Talk:Stonehenge

Dating BC to BCE
I would like to propose a blanket change from BC to BCE throughout the article when referencing dating. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose anyway, but under WP:ERA you are supposed to give reasons specific to the article. Not that it matters all that much, but note that the owners of the site, English Heritage, only use BC. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no worthwhile reason for change. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 18:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no real point, other than ideological.
 * (unsigned - by User:Ario1234)


 * Oppose, totally pointless.  Tewdar   21:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no reason to change. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No reason to change. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Since the S. site was obviously built by "pagan" people, it would make sense to use BCE as that phrase (with Era at the end), is less theologically-ideologically charged than just BC. 94.21.229.41 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's more inclusive to secularists and non-Christian readers to use a non-religious dating nomenclature. Furthermore, the fields of study surrounding such sites, (archeology, anthropology, and so on) are largely science based fields of endeavour, which are increasingly moving towards adopting the BCE/CE format... Sometimes, though, it's just better to be on the right side of history; is it better, for example, to be considered as a John Butler, or a John Scopes? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Anno Domini assumes that Jesus is our dominus (master or owner), and I would like to avoid references to slavery. Common Era is inoffensive. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the suggestion that using BC signifies support for slavery. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dimadick didn't say that it signifies support for slavery, he said that it references slavery, which it objectively did historically. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting take. "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi" means "the year of our Lord Jesus Christ" which predates anything the Romans did...and at the same time, it's interesting to see this is where "Don" came from as a title. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Predates anything the Romans did... what? The Roman Empire was founded in 27 BCE. The anno domini calendar was devised in 525 CE and didn't come into widespread use until the 8th century. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See, that's why confusion happens! I thought it was 27 AD. –  The Grid  ( talk )  15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Dimadick was joking. I hope so anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I do not see a reason to switch the dating system for this article per WP:ERA. The arguments I'm seeing for the change go beyond this article. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a change of dating system, just a syntax of dating. BC = BCE, and AD = CE... but the numbers would be exactly the the same, where 2023 AD = 2023 CE, just a modification to "Before Common Era" instead of "Before Christ" but numbers are identical. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we all know that! Coming up to its 1st anniversary, this proposal has clearly not met consensus & is closed. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was Stonehenge constructed?
What was in the mind of them??? 103.54.101.15 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There are thousands of books and articles debating this subject. No one really knows but we can make some intelligent guesses. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * meep. 209.242.141.143 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, which Stonehenge do you mean? As the article explains, there were a number of phases of consruction, demolition and reconstruction. We don't even know for sure if the site was used continuously between phases. There are many Henges all over Britain whose purpose is not obvious today, that are like Stonehenge I and II. That it marked the midwinter sunrise seems to have appeared in Stonehenge III (NB this is speculative). The apparent marking of other celestial events came later still. Modern scientific conjectures are not wild guesses but nevertheless are trying to infer the purpose from the physical evidence, in the absence of any contemporary records. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As stated at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" and above that "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stonehenge article". This thread comes under the former, not the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could read Theories about Stonehenge? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
Hello i am a historian and i am researching about stone henge and would like to add some things to it so i wanted to ask if i can edit this source to add some things Abitd (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What exactly were you thinking of adding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Please do not use the template when you are just asking a question. Only use the template when you are requesting an edit. Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggest remove vandalism reference
Stonehenge has been vandalised many times in the past, generally considerably more significantly eg https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1961/mar/14/stonehenge-defacement and https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/03/21/Stonehenge-scarred-by-graffiti/1863637995600/ (Note second source's mention that on average graffiti artists vandalise these stones about once a decade)

Surely either none of these incidents are noteworthy or they all are? It seems strange to have a whole section and attached separate article for a very minor act of vandalism of no historic significance that I can see 2001:4646:4DE6:0:45A9:D292:3490:391A (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a mention of it, but an entire section is highly WP:UNDUE, yes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. WP:NOTNEWS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
change "marked three standing stones" to "vandalized three standing stones" Marcell.Lovas93 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Vandalized may imply that the stones were damaged, whereas marked is unambiguous. Hypnôs (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)