Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

/Archive1 /Archive2

More Refs

The Economist: "Bosnia's pyramids: A towering success" [1] 10 Aug 2006

Robert M. Schoch, "The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon" [2] Sep 2006

John Bohannon, "Mad About Pyramids", Science Magazine [3] 22 September 2006

(above added 00:48, 26 September 2006 by Ronz)

Ian Traynor, "Tourists flock to Bosnian hills but experts mock amateur archaeologist's pyramid claims"[4] --Ronz 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Visoki fort, Bosnian National Monument [5] --Ronz 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pyramid No More: Sphinx geologist Robert Schoch and anomalies researcher Colette Dowell report from Bosnia", Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006. [6] --Ronz 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace", Science Magazine, 22 December 2006, p. 1862 [7] --Ronz 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006 [8] --Ronz 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The great Bosnian pyramid scheme" by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006 [9] --Ronz 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"An open letter from the Bosnian scientific community to M. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina" [10] 14 Mar 2007 (Haven't found other copies of this letter as yet) --Ronz 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Come see the pyramids ... in Bosnia?", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2007 [11] --Ronz 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [12].

"It is not possible that those are pyramids," says Mark Rose, of the Archaeological Institute of America, who organized a petition asking Unesco, the United Nations' education-and-science agency, not to send a proposed expedition to the site. "Every major media outlet that initially covered this story got it wrong. It's clearly crackpot stuff, but apparently nobody bothered to check the story."

But as pyramid mania has grown, spread by credulous accounts, those who have expressed skepticism have been savaged in the Bosnian news media, deluged with hate mail, even labeled traitors to their nation. Many observers now see the debate in stark terms: Will a pseudoscientific project, even one that serves to restore Bosnia's wounded pride and dignity, win out over peer-reviewed archaeological research?

Unesco does not intend to send a mission to Visoko, says Mechtild Rossler, of the organization's World Heritage Center, in Paris.

--Ronz 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters" Independent Online, May 21 2007. [13] --Ronz 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Loses Funding" Javno.com, 11 June 2007. [14] -- Ronz  16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bosnia Pledges Renewed State Support for Study of 'Pyramids' Whose Existence Is Doubted by Scholars" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 July 16 2007. [15] --Ronz 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Currently: "became the focus of international attention in October 2005, following claims that it is actually the largest of a group an ancient man-made pyramids, the so-called Bosnian pyramids."

I think this inappropriately promotes the pov of the foundation, and the word "claims" is too much a weasel word in this context.

Proposal: "became the focus of international attention in October 2005, following a news-media campaign promoting the idea that it is actually the largest of a group an ancient man-made pyramids, the so-called Bosnian pyramids."

If necessary, we can source this with "The Great Pyramids of ... Bosnia?" by Colin Woodard. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 2007. [16].

Thoughts? --Ronz 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently: "The idea that it constitutes an ancient artificial edifice was publicised by Houston-based expatriate Bosnian author and metalworker Semir Osmanagić, whose subsequent excavations at the site have uncovered what he claims to be a paved entrance plateau and tunnels, as well as stone blocks and ancient mortar which he has suggested once covered the structure. Osmanagić has claimed that the dig involved an international team of archaeologists from Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland and Slovenia,[1] however many archaeologists named have stated they had not agreed to participate and were not at the site.[2] The dig began in April 2006."

Per WP:LEAD I think we need to summarize the main points of the article more. This currently highlights the early claims and controversies. It should also include and emphasize the consensus viewpoint that there are no pyramids.

How about replacing the introduction of Osmanagić with that from The Chronicle, "a Bosnian-American metal-shop owner in Houston and self-described 'alternative historian?'"

This is probably a good point to introduce the foundation as well. --Ronz 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In general terms I think the article needs to give much more attention to the way in which the "pyramid" story was propagated by the international (mostly print) media. I think it was first reported by AAP, and snowballed after being picked up by dozens of papers from there. It's an interesting illustration of how the media can erroneously define perceptions. --Gene_poole 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation's history and plans

I think there should be a section specifically about the foundation and it's activities. This would give us a location to place the discussion about the so-called "international team of archeologists" which is not in the introduction/lead. The "Research program" section should be moved into it as well. It should also include mention how "pyramid"-related tourism appears to be why they're getting away with this hoax. As long as we write the section mainly from reliable, secondary sources, we should be able to treat these and other controversial issues fairly. --Ronz 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Think about it

Just think about folks.. how do you explain all these constructions and artifacts.. these are photos taken at the sites. Its not smart to blindly reject things just because it doesn't fit into the framework of what we think we know.

Please do take a look at the photos taken at the excavation sites and think about it - but not starting with assumption that the framework presented to us by the textbooks is absolutely correct and that anything that doesn't fit into it must be rejected .

And also do notice that many of the attacks made on the people working on the project are emotionally charged. They don't even scientifically address or give explanations for all the artifacts found. If someone were to start digging up a mud hill i wouldn't get so emotionally upset if I were an archaeologist....

Dilip rajeev 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for your soapboxing. --Ronz 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And more, before claiming anything, open some books about geology and archeology, not only pulp magazins about Lemuria.Kromsson 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Omerbashich's theories

I removed the following, plus and additional link to the blog. It doesn't meet WP:RS because it's self-published (doesn't meet WP:EL for that matter because it's a personal blog). Even if Omerbashich's theories are published in a manner that meets WP:RS, there's still the issue of needing further references for us to present it properly per WP:NPOV:

In August 2007, a Bosnian geophysicist and geodesist Dr. Mensur Omerbashich assembled together a series of facts and indications that seem to point at a logical explanation. According to Dr. Omerbashich, Visočica is a natural hill shaped for military purposes. This was done regularly during the Roman and other eras, probably up until the fall of medieval Bosnia under Ottoman Turkey, in fifteenth century. He offers explanations for important aspects of the Visočica story, so for instance the tunnels found under the hills could simply be remnants from an ancient military tactics of sapping. He also warned about child labor used at the site.

--Ronz 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I contacted you on both mine and yours talk pages, however there was no response. Below is my correspondence with another admin who couldn't see why this post should be treated as spam (as you claimed it was). Therefore (for lack of response from you mostly) I re-posted the same text. Thanks. Piramidosta 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Your explanation is vague. Many links that are on the Bosnian Pyramids page lead to personal pages, be it a blog or a web page, see Dr. Schoch's page for instance. Can you show (practically) how is it that the text I placed on Dr. Omerbashich's theory is inappropriate, while the link to Dr. Schoch's personal web site is? Next, how can what I posted be considered spam? There is this guy's blog, I found all the information there, he isn't hiding anything (I think), and you are telling me that his scientific views not only aren't good enough as those of another scientist (an American, is that it?) but they are also spam? That doesn't make sense. Piramidosta 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the main concern here is that the source you added is hosted on blogspot.com. Like a wiki, blogs can be edited by almost anyone, and so aren't usually considered reliable sources. I'm not exactly sure how your contributions are spam, but you might want to ask Ronz about that on his talk page, where he's sure to notice your question. But if you can find another, more reliable, source that backs up Dr. Omerbashich's theories, then you're more than welcome to add them. Happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I thought Ronz would respond here too. But I will message him on his talk page. Concerning the above comments you made, I can only say that a blog of a self-identified person is as reliable as a web site of a person who self-identifies himeslf/herself. There are servers that offer web sites for free too, so I don't get your point. Your "spam"-related comment seems like an understatement. Piramidosta 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) --

Sorry for the delay in responding. Summarizing my response on my talk page: Schoch is a recognized authority and his involvement in the investigations has been widely publicized. I made no spam accusations.

As for external links in general, see WP:EL and the discussion above: Talk:Bosnian pyramids#External Links.

You've restored your edits without addressing my concerns, which are at least in part shared by Hersfold, that the source is not reliable. Additionally, we need another source that cites Omerbashich to show that his theories are important enough to be presented here and that we do so in an appropriated neutral way. See also the discussions above: Talk:Bosnian pyramids#There is no pyramid - Majority viewpoint? Scientific consensus?.

Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, your edits should be removed. I realize you're new to all this, so I'm happy to explain further. --Ronz 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my summary from the talk page too. Thanks for the response, sorry I missed it. I agree that information in many blogs is suspicious at best, but that can probably be attributed to the anonymity, would you agree? On the other hand, I think Dr. Omerbashich's blog is well put together (I’m not getting into its contents issues) so I think you should give him credit for obviously doing his best to elucidate this issue for all of us. I think too that Dr. Schoch is a credible eyewitness who came all the way from Boston to offer his expert opinion. But you sure agree that Dr. Omerbashich who is in Sarajevo (look at the map -- it's very close to Visocica too!) has additional valuable angles of looking at the whole story. I did check out the rules, and I can say that there are many and they are well written, so I can see why wikipedia is so respected – in case you didn't notice: Dr. Omerbashich’s blog uses wikipedia links extensively too! OK now, what "another source" are we talking here? Who is supposed to say if Dr. Omerbashich (or Dr. Schoch) is right or wrong? I thought these guys deserved equal treatment because they are authorities on the subject -- both have "Dr" in front of their names. That's enough for me, but I am sorry if this is against regulations. Hope you can help me further. Which brings me to the last question: what edits exactly are you saying I should remove? Cheers, Piramidosta 00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Omerbashich’s blog is not a reliable source. See Wp:rs#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 --Ronz 03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Who is supposed to say if Dr. Omerbashich (or Dr. Schoch) is right or wrong? I thought these guys deserved equal treatment because they are authorities on the subject" No, they don't deserve equal treatment. We have third party sources like The Chronicle of Higher Education saying, "Outside experts strongly disagree. Robert M. Schoch, an associate professor of natural science at Boston University who earned a doctorate in geology at Yale University, is in that camp." It is the existance of sources like these that allow us to say Schoch's views are worth presenting here. It's the total and complete absense of such sources that gives us no choice but to keep Omerbashich's theories out.

As I said before, for us to include Omerbashich's theories, they need to be published in a source that meets WP:RS and an additional third-party source needs to be published that demonstrates Omerbashich's theories are important enough that they are worth addressing. --Ronz 03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for my delayed reply. If you look at his blog you can see that it is new. I say this in the first sentence of my post ("In August 2007..."). So I don't think that you can expect any third-party sources yet. Sure, go ahead and edit my post and the link to his blog in whichever way you think is appropriate or remove them if necessary. Piramidosta 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, pIramidosta, I am watcher and i say you: do not try to be right with Ronz, it is impossible, Wikipédia is ground of game's Ronz and I have never seen anybody who acquired from reason again him, it is the God here! it is just like that! (90.38.6.82 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

I am beginning to think that you may be right. Piramidosta 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, thanks for sharing. Anyway, I have just re-posted the text, as it seems suspicious that Ronz would remove both the text and the external link without letting me know (here or on our talk pages) of such a move. So it could be someone else who was watching our conversation and removed the post as well as the link. In any case however, I think that at least the external link should remain, providing that Ronz agrees of course. Because how else can third parties find out (and give or not their opinion) about the existence of such sources unless those sources are linked to first. Piramidosta 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to roll this back to Ronz's last edit, but before I do so, just wanted to offer the following thoughts. Piramidosta: I don't get the impression that Ronz is opposed to the ideas in the blog getting incorporated into this article. Rather, the ideas need to be vetted by a neutral third party. Placing a blogged theory which has not gone through the standard (or any) process of academic review in a Wikipedia article is certainly against the spirit of WP:SPAM WP:RS even if the theory may well turn out to be correct, or vetted in the near future. Ronz's point is merely that this research can not be cited as a source until it has been peer reviewed. While I sympathize with your position that placing the link in this article will get it more exposure to perhaps bring such review, that is the wrong course of action. Peer review existed, and functioned just fine prior to Wikipedia... the process does not need our help. Ronz did the correct thing in removing the text to the talk page so that it will not be lost.

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: Talk:Bosnian_pyramids#External_Links. --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 WP:AGF and consider changing your comment here: [17]. If you are unhappy with the situation, there are many productive ways to resolve them detailed in WP:DR. --Ronz 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

WP:NPA. WP:TALK. Revise your comment above, apologize, and maybe you'll get a better response. --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 WP:EL and WP:NPOV. The two sides of the debate each get their fair (fair, not necessary equal) share of time and attention in the article, adding this blog does not help to write an encyclopedic, neutral and scientifically sound article about the subject. 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. ---J.S (T/C/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 WP:DENY. I chose to follow it in this situation. I hope others will consider doing the same. --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)

EL cleanup

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. --Ronz 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)