Age, is not a specialist on pyramids. His previous claim that the Maya are from the Pleiades and Atlantis should be enough for any educated reader. This ipyramidi is actually a sloping hill near a village. This was famous in the Middle Ages as a meeting place for merchants. What was found there is really just a mass of huge stones, evidently a natural geologic formation. The stones do not match, and there is no evidence that they were put together to form a solid structure. No one can say that these stones were transported by human beings since each weighs approximately 40 tons. Apart from its general outline, this hill bears absolutely no resemblance to the Egyptian pyramids. Mr. Barakat, the Egyptian geologist working with Mr. Osmanagic, knows nothing about Egyptian pyramids. He was not sent by the SCA, and we do not support or concur with his statements. Other archaeologists, such as a specialist in Prehistory at the National Museum in Sarajevo named Zellika, have stated that Mr. Osmanagic is giving out false information. What can Mr. Osmanagic use to show the age of the ipyramid?i No archaeological materials have been found near the pyramid. Mr. Osmanicis theories are purely hallucinations on his part, with no scientific backing. Sincerely yours,

Dr. Zahi Hawass Secretary General, SCA Megistias (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Aly Barakat is the Egyptian geologist who visited Bosnia in 2006. A geomorphologist named Irna has published a recent correspondence with him on her blog (which has a lot more on these alleged pyramids that really needs to be read.

Pirimidosta's requests to publicise Omerbashich's blog and ideas have been turned down, I think rightly. (And I will add that as virtually every post of primidosta I can find anywhere pushes Omerbashich I have come to the conclusion that they are the same person).

Irna's website is also a personal blog, but I think that this correspondence is valuable and relevant and so far as Dr Barakat's emails go, those would easily be accepted here. It's here: http://irna.lautre.net/A-correspondence-with-Dr-Barakat.html

I'd like to add a link to it, what do people think? Ronz said it should be discussed here first. Thanks. Doug

When I tried to do this, Ronz has stopped all attempts to have this information listed. Totally unprofessional behaviour on his account. There are entries here on the talk page about how Wikipedia is preaching, and I can only agree. This entire entry is extremely biaised, and should be flagged as such. And the sole reason why it is so unprofessional, is, it seems to me, Ronz's editing of it. Dsine (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Irna's blog should not be used as a sole source. --

talk

) 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The original report is available here: http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php/The-geological-and-Geo-archaeological-Observations-on-the-Bosnian-Pyramids-in-Visoko.html So I assume the original report is good enough to actually report on the findings of Dr. Barakat? It can't get more authorative than that. Dsine (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And you know this is the original report exactly how? The Foundation site is not a reliable source for anything but its own claims. Certainly not for anything else. Early on it lied about its staff, for instance, claiming people were working for it who weren't. And look what happened to poor Andrew Lawler's report. [27].

talk

) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about Visocica Hill. It is an article about the so-called Bosnian pyramid and the controversy surrounding it. The article move is entirely inappropriate and should be reversed. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are a number (not sure how many, it keeps growing, 7 or 8 now) of 'pyramids' claimed (wrongly IMHO) by the Bosnian Pyramid Foundation, and it would be inappropriate to discuss them in an article on just one hill, not to say confusing. I don't remember any discussion about a redirect, did I miss it?--

talk

) 13:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. The story is becoming less and less about a specific location, more and more about the hoax started and perpetuated by the Bosnian Pyramid Foundation in order to attract tourism. --

talk

) 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If such is the case, I think the pages should be moved to

Bosnian Pyramids redirecting to whichever one is chosen. I think it is fine to also maintain a page for Visočica hill which includes mention of its relation to the hoax. We have moved beyond a reasonable period of time to still give weight to someone claiming there is a pyramid, when the professional scientific community has weighed in strongly in opposition to such a concept. The article is really now just about the perpetuation of a hoax, and should be named accordingly. Hiberniantears (talk

) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that

Bosnian Pyramid, and ensure that the article content explicitly states that there is no pyramid. I agree that there should be a separate article on Visocica Hill, exploring its role as the mediaeval Bosnian capital. --Gene_poole (talk

) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point Gene. How about Bosnian Pyramids Hypothesis? Hiberniantears (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that works either. Has anyone described it as such in any of the sources? --Gene_poole (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

John Bohannon used the term in a Science Magazine article. But the Foundation considers at least some of their claims to be proved. Eg http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=686&Itemid=26

Hypothesis is used in this web article too that I've just found:

http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

But I think I'd leave it as

talk

) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have the time to get it moved back? I gave it a try with no luck and don't have the time to figure out what to try next. --

The move needs to be done by an admin. Anyone? --Gene_poole (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be done from

talk

) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back to

Fram (talk

) 10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

i think wikipedia could be interest by this letter of osmanagic : http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/395/semir2zt8.jpg " we also plan to be more active in submitting positive news on internet about the project : from press releases, to wikipedia, archeological websites, forums, etc. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.181.66 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't done this already. I keep looking for it. I hope other people can look after the Wikipedia article because they know me, I'd rather deal with their attempts elsewhere.--

talk

) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This mail is Fake. Lol! User is not registered, every kid could do this. --HarisM (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do you know it's fake? I'd expect you to say that. Real names, real email addresses, etc. There is nothing fishy about it.--

talk

) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is a forum for discussion on improving the article. Let's keep the discussions on topic. --

why do you think it is fake ? i have find it here : http://irna.lautre.net/A-new-expert-for-Mr-Osmanagic-s.html and the original message is here : http://izmo-ekspert.blogspot.com/2008/02/konano-unio-u-struni-tim.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.170.43 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Izmo Ekspert blog... man... it's obvious you don't know Bosnian :) That is ironical and satirical blog against pyramid. Be sure to check your sources next time, that can be harmful to wikipedia project. Thanks. --HarisM (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But you don't need to know Bosnian to know that, Irna explains it herself, and of course she does know Bosnian. Osmanagich hasn't denounced it, nor has Nanad/Hyperborean, and both of them must know about it.--

talk

) 09:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny :) --HarisM (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's also a clear Houston link between at least 3 of the people (including Osmanagich himself) in the email.--

talk

) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific investigations of the site show there is no pyramid. Additionally, scientists have criticised the Bosnian authorities for supporting the pyramid claim saying, "This scheme is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public and has no place in the world of genuine science."

That is a bull... There is a strong personal animosity from the Ministry of culture BiH circle which disseminate that crap. Go to http://www.piramidasunca.ba/en/content/view/1059/117/lang,en/

The Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation is not a reliable source. See lengthy discussion above. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing indicating that The Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MIvom (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just letting that student put her lies on their site shows how unreliable it is. She's libelling friends of mine. Colette did no such thing. To get a bit more context about Merima, see http://irna.lautre.net/Did-you-say-interview.html

and about the 'writing' http://irna.lautre.net/In-which-the-proto-Bosnian.html What is really funny is Merima's comment about aliens, as Osmanagic has suggested that the Maya come from Atlantis and before that from the Pleiades star cluster (he claims a Mayan codex says that).

Sorry, don't we have a conflict of interest here? You've just argued that you're not including some evidence in favour of Osmanagic Foundation's cause because someone involved in the controversy is your friend? Dsine (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No coi. While it's fine to discuss, we need to take care how we use any information solely from Irna's site. --

talk

) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Erebus74 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the big error in this article, and all articles pertaining the "bosnian Pyramids" I've read lately, is to take a "True or Not" approach. I mean, until an "official" archeological team go investigate and take proof ON THE SITE, they can discuss for eons, but the only (amateur) archeologian who is working there keeps the knife from the right side!
If that is an important medioeval and prehistoric archeological site, like much detractors say (saying they are ruining the site), why they don't go investigate and take a "more serious" look at it? Maybe they are not pyramids, but maybe they find important archeological pieces anyway.
This discovery remember me of "Troy", and how official archeologist of the time told it was a fraud...but years later it was an important and "recognized" discovery.
Sure, archeology is a serious matter etc,etc,etc. But if u DON'T DO RESEARCH ON THE PLACE, u are not a SERIOUS archeologist, but just putting up "theories" with the same seriousness of those claiming "they are Atlantideans Pyramids".
I think ALL SCIENCE has to take a NEW APPROACH to PRAGMATISM, because modern science, in any field, has becomed too much like a religion, where things are "assumed" and taken to be real "because books and professors says that". That is NOT SCIENCE, that is "belief", and using "belief" to discourage other "beliefs", is called "religion war" as much as I know. Stop "assuming", and start RESEARCHING please.
Articles must be given in the SAME VIEW I think: neutral and PLAIN presentation of the materials and of the "beliefs" of people, each one cited, and NOT CRITICIZED, UNLESS there is CERTAIN PROBE of something. Theories cannot be used to ostracize other theories! That's not the way knowledge works!!
So what I want is to just see what has been discovered until now, and the different theories.
What I don't want to see is accusations of frauds, accusations of "we have the truth" (from both sides, of course), and so on.
In my view science MUSTE BE OPEN TO ALL, and wikipedia is the flag of this cultural revolution. So stop being too much "academic", and start being a true "field researcher", and present people with FACTS, and researches, with photos and data, and not only with theories. People need to make THEIR theories and hypotesys!

I personally don't have enough evidence to draw conclusions here, but the article of a controversial issue does not lay out a neutral opinion, instead the first paragraph cites hoax. Now understandably there are credible citations for hoax, but as has been said earlier, the same was true of Troy... I want to reference this, as there are still ongoing debates.
"From August 25 - 30, 2008, something unique will happen in the capital city of Sarajevo. The first ever International Scientific Conference for the Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids (ICBP) will take place at the Congress Hall of Municipality in Old Town Sarajevo.After the first three seasons of excavations of the Bosnian Pyramids the Foundation has gathered enough scientific evidence, through the efforts of scientists and professionals from around the world, to be presented at the ICBP. Leading researchers for the pyramid project believe that this compelling evidence will verify the existence of the Bosnian Pyramid."

--Loganis (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We're presenting the overwhelming evidence that the "pyramid" is indeed a hoax. We don't have a single reliable source that even suggests that there is a pyramid. See

talk

) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just nonsense Ronz; I made an update to this entry, using EXACTLY the same source (Irma's site), to talk about the statements of Barakat, and you just deleted it all. A complaint has been lodged with a real Wikipedia editor for your action there. It is clear you are not allowing a true representation of the argument, instead egotripping on your personal opinions - which are far from the established facts. Dsine (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Irna's site is a poor source, and should be used with extreme care, if at all. --

talk

) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, personally I am of the opinion that this is not a pyramid, however, even in all the cited counter arguments, each one states pretty clearly something along these lines, "However, many archaeologists he named have stated they had not agreed to participate and were never at the site.[6] The dig began in"

None of the "experts" have been to the site, so they can't yet have determined anything other than opinions themselves. Why not present it in a neutral light, state that main stream scientific thought is leaning towards hoax, and wait for an organization like UNESCO to finally voice an opinion. This isn't as wacky as Cydonia mars. Even if the main archaeological team is a bunch of nutters.--Loganis (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the references. If if you were correct that none of the experts have been to the site, the evidence is still overwhelming that there is no pyramid. Of course, experts have been there and reported back. --

talk

) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A person need not visit a site to determine its authenticity. If Mr. Loganis was to look at a typical issue of "American Antiquity", "Latin American Antiquity", "Archaeological Journal", "American Journal of Archaeology", "Journal of Caribbean Archaeology", "Antiquity", "Journal of Near Eastern Studies", and many other archaeological journals, he or she would find that only a very, very, very small minority of the readers of them pass judgment on the authenticity and validity of finds reported in papers that are published in them have ever visited the sites discussed in the papers. It is standard procedure in archaeology to make judgments on the validity of a discovery without ever visiting a site on it was allegedly made. It is logistically, financially, and temporally impossible for anyone to visit every site, for which some claim is made about. It is the responsibility of the proponents of the so-called "Bosnian pyramid" to prove their claims by publishing papers in peer-reviewed journal papers that contain sufficient data, evidence, logical arguments, diagrams, pictures to prove their point. The complaints about experts not having visited the site only show how little the people, who make them, understand how archaeology is is practiced in the real world.

Given the endless pictures of what are quite obviously naturally jointed bedrock, Liesegang Rings, and other natural formations, which have been touted as manmade features on web pages, I can understand why experts have dismissed such claims and concluded that it was not worth visiting Visočica hill. Some discussion of this can be found at:

• Irna, 2006, All that nature can never do, part IV : stone spheres
• Irna, 2007a, All that nature can never do, part II : pavements and tiled floors
• Irna, 2007b, Tout ce que la nature ne peut pas faire VI : Liesegang Rings
• Irna, 2008, Tout ce que la nature ne peut pas faire VII Paul H. (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Scientific investigations" are actually not scientific investigations and just further speculation and no proof that these aren't pyramids.

This didn't look like a pyramid either before it was excavated; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/laventa/bachichen.html Brotherboer (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston University's Curtis Runnels, an expert in prehistoric Greece and the Balkans states that, "Between 27,000 and 12,000 years ago, the Balkans were locked in the last Glacial maximum, a period of very cold and dry climate with glaciers in some of the mountain ranges. The only occupants were Upper Paleolithic hunters and gatherers who left behind open-air camp sites and traces of occupation in caves. These remains consist of simple stone tools, hearths, and remains of animals and plants that were consumed for food. These people did not have the tools or skills to engage in the construction of monumental architecture."

This comment has no direct relevance to the issue. No-one is claiming - as is shown elsewhere in the entry - that these structures are 27,000 or 12,000 years old. Dsine (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We have multiple, independent, reliable sources showing otherwise. --

talk

) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, list some references for your statement here, please. Merely claiming there are "many" somewhere isn't professional. I can find many "multiple, independent, reliable sources" that show such dates aren't being claimed. You are the one making the claim, so you've got to put up the evidence backing your claim. Full stop. Dsine (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the references, then we still have an expert opinion. --

talk

) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Clovis has tried to remove certain key, and founded, changes made to this article, including changes re the outcome of the first ICBP, related to the Bosnian Pyramids. I would assume that the Wikipedia editors do not let this person continue in his vandalism, and will take appropriat action to monitor his behaviour. Dsine (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Dsine's edit as

talk

) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I used PRECISELY the same sources as are already available on this entry, namely Irna's site, with the discussion on Barakat. So if you claim her page is a "minority view" (which it actually is, but there you go), then we should remove ALL references to this page, and that means removing that entire section. You can't have it both ways, Ronz. Dsine (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If Irna is the best source we have for Barakat, then all mention of Barakat should be removed. --

talk

) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Archaeologists find medieval artefacts on Mt. Visocica, disparage pyramid seeker, 19 Sep 2008, Southeast European Times. [28]

• Excavations for Bosnian Valley of Pyramids continue despite ridicule, 9 Oct 2008, Southeast European Times. [29]

--

I'm copying the stone ball discussion that was recently removed. I think with a little work we can come to consensus on it's inclusion: --

Last version before it was removed for discussion:

Mr. Osmanagić and his colleagues have hypothesized that meter-scale stone balls found near Mecevici, Ozimici, and Zavidovici in Bosnia-Herzegovina are manmade spheres composed of

}

Discussion