Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims/Archive 6

Lack of objectivity in this article
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should be objective when it comes to different subjects. Calling a project pseudo-archaeology, which has spent countless of hours with resarch, tests and excavations, is absurd. Where is the objectivity, guys? Seriously. This article is also outdated. The references are mostly from 2006 and 2007. One example is: His excavations were still funded by local authorities. This is not true at all. The project has not had any financial support from the government or local authorities since 2012.

There are several new reports and news about the project and the Bosnian pyramids on the internet. There are also countless of videos around the internet about the Bosnian pyramids. I just can't figure out why no one can edit this article, without gettig re-edited. When people put new facts and news in an article and write in an objective way, then it should stay, right? Apparently no. But this article is all about attacking the Bosnian pyramid project and the man who discovered the pyramids in Visoko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please review WP:COI given your username? --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say, and if they describe it as "pseudo-archaeological" then Wikipedia should too - it's got nothing to do with the hours spent, only the academic quality of the excavations and claims. I've had a good read of this article since I first came across it as I hadn't heard of the pyramid claims before and was intrigued. And having read a few sources too now, it sounds to me like it's blatant crackpottery and that the tone of this article is about right - and any attempts to whitewash it as serious archaeology and a genuine find would be inappropriate. If some individual parts are out of date, they can be updated with new sources. And if findings change, they can be updated with new reliable sources too - but not using "countless of videos around the internet". So if you want this changed, find some reliable academic sources and present them here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "His excavations were still funded by local authorities" is true, as it is in the past tense and clearly refers to 2011 - and you say such funding went on until 2012, so even you profess that it's true. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the sort of thing one editor wanted to use. LaViolette has no qualifications in archaeology or geology and after doing standard mainstream science started to push anti-gravity, UFOs, etc. Note the claim "An electromagnetic energy beam issues vertically from the peak of the Pyramid of the Sun." Great stuff. Ordinary archaeologists and geologists have more or less ignored all of this recently because they've already done the work. One person hasn't though. which may have some stuff that can be used. Doug Weller (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that LaViolette seems, well... But the Irna source looks like it could be useful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There has been numerous of visits from scientist and experts from different fields. The statments from the archaeologists are over nine years old. Would it not be nice to have updated the article by saying that volunteers and tourists are visiting the site and that the excavations are still in progress, instead of calling it just pseudeo-archaeology and slamming with negativity when it comes to Dr. Semir Osmanagich and the project. The article is not uptdated and it lies, when it states that the foundations is getting support from the local authorities. There has been five conferences and it has hosted over 80 scientist and resarchers, there has also been given over 89 scientific papers at five scientific conferences. There can be believers and scepticism between the people, but you can't write a project that has been running for ten years and hosted over 80 different resarchars pseudo-archaeology. By the way, here you have all the resarchers that has been to the five different conferences. Not to mention that the foundation has archaeologists, anthropologists and geologists resarching the Bosnian pyramids. If you want to see all the different resarchers that has visited the site, then here you have it:

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

TheBIHLover talk 06:52, 9 December 2015‎ (UTC)
 * — TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No, Osmanagic's ideas about those hills had no scientific credibility to begin with and their status has certainly not improved with time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You ignore the facts. The project has hosted hundreds of volunteers, resarchers and numerous of scientific resarcher for example archaeologists, geologists and anthropologist. This Wikipedia article is straight up attacking Dr. Osmanagich and the project and has no objectivity at all. That is a shame. What happened to give encyclopedias and articles more sources from different angles? TheBIHLover talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not provide equal weight for all views and does not give the views of fringe pushers the same weight as the views of established academia. Wikipedia summarises the academic consensus as supported by reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources (in a subject like this, that would generally mean peer-reviewed academic sources - and *not* the project's own web site, which also pushes ignorant rubbish about free energy and perpetual motion!) that support the pyramid claims, then that view can be added. It's no good just banging on about "hundreds of volunteers..." and "objectivity" without providing such sources - without sources, you are being the very opposite of objective. As an aside, I've read a handful of proper academic sources on this subject now, and they all debunk the claims as nonsense in a very convincing (and scientific) way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Stating that the project is pseudoarchaeology is not objective. There are also several sentences in the article that are outdated. For example: His excavations were still funded by local authorities The article just gives one side of the story. If you let people edit the other side of the story (without deleting it) it would get much more objective. Instead of stating that the project is a cruel hoax etc. you can call it a debate between different communities and the reasons behind it. The foundation have several archaeologists and geologists that are working there right now, which have a degree, and it would be bad to call the whole project pseudoarchaeology. Wikipedia states that pseudoarchaeology is: refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline. The project does not reject accepted datagathering and analytical methods of discipline, in fact they are analysing different datas like C-14, different energy-analysis, archaeological analysis etc. Stating that the project reject accepted datagathering etc. is a statment without facts. TheBIHLover talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.163.188 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explained, Wikipedia reflects the balance of reliable sources, and does *not* give equal weight to everyone who wants to add an opinion. Now, if you want to make changes to the article, you need to provide some of those reliable sources rather than just repeating your own person opinions and assertions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also suggest you have a read of Fringe theories, which is clearly applicable to this article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that over 80 resarchers that have visited the site and given their own scientific papers are not reliable sources? Why? That is not my own opinion. I'm giving you facts. An article is not objective when it it for example has Bosnian pyramid claims and pseudoarchaeology. Not to mention the outdated data about the foundation receiving financiel support from the local authorities. This article is all about attacking Dr. Osmanagich and the whole project. And that is not objective. Tell me how a statment from one person, Robert Schoch, can add a sentence in the Wikipedia article, that the foundation has been carving out the *hill* to look like a pyramid? On Wikipedia is states that Schoch is interested in Parapsychology, so why isn't HIS statment *rubbish* like you said? TheBIHLover talk
 * Schoch's findings were published in a reliable peer-reviewed publication, The New Archaeology Review, volume 1, issue 8, pages 16-17, September 2006, which is why it is acceptable. If you can provide us with a paper that documents any genuine archaeological evidence for the existence of pyramid construction that has been accepted by a reliable peer-reviewed publication, please do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Archaeological reports:
 * 2014: http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/archaeological-reports-1/item/9805-archaeological-report-season-2014.html
 * 2013: http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/archaeological-reports-1/item/9149-archaeological-report-season-2013.html
 * 2012: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B67VINWzAtLcNGl3alg1NXF4UXc

Geological report:
 * http://piramidasunca.ba/images/2014/0214/a-synthesis-bs-2014.pdf

Archaeologist interview: TheBIHLover talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgxWTKRDWP4
 * (I've formatted those links a little better to make it easier to follow - I hope you don't mind). As I have already explained, the project's own site is not a reliable source for the accuracy of its own claims - and it is certainly not a peer-reviewed academic source! An archaeological report produced by the project itself is also not a reliable source for the accuracy of its own claims and also is not a peer-reviewed academic source. An interview on YouTube (put up there by you!) is also not a peer-reviewed academic source (and what are Anela Podrug's credentials? Just appearing on YouTube and captioned (by you?) as "Archaeologist" is not sufficient). All you are providing here is the project's and supporters' own claims yet again. We need reliable support from independent third parties published in reliable peer-reviewed sources. If you cannot understand those basic requirements, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain them to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell me how Shoch's statment ist a third-party statment when it is coming from his website where he is also attacking Dr. Semir and the project. This article is straight out, outdated. And I can't figure our why it is called Bosnian pyramid claims Why not just call it Bosnian pyramids? The Wikipedia is attacking the project in that way. Here you have a third party article by the way, and you know what, this article was made in 2015, news from the site, but Wikipedia is just telling about 2005-2011:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/exclusive-discovery-new-prehistoric-underground-tunnels-bosnian-pyramids-020343 --TheBIHLover (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, that Ancient Origins story is written by Osmanagich himself! And the Ancient Origins web site is not a reliable peer-reviewed publication. Yes, the article is outdated, and it can be brought up to date - but only using (and I'll say it just this one more time) reliable, independent, third-party, peer-reviewed publications and not the project's own claims. I'll leave you to it now, and you can see if you can get a consensus supporting you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but is it possible to delete pseudoarchaeology and some outdated sentences from the article? Since it is more of a subjective way of writing, than objective way of writing. At least write that it is a debate between believers and sceptics if it is a pyramid or not, and give for example different facts. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pseudoarchaeology" is well referenced. Removing it violates Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:NPOV.
 * What "debate" and "different facts" there are have been covered in the article (and discussed at great length on this talk page), but if you believe there's more to add, please identify it with sources independent of Osmanagich and the foundation.
 * Likewise, if something is out of date, identify it with independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have explained why "pseudoarchaeology" stays - it's because that's what leading respected archaeologists say about it, and it is supported by reliable sources. Outdated sentences cannot be deleted as long as it is clear that they refer to a past time and were accurate and supported by reliable sources at the time - they can be updated with later reliable sources, but not simply deleted. It is already clear that there is a disagreement between believers and sceptics, but I have already explained very patiently that we do not give all opinions equal weight. We reflect the consensus in reliable academic sources, and it is abundantly clear that respected academic archaeologists writing in reliable peer reviewed sources have overwhelmingly rejected the claims of there being any pyramid there (and even I, with my rudimentary education, can see how ignorant some of the claims are). Repeatedly claiming that your view is "objective" and other views are "subjective" does not add anything whatsoever to the support for your arguments. If you want to make a change, present the specific change you would like to make here and provide reliable independent third-party sources to support it, and we will review your suggestion and try to come to a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see the only archaeologist to have been involved for several years is Sarah Acconci who had a Masters degree and some experience, and the last conference she was involved in was 2011. Brett has an undergraduate degree in archaeology but his paper was not about archaeology but "The birth of Hebrew culture and religion before, during and after the Babylonian captivity" Anela Preljevic is their current archaeologist but as she is also inexperienced. Meanwhile we find that there are healing tunnels there. The bottom line seems to be that no experienced archaeologists are involved. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Anela Preljevic has a bachelor degree in archaeology from University College London and she has been volunteering at the site for three years and been an archaeologist for the foundation for two years, 2014 and 2015. So she has a lot of experience when it comes to this site and archaeology. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that absolutely does not give her any serious academic credibility, as there are thousands of bachelor degree graduates out there every year who'll take any job so they can feed themselves - and it really doesn't help the credibility of the project that the best archaeologist they can attract is a mere bachelor graduate with no published track record. Academically credible archaeologists are those who have gone on to do serious study of various sites, usually advanced to PhD status, and have published a significant number of papers that have been well received by mainstream peer-reviewed sources. As a comparison, I have a bachelor degree in biochemistry, but if I showed up at a quack alternative medicine site as their resident biochemist and extolled the virtues of their bogus claims (and got people like you to upload videos of me to YouTube captioned with the word "Biochemist"), would that lend any academic credibility? I'll leave you to work out the answer to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. If that's the best the foundation can get, they've given up on even creating even the thinnest veneer of respectability, which is what Irna and others have been suggesting for some time now. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Irna? You are talking about a women/man that is writing anonymously against the project? Is that fair? Why do people credit her/him when no one knows who she is and what degree she/him has. I can't figure it out. You guys delete everything about the different sides of the story, but you give sources from Irna's site.

Well, if she has a bachelor degree in archaeology, then she has studied ancient history etc., taken an exam and worked in different fields before. Am I right? --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would she have studied ancient history? She does have a lot of experience of that site, but not of archaeology. My son has an undergraduate degree in archaeology but that's not enough to call him an archaeologist. Hm, just found this by one of the first archaeologists who worked there - he also had at the time a BA but also a year's practical work. Since he worked there he's taken a Master's in Archaeology focussing on B&H.. Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Anela has had her degree since 2014 I think. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had my biochemistry degree since 1980 - does that make me one of the world's best? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. The facts is, is that she is an archaeologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBIHLover (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, present the papers she has had accepted by reliable peer-reviewed academic publications and we'll be happy to consider what she says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlikely as she is extremely inexperienced. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we're done here. If no one is going to offer any independent reliable sources to justify any changes, let's work on improving Wikipedia elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, she has been working on the archaeological report for 2015. I will share it here as soon as possible. I still wait some answers about the Irna subject. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * what about it? Doug Weller (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Quote: ''Irna? You are talking about a women/man that is writing anonymously against the project? Is that fair? Why do people credit her/him when no one knows who she is and what degree she/him has. I can't figure it out. You guys delete everything about the different sides of the story, but you give sources from Irna's site.'' Please answer this for me. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me how Irna's site is a third-party user, when she/him ironicallyis writing anonymously agains the project, and you guys use her/his sources, but I can't place the archaeological reports as sources and write that there is a debate going on about the project. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources from there can be checked and used, eg Andrew Lawler's interview which is on a separate site. No one, at least at the moment, is using her site as a source for the article. And the article makes it clear that there is a debate. But remember Wikipedia is a mainstream site and always prefers academic sources. Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You are using Irna's site as a reference. Irna'a site is like a blog, but she/him writes anonymously. As far as we know, Irna has no academic background and no third-party user has checked Irna's site, but Wikipedia still use her/him like a reference. Is that fair? For me it looks like double standards. No, the article does not make it clear that it is a debate when slamming claims, and pseudoarchaeology. The article is still outdated no matter what sources I give you, the Wikipedia article needs to be updated big time. --TheBIHLover (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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, accessed March 14, 2012." Doug Weller (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Semir got his degree in Mayan-studies, but that reference is still not in the Wikipedia article. It is still weird to use a blog or a site by an anonymous user. It does not sound objective to be honest. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as we know, Irna could have been lying all the time for Irna's own agenda. She is writing anonymously though.--TheBIHLover (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As Mayan studies is not the subject of this article, it's not relevant here, it is relevant in his own article. As for Irna, most of her stuff can be checked and she is not writing anonymously as her full name can be found on her website.. And for all I know, you could be lying. But we should should never accuse anyone of lying here. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why pseudoarchaeology can't be replaced with hypothesis? When there are so much people involved in the project, then why should it be pseudoarchaeology? What pseudoarcheology means on Wikipedia:  refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical methods of the discipline. This is not true. The foundation accepts datagathering and analytical methods. Here are some examples (some of them have shared with you in the archaeological reports).

The document of the Carbon-14 dating on the Bosnian pyramids:

http://imgur.com/mK041pG

Engineer about the concrete on the Bosnian Moon pyramid and the Bosnian Sun pyramid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHTZXdd93mI

Plus, there lots of scientific videos on youtube. Here are some videos from the different conferences:

2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnhzwYDv2wc&index=10&list=PLt_TE56WfD98BmhDb_XnDfSAm9h1BGjZh

2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybtl7O76gZ8

2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K58fZSPlNp4

There are also several presentations from independent resarcher and scientists. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting for some answers. --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't be so impatient, you should be pleased that people are replying as you don't seem to be listening.. We cover his PhD in his biography.Do you agree with Osmanagic's suggestion in his book The World of the Maya, in which he suggests that the Maya were descendants of aliens from the Pleiades by way of Atlantis. He is quoted as positing, "Were perhaps those who were ready picked up in spaceships by their mentors from the Pleiades star cluster? Or perhaps they joined the Lords of the Galaxy and, in pods of light, set off on a journey with no return."[ Osmanagić also wrote, "It is my theory that the Maya should be considered watchmakers of the cosmos whose mission it is to adjust the Earthly frequency and bring it into accordance with the vibrations of our Sun;... Their ancestors, the civilizations of Atlantis and Lemuria, erected the first temples on energy potent points of the Planet. Their most important function was to serve as a gateway to other worlds and dimensions." That's from our article on him. Not surprisingly in his PhD he claims they are an older culture than the Olmec, which no archaeologist accepts.
 * You say we define pseudoarchaeology as referring to "interpretations of the w past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted data gathering and analytical methods of the discipline". And this is what archaeologists say is happening. We are a mainstream encyclopedia and we for archaeology and geology we need mainstream sources. We can't use that image, not just because it might have been doctored, but because it hasn't been discussed in an academic source. Not to be rude, but I doubt that you understand how radiocarbon dating is used by archaeologists and geologists. I'm sorry, but all of this stuff about concrete, rays emanating from these 'pyyramods', ancient technology, are all nonsense. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I really never thought this would need saying again, but YouTube videos are not reliable peer-reviewed sources! I guess there's none so deaf as those who won't listen - you should be grateful, TheBIHLover, that people have humored this nonsense this long. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with him about the spaceships. So you are telling me that the Archaeological Park is faking the radiocarbon datings? That is absurd.

In this report you can read the explanation of the radiocarbon dating, page 65 (2013):

http://piramidasunca.ba/images/2013/1103/bosnian_pryamid_2013_report.pdf

At least Wikipedia could put the reports in external links or references, then it will look a little bit better. I can not see any problem putting the reports in the Wikipedia article as links. --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is produced by the pyramid foundation itself and is not a reliable peer-reviewed publication!!! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope this is better: http://icbp.ba/2008/index.php/Reports/Reports/ --TheBIHLover (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is the pyramid foundation itself yet again! "Independent" and "third party" are the words you seem to be totally deaf to or unable to understand. Look, this is getting us nowhere, so here's a suggestion. You start a new section making a proposal for one specific change to the article and provide sources to support it, and then we'll have Support/Oppose comments to see what the consensus says - and then you accept the consensus? How does that sound? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will do it. Do I just make a new section? --TheBIHLover (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'll even make a new section for you, so you just need to tell us what specific change you want made to the article and provide the necessary sources (and in that section, please stick to the one specific change rather than making general unspecific criticism and/or suggestions)...

I made a new section for you, below, for your proposed change, yet you posted two suggested changes here in the existing section. We will need to be able to support or oppose each suggestion individually, so I have taken the liberty of moving your suggestions to two separate sections and reformatting them slightly so they're easier to follow (like using bullet points for lists of sources rather than double-spacing). I hope that meets with your approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, no problem I appreciate! --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be brought to everyone's attention that TheBIHLover is directly involved with the Bosnian Pyramids themselves and therefore conflict of interest is at play as well as quite possibly being paid to request such changes. Here is their YouTube channel promoting non-factual videos and misinformation https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBIHLover. I would also like to point out that TheBIHLover blocks comments from anyone who opposes their ideology, which holds a certain level of double standards considering he/she is complaining about a lack of objectivity towards the Bosnian Pyramid claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.20.63 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I don’t get paid anything for the things I do. Who ever said that, lies. My channel is my hobby and so is the Bosnian pyramids. I block people only that are spamming in the comment-section, and I think that should be logical to you. I always allow debate in the comment-section. If you have resarched enough through my videos, you can see that there are both believers and sceptics involved in the discussions. Every single comment someone posts on my videos, I get an e-mail and I read most of them. By the way, maybe you should sign in with your own account and then make accusations when you are not anonymous. --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused a bit about your desire to update the article and not use anonymous sources when you want to use an unsigned 2008 report - at least one person mentioned in it has changed their view on these geological formations, maybe more. And Irna, I repeat, isn't anonymous. So far as the radiocarbon dating goes, the pdf you linked to mentions Timothy Moon, a music producer who for some reason was put in charge of some of the archaeology. He seems to be an amateur archaeologist. (it's a link to a broadcast and doesn't work, but it does say amateur and he doesn't claim any credentials. The problem with the carbon dating is that it is meaningless - these are geological formations so of course you'll find old organic material. It's only if you buy into them being pyramids that it might mean something. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Timonthy Moon is an anthropologist. Please read this article: http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/scientific-analysis-of-the-bosnian-valley-of-the-pyramids/

I can't understand why people think that the foundation is paying people for their own favour. Like I said, there are so many people involved in the project and it is not Dr. Osmanagich's claims. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made an account because normally I only use Wikipedia for it's educational and factual purpose, I discovered the discussion here via Reddit, my Google+ is Psyanide and I commented on several videos talking about the other side of the coin aka the lack of actual scientific evidence, yet you blocked me claiming that people are just trying to suppress the claims and to quote you Of course, you can read everything on Wikipedia, but the wikipedia editors are not fair when it comes to the Bosnian Pyramids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgxWTKRDWP4 then you blocked me after I said ''I trust professionals that have dedicated huge portions of their life to the study of archaeology not the lies of a documented business man and marketing assistant who spouts claims that he cannot back up with evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'' With respect I decline from creating a Wiki account as I don't believe I'll use it enough to warrant it's creation, just wanted to point out some facts about TheBIHLover, also I never accused you directly of being paid by the pyramid foundation, I said it's possible considering your absolute rejection of genuine science unless it conforms to your own ideology. I just thought the editors should know you exercise unpleasant tactics to reduce the amount of counter argument on the subject.--82.2.20.63 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I know you. You were the one that spammed all my videos. No it is not possible, and you were still accusing me for that. Unpleasant tactics? Come on, you are just grumpy that I blocked you because of your spam on my channel. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC) You seem to not understand the definitions of spam, evidence, reliable and peer-reviewed, also you may want to go and look up what confirmation bias means. As for your videos, voicing an opinion which opposes yours on each of your videos is not spam, I included valid sources that debunk the Pyramid claims on all videos that only contained Pro- Bosnian pyramid claim comments, not just yours, so that there would be at least 1 scientific comment amongst a whole load of misinformation so that others who would have just taken the contents of the videos as unchallenged truth might actualy think and research the subject, but I'm not here to argue with you as I've made my point and as usual you're not listening to what anyone is trying to tell you. To finish I'd like to thank the editors and contributors who keep the information on Wikipedia truthful, factual and clear of misinformation. Thankyou. - Psyanide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.20.63 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Timothy Moon is not an anthropologist or an archaeologist. He's a music producer and does archaeology as a hobby. Again, is his Linkedin site, where does he claim qualifications in anthropology or archaeology?  Doug Weller (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he has not updated his linkedin-page? --TheBIHLover (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. If he were an archaeologist he would already have qualifications - degrees, participation in real archaeological excavations, peer reviewed publications, etc. He wouldn't have let a radio station call him an amateur archaeologist (which is what he is, and what I am except that I've actually studied archaeology formally (not for a degree) and participated in both training and ordinary excavations. Doug Weller (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is spam. I have zero tolerance for spam on my channel. When you post ten comments on ten videos in 30 second with the same comment, then it is spam. No matter if you are a believer or sceptic. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No it's really not classed as spam, spam is the same message repeatedly applied to the same comments feed/forum thread/chat channel, When I copied my arument and posted it once in each of your videos that's purely saving me time while spreading my side of events instead of having to write it out again and again by hand, it's kinda what copy/paste was designed for buddy, if I had put the same message 2+ times in 1 comment feed then yes it would have been spam. What you have no tolerance for is rationality, science, critical thinking, objectivity (using lines like I feel like is not objective, it's subjective as you are basing your opinion on your own emotions towards the topic, not factual evidence peer reviewed by trusted academics) and those who oppose your views, who you try to silence by blocking..... then you have the cheek, after bad mouthing Wikipedia, to come here and try and get your misinformation published, maybe you could learn a thing or two about how the scientific community has let you have your say without blocking you despite how you seem to think you can persuade an academic community to accept your claim without using the same methods academics use to validate their own claims and evidence, which is what makes the Pseudo-community and new age philosophers so absurd. Nobody has made lame attempts at bullying you like your supporters on your video comments (which really does show your double standards, you'll block someone adding actual weight to a discussion but you'll allow people to throw abuse around so long as they agree with your ideology). As seen here, you cannot accept how someone with degrees is more reputable and trust worthy than a musician who's just been slapped with a few titles by the Pyramid foundation/Semir, because the musician named here isn't the only musician Semir has lied about and misslead the public about, take the Email from Giancarlo Barbadoro, which the pyramid supporters label as sole confirmation regarding the Polytechnic Institute of Turin tests in 2009 on the artificial concrete, a test of which was never published except for a illegible photo of said result paper printed in SHAN magazine, but when you dig a little you discover that Giancarlo Barbadoro is the founder of the Ecospirituality foundation which, coincidentally IS THE PUBLISHER OF SHAN MAGAZINE, oh but then it gets better, you later find out that the document containing the test results are now  property of the Ecospirituality Foundation from Torino and I'm yet to have any reply from them to see the document, probably because I mentioned I was a sceptic, I mean seriously look at this rubbish  http://www.bosnian-pyramid.org/journal/2010/1/1/bosnias-sun-pyramid-the-concrete-pyramid-theory-confirmed.html, http://piramidasunca.ba/bs/component/k2/item/3213-shan-magazine-about-the-bosnian-pyramids.html, http://www.eco-spirituality.org/tdgr-prmdbsn.htm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, a photo of the front page of a document is not extraordinary let alone evidence. - Psyanide --82.2.20.63 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to relax, man. You have no sources for your accusations against Dr. Osmanagich. You are a sceptic and I respect that, and you also have your own subjective opinions.

I never silence people. I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech. You posted the same comment all over my videos in a matter of minutes, which I consider spam. I can unblock you if you want, but please do not spam or post a lot of comments all over my videos in some minutes. It would be great if you could visit the Bosnian valley of the pyramids and see for your own eyes, if you want. --TheBIHLover (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Again with the subjectivity here ″which I consider spam″, it does not matter what YOU consider/think something to be, what matters is the official definition, I think many here would have hoped you understood this before you made a post about ″the lack of objectivity″ in the Wiki entry, as evident from many trying to teach you what evidence is, you don't even know what the words you are using mean! I just posted my sources are you blind? they are Osmanagich's own sources that are quite obviously meant to mislead people and which a magazine publisher clearly has a conflict of interest in, look at the ″about″ section for the site I also previously posted http://www.bosnian-pyramid.org/journal/2010/1/1/bosnias-sun-pyramid-the-concrete-pyramid-theory-confirmed.html .That site WAS MADE IN SUPPORT of the Bosnian pyramid foundation back in 2005, it is a bias article, if you refuse to acknowledge this then in no way should you expect people to acknowledge anything you have to say on the subject as you clearly cannot even differentiate between bias source material and peer-reviewed source material.-Psyanide --82.2.20.63 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have had enough with your attacks against me. I have nothing more to say to you. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion 2
I also want a section where people can read about the findings in the area, and maybe place the archaeological and geological reports in the article. Here are some links from other sites about the Bosnian Pyramids. The second suggestion is to have an own section where the findings from the strucutres can be written and place some new links (like those under) in the section references or external links.


 * http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/visoko-astronomical-map-more-100000-years-003215
 * https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pyramids-bosnia-exist-according-archaeologist-165225736.html#knRuhXy
 * http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/469316/Bosnian-pyramids-discovery-Europe

Great article here (!): Reports (I know that it is coming from the foundation's website):
 * http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/scientific-analysis-of-the-bosnian-valley-of-the-pyramids/
 * http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/archaeological-reports-1.html

--TheBIHLover (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess might be ok, but I'd rather use it to update the article. The Daily Star is a tabloid, useless. Ancient-origins is just another fringe site. And your great article is 7 years out of date as I've said before and includes statements now rejected by the people who made them. And anonymous. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is a one step in the right direction. Do you agree that it would be good to make an own section for the findings in the area? One can use the reports as sources. Yes, but please, those people have rejected the project for ten years ago, and it is a long time ago. No one of them have had anything to say in the last years. So much have been discovered in the area and there are many involved in the project. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The serious archaeologists have abandoned any interest in this, yes, because that's the way real science works - when something has been properly debunked, real scientists move on to other things and ignore the fringe pushers. And these "discoveries" are only claimed discoveries, as they have not been corroborated by independent experts (the "many involved in the project" are all Osmanagich's employees and followers) and have not been subjected to independent peer review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there are a lot of Bosnian articles about the Bosnian pyramids, but they are unfortunately not in english. Here is one in english: http://www.straitstimes.com/world/pyramids-exist-in-bosnia-archaeologist --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not Bosnian, it's Singaporean, and all it does is rehash the guy's claims again - what you'd need (as we have told you many many times) is peer-reviewed academic journals, not newspaper filler stories. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Partial support. I think we could maybe update the article with the foundation's latest claims, and we could use its reports as documentation of their claims. But we can't call them findings as they are not corroborated by any reliable independent academic sources. Also, I think a separate section in any detail would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and the article should not become a forum from which to access all of the foundation's materials - a link to the foundation site will suffice for that and people can get them from there. Now, the sources...
 * The Daily Star is a tabloid (and one of the UK's worst), so that's out.
 * www.ancient-origins.net is an uncritical publisher of fringe claims and is also out.
 * www.gizaforhumanity.org is another apparently uncritical fringe publisher and is also out as a reliable source (and is out of date as Doug says, and does not reflect the withdrawal of some of the statements made).
 * The Yahoo! story seems more reliable, but all that really does is reinforce that actual archaeological consensus that the pyramid claims are bogus.
 * The foundation's own reports could be used as sources for their claims, but as I say, their claims cannot be accepted as factual.
 * So, all I'm really supporting is the inclusion of a summary of any new claims that are not already included. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but can we more away from the claims, please? There is are three archaeological reports published, 2012 - archaeologist and 2013, 2014 by an anthropologist. There is one more geological report and here is the link (I know that you will react on which site it is published on, but if the site it bad, then we can use the report from the foundation's official site): http://themindunleashed.org/2014/11/9-cases-prove-existence-pyramids-bosnia.html

Is it possible to make an own section about the findings? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, until they are presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and corroborated by independent experts, they remain "claims" and not "findings". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've argued in the past for a section about the foundation. It's years later and the foundation appears to be dying. If we included such a section, it should be based upon independent sources only. We've agreed that the foundation and Osmanagic are not reliable sources, and everything they've said since only makes the case stronger they they are not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me what kind of peer-reviewed academic journals? Do you mean an article from some site or something else? Please notice that most of the academics are against the project because of the petition the European leading archaeologists signed ten years ago. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look in Category:Archaeology journals. And if most academics reject the project's claims, then that's what an encyclopedia should reflect. Maybe that's tough, but it's how Wikipedia works. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Here you have an article by Dr. Paul LaViolette: http://etheric.com/bosnian-pyramid-complex-signs-technically-advanced-ice-age-civilization/

He is an academic, and there is no exuses because he writes about energies, he is still an academic.

Here is powerpoint-slides by SB Resarch Grouop about the energy phenomena: http://www.sbresearchgroup.eu/index.php/en/research-papers/37-slides/98-bosnian-pyramids-measured-energy-phenomena
 * The http://etheric.com/ site is pushing secret messages in the stars and stargate travel!! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

--TheBIHLover (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are not peer-reviewed academic journals, are they? And LaViolette is another woo-woo nutter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

He is still an academic. Did ignore the link I gave you about the SB Resarch group? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an academic, but it doesn't make any unreviewed crap I might spout reliable! And that SB Research site is also not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Now, I really am getting sick and tired of trying to explain this to you, so if you really really cannot understand, then you simply do not have the competence required to work on this site. And if you do understand but refuse to listen, then you're being deliberately disruptive. I've tried to be as helpful to you as possible, but from now on I have no interest in anything you say that is not backed by a peer-reviewed academic journal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There are several articles that Wikipedia are linking to that are most likely not peer-reviewed academic journal and Wikipedia is linking to blogs. Blogs. Here is one: https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/the-bosnian-%E2%80%98pyramids%E2%80%99-of-semir-osmanagic/

Tell me what is professional with this Wikipedia article when editors are using blogs like a reference? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Independent blogs written by professional with a reputation for good science can be used as secondary support, but they would not usually stand on their own without the reliable academic sources which are already in the article - and I might personally reject that source myself if we didn't also have those independent corroborative sources. Now, I repeat - can you show us one paper in a serious academic journal by an independent professional archaeologist supporting the pyramid claim? Until you can, that's really all I have to say here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That is an excuse. If I linked to some good blogs, you would just straight out reject them. The blogs are there because they are against the pyramids in Bosnia, its simple. That is not objective to be honest.

I gave you some links. Like you said, we can use the Yahoo-link and the geological and archaeological reports. I think the archaeological report from 2015 by Anela will be published soon too, so I will share it here. --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No excuse, policy. See WP:RS vs WP:EL. While you are at it, you should familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE. (That blog is an external link only, right? Is it referred to in a source?) --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so where do we stand here with the negotiations? I will share the archaeological report 2015 when it gets published ASAP by the way. --TheBIHLover (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * LaViolette is discussed above, before you came here. He has no qualifications in geology or archaeology which are the relevant fields. He used to be a good scientist, but somehow he went off the rails like Barry Fell did. Doug Weller (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For some he is a good scientist, for some not. It will almost always be like this. By the way, where do we stand now? --TheBIHLover (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it will not always be like this. Science isn't something subjective in the sense you seem to mean. A lot of his recent work is simply not scientific no matter what he says, just as people arguing for a flat earth are not scientific no matter what arguments they bring up. That's one of the reasons we have peer reviewed journals. There is nothing scientific about the work being done now on the pyramids. Doug Weller (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of project that does not have peer reviewed journals. You can't call a project non scientific when there are arcaheological and geological reports on the internet. What is not scientific is that Wikipedia puts blogs like their reference. If I have given you something against the pyramids, you would straight up said yes and added it to the Wikipedia-article, like you did with the blogs. Now I give you archaeological reports (which I believe you haven't even read) and instead of facing those reports you give me excuses that Timothy Moon is not an archaeologist or anthropologist based on the internet. Do you realise that the project is almost banned, because of the petition that those European archaeologists signed in 2005? We are not ten years in the project, and Wikipedia has not updated a thing when it comes to the findings of the project, and this Wikipedia article is just slamming the whole project. You can clearly see it in the title and the introduction. There are independet resarchers and dependent that are resarching this project and with you calling it nothing scientific is an attack on those people and on their scientific work. It just shows that you are not updated with the project, but you keep slamming, what a shame. There are still a lot of pages that have references that are NOT peer reviewed journals. I gave you that blog for example. Most of the references in the article are from 2006-2007, they are old. It is time to update with new references and with new information. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Now, I have several Bosnian and Croatian articles, I can post here. There are not that many articles on english about the Bosnian pyramids, but I can give you some in Bosnian and Croatian, because I see that the Wikipedia article has some Bosnian/Croatian articles. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Moon not being an archaeologist isn't an excuse, it's a fact. You won't find any verifiable evidence that he is. And yes, when I start reading reports based on the notion that these are concrete it certainly puts me off. These are standard geological features and you find them all over the earth. And there are geological reports explaining that. When you find something new by geologists and archaeologists who aren't just out of college and whose credentials and experience we can verify, then post their reports. Otherwise you're wasting your time. Doug Weller (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are attacking their scientific work. Now, forget about Tim Moon for a minute and focus on the things I wrote over, please.

Suggestion:

''I have several Bosnian and Croatian articles, I can post here. There are not that many articles on english about the Bosnian pyramids, but I can give you some in Bosnian and Croatian, because I see that the Wikipedia article has some Bosnian/Croatian articles.'' --TheBIHLover (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am saying that without the proper qualifications, including a lot of supervised excavation work on various types of sites, I can't see any reason to be interested in their report. And if the person is basically a music producer who does this as a hobby and makes clear their disdain for mainstream archaeology, nope, not interested. What's going to be different about your Bosnian and Croatian articles? Are they written by people established as experts in archaeology or geology? Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that there are some links in the Wikipedia article that are not written by archaeologists or geologist, for example, Irna's site. The articles are written by Croatian and Bosnian journalists, I can't see any problem taking some information from them.

By the way, this Wikipedia article do only explain the hypothesis of Dr. Osmanagich and later what happened mostly from 2005-2007. That means that the article is outdated. Period. The article does not explain basic thing for instance how big the Bosnian Sun pyramid is etc.

Here you have some Bosnian and Croatian articles:

Klix.ba (Bosnian):

http://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/svjetski-istrazivaci-o-fenomenu-iz-visokog-piramide-u-bih-su-stvarnost/140906025

Dnevnik.hr - Nova TV (Croatian):

http://punkufer.dnevnik.hr/clanak/na-licu-mjesta-kakvu-tajnu-doista-kriju-bosanske-piramide-sunca---394121.html

Radiosarajevo.ba (Bosnian):

http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/203113/istina-ili-mit-tajna-bosanskih-piramida-fotovideo

Slobodnadalmacija.hr (Croatian):

http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Scena/Mozaik/tabid/80/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/281799/Default.aspx

Avaz.ba (Bosnian):

http://www.avaz.ba/clanak/136223/paul-laviolette-bosanske-piramide-najvece-su-arheolosko-otkrice-u-svijetu

There you have five articles from five different stations. --TheBIHLover (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Geologists have declared the so-called Bosnian pyramids to be flatirons formations. Nobody in his right mind would think that the passage of time might change anything to this basic geological fact. A flat iron formation in 2007 is not going to morph into a mand-made pyramid in 2015, no matter how much digging Dr. Osmanagic and his followers put into it. What is "outdated" is the pyramid "hypothesis" still being bandied about in this talk page - obviously by a believer - a decade after it was rejected as ill-conceived and outlandish by the scientific community. --Elnon (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What is outdated is it this article. And a decade later there has been so much discoveries in the valley.

I wrote this above:

''By the way, this Wikipedia article do only explain the hypothesis of Dr. Osmanagich and later what happened mostly from 2005-2007. That means that the article is outdated. Period. The article does not explain basic thing for instance how big the Bosnian Sun pyramid is etc.'' Please check my links I gave you from three known Bosnian stations and two Croatian stations. Those should surely by allowed to be on the Wikipedia article. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no sun pyramid, there is a hill that is probably smaller now that it's been sculpted. This is like asking us to say how big a UFO is. The links aren't to anything written by recognised geologists or archaeologists. Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of articles in the reference-section that are not written by archaeologists or geologists. Do the editors on this article have double standars? --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to continue to attack editors and authors that you disagree with rather than trying to improve this article, you put yourself at risk of a block or ban. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not attacking the editors. I'm just stating the facts which are that there are references that are not wrtitten by archaeologists or geologists. The editors are also attacking Dr. Semir and some of the editors have also attacked me by called me deaf and one of the people accused me of being paid by someone. --TheBIHLover (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think TheBIHLover should be banned from this article for some time to get this disruption to stop. I'd hope that during that time TheBIHLover would review WP:DR and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Banned? Are you serious? I'm trying to figure out how this article can be better with all of you on this talk-page. I am using my freedom og speech. I can't see any problem. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You are not trying to figure out how to make the Bosnian Pyramid claim article better you are trying to figure out how you can get unsubstantiated, bias evidence onto a factual Wiki. You have clearly failed to understand what constitutes as evidence, either out of willingness or by ignorance. Also, I did not accuse you of being paid I merely pointed out that you clearly have a conflict of interest as you promote the Pyramid claims via YouTube videos in which you present them to be of scientific interest which is false, I also pointed out that you blocked my comments on your channel after I spoke out about the hoax which is also a tactic by paid supporters to try and reduce the amount of argument against their claims, in light of all this information, plus the fact some of your videos suggest you are in direct collaboration with the excavation and the foundation, it would be foolish to not be suspicious towards your intentions. Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please leave this stuff out of this suggestion. If you have any problem, then post it on my talk-page. Keep yourself to the topic, please!

By the way, don't even think that I am paid by anyone. Stop accusing me of these kind of things. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you're a volunteer, either way you clearly have a conflict of interest so no it is valid in this talk and do not ask anyone to withhold facts that are relevant to this topic.-Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I want to do is to make this article better and more objective. Nothing more. That is why I have made this on the talk-page, so that everyone can participate with the article. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is already as objective as it can be and as people have already pointed out the only sources and ″evidence″ you have tried to include in the article are not trustworthy and far from objective, furthermore the fact that you promote the claims as true in your YouTube videos clearly shows you have a conflict of interest, again, far from objective. I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence and the definition of ″objective″ and the definition of ″subjective″.-Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it possbile to use these articles as sources for the upcoming updated article?

Klix.ba (Bosnian):

http://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/svjetski-istrazivaci-o-fenomenu-iz-visokog-piramide-u-bih-su-stvarnost/140906025

Dnevnik.hr - Nova TV (Croatian):

http://punkufer.dnevnik.hr/clanak/na-licu-mjesta-kakvu-tajnu-doista-kriju-bosanske-piramide-sunca---394121.html

Radiosarajevo.ba (Bosnian):

http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/203113/istina-ili-mit-tajna-bosanskih-piramida-fotovideo

Slobodnadalmacija.hr (Croatian):

http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Scena/Mozaik/tabid/80/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/281799/Default.aspx

Avaz.ba (Bosnian):

http://www.avaz.ba/clanak/136223/paul-laviolette-bosanske-piramide-najvece-su-arheolosko-otkrice-u-svijetu

--TheBIHLover (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You already posted those and they were rejected, here's the reason why:

1. http://www.radiosarajevo.ba/novost/203113/istina-ili-mit-tajna-bosanskih-piramida-fotovideo - Bias article containing a youtube video as only source, contains nothing about the fact that academics reject the claims and label it a ″cruel hoax″, no objectivity.

2. http://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/svjetski-istrazivaci-o-fenomenu-iz-visokog-piramide-u-bih-su-stvarnost/140906025 - A conference organized and held by the pyramid foundation is not evidence full stop, for obvious reasons pertaining to conflict of interest.

3. http://punkufer.dnevnik.hr/clanak/na-licu-mjesta-kakvu-tajnu-doista-kriju-bosanske-piramide-sunca---394121.html - Again, bias article that contains no information about the fact the Bosnian pyramid claims are rejected by academia.

4. http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Scena/Mozaik/tabid/80/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/281799/Default.aspx - For a start it does not translate well at all, either that or it's just atrocious journalism. Secondly it too looks like a bias article too but given the fact it's mostly lost in translation no sound judgement can be made but given what can be read, the pictures and the heading I would say it's yet another bias article with no weight being given to the counter argument that it's a hoax. -Psyanide--82.2.20.63 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Biggest station in Sarajevo, not a bias article. 2. Ok. 3. One of the biggest stations in Croatia, not bias. 4. That newspaper is the biggest newspaper in the area Dalmacija. Which is the south-west coast of Croatia. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Avaz is the biggest newspaper in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the way. --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The popularity of a site/newspaper has absolutely no bearing on the authenticity of an article, it's sources do, which from what I can ascertain are either the Pyramid foundation, YouTube videos in support of the foundation, or other supporters. The problem with talking only about the Pyramid claim but not even mentioning that said claims are rejected by academia is that, aside from being incredibly poor journalism, you are not presenting the reader with the full story, only the part of the story that you want them to hear which is why it is bias. Do you understand? An individual cannot decide on something they do not know exits and therefore are less likely to research what the opposition has to say if they are not aware there is an opposition in the first place, which falls under misinformation.-Psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you stop accusing the everyone that supports the pyramids in Bosnia? You can't ascertain anything, because what you are saying is not true at all. Now you are also attacking the journalists who are writing in one of the biggest newspapers in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Misinformation? How so? Because there are some newspapers that *supports* the pyramids? Come on, man. --TheBIHLover (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote above again, you've not taken in what I've said at all which to be honest doesn't surprise me in the slightest as you haven't listened to what the admins had to say either. Although your subjective interpretations of mundane natural objects, scientific illiteracy, and inability to understand what constitutes as evidence and peer-review is exceptionally common amongst New-age/pseudo followers the fact that you refuse to accept the decision of the admins is outright disrespectful and I'm not surprised you're being ignored, you're just going around in circles rather than coming to a resolution which is both unproductive and just plain silly.

Note to any admin reading this, I would not suggest banning TheBIHLover for their attacks on the admin alone as they are out of pure ignorance as I'm sure is evident from their posts, however if this person continues to try and get their nonsensical fiction into Wikipedia I would suggest either a ban or temporary ban as I have had the same experience with this individual before and I can say from that experience that they will just keep on and on without coming to any kind of resolution. To quote Carl Sagan ″One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back″-Psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Who are they? I'm not attacking anyone, you are attacking me from the start. Who are you, because I can't remember discussing with you before other than youtube. Wikipdia administrators have not right to ban me, because I am using my free speech and I'm not attacking anyone. I just want a better article thats it. --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place for you to accuse me of attacking you, if you have an issue and would like to highlight the things I've said that you think are an attack on you personally then you can post on my talk page, not in the discussion of an article and it's content. No, you do not have freedom of speech here, nobody does, this is an encyclopaedia not a forum thread. Wikipedia administrators DO have every right to block you, and yes you have attacked them, I quote you:″ Do the editors on this article have double standars? --TheBIHLover (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)″. I have not attacked you from the start, I pointed out that you clearly have a conflict of interest because the YouTube videos you upload and promote are subjective and bias in favour of the Pyramid foundation, bringing in the fact you blocked me from commenting on your Youtube channel was a little too personal and off topic but hardly an attack, more like bringing a grudge to an intellectual debate about the content of an factual article. Now, I'm not going to bother replying to you here any more as, since the beginning of the section ″lack of objectivity″ it has been nothing but going in circles, I've told you why your sources are not reliable, the admins have told you why your sources are not reliable, but it seems you are not interested in what the admin say nor what the scientific consensus say. There is nothing more to be said and doing so is just beating the dead horse. I agree with the admin that the article ″Bosnian Pyramid claims″ is up to date, unless any reliable scientific evidence is put forward that proves this Wiki article incorrect it will remain as it is.-Psyanide82.2.20.63 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. We have our different opinions. Now, please get back to the topic. I would love to know the answer from some the editors if those Bosnian and Croatian articles can be placed and used in the updated Wikipedia-article? --TheBIHLover (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, is it possible to change anything on this wikipedia? The wikipedia is still outdated though. --TheBIHLover (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Defaultsort
The article contains. This apparently predates the move requests above and was presumably added to work around (no-longer-relevant) issues with diacritics. Is it now acceptable simply to remove the defaultsort? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I support your suggestion. Should be uncontroversial. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)