489:
on the earth with a 360-degree geometry, but the lines were too close to one another, which is normal if Butler is correct (366 lines instead of 360). And again, Xavier
Guichard was notable enough to have an article in the English wiki (not made by yours truly), before all these discussions even began! Poor man, he's the first one who discovered all this and once again he's completely set aside in our discussions, which I am beginning to think is honestly unfair!
582:
Butler and
Tristan use it in their theories). I added photos in 'Megalithic geometry' today to illustrate otherwise the whole thing seems a bit hard to understand I think. And when I said 'endorsed' about The Times, I meant that if they had considered the theory utterly foolish, such a prestigious paper would never have bothered with publishing any article about it.--
230:
Secondly, there was alot of banter and chit-chat about things that had nothing to do with the deletion of the article. We discussed perceived weaknesses in the theory itself, including mathematical errors, and we discussed the deletion of articles about some of the authors of source material used in
508:
a geometry (so does Butler), that they used it in their stone circles (so do Butler and Knight and
Tristan), and that they used a unit of measurement (the Megalithic Yard) to apply it on the ground (so does Butler who claims the Megalithic Yard is the Megalithic people's unit of measurement and that
488:
5-Again, I have to observe that poor old Xavier
Guichard, the one who allegedly discovered Salt Lines in the first place in the 1920's, the one nobody seemed to believe at the time, has been utterly forgotten in our discussions again. Let me restate that he discovered what he thought were alignments
460:
I have to disagree with
Lambiam, although some of his comments are quite apt. Yes, the authors (Butler and Tristan) are not what you could call extremely notable, yes, the 'Times' article has been written by Butler and Knight themselves, and yes, both the French radio and French magazine mainly deal
555:
Megalithic geometry is notable. Most of the content of this article is not. It seems to now being used to justify going around and adding salt lines to every article where salt lines are claimed. Creating an article in order to do this is not justified, but it appears to be what has happened on the
503:
8-I don't think that
Alexander Thom's 'Megalithic geometry' is, as you write, a 'completely different notion' than 366-degree Megalithic geometry. Thom spent most of his life trying to study or prove that the Megalithic people were expert astronomers and expert geometricians. So does Butler. No, he
484:
4-A similar consideration can be made with regard to the
Guardian, even if the article is not really in favour of Butler and Knight's views, they considered the subject was important enough to discuss it in their lines. What's more, what the journalist seems to disagree on is not so much 366-degree
464:
1-Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas are notable, they are the authors of a series of controversial, but world-famous books dealing with the origin of
Freemasonry. This is not a scientific book but let me remind you that 'notable' on Wiki terms doesn't necessarily mean scientific. Their book 'The
472:
2-In my list I forgot another review from another independent source, i.e. the London Daily Mail. It is about "Civilization One" , viz. "I'm electrified by it….one of the most important books to be published in decades…..one of the biggest breakthroughs of all time…...a book of central importance
328:
First, I think the article should have been speedy deleted; although focusing less specifically on
Silvain Tristan (pseudonym of Sylvain Nicoulaud) than the earlier version, in my opinion it was essentially a recreation of the earlier article, quite possibly created by the same person as before,
581:
I don't mean to exploit anything. I thought it was relevant to make an addition to
Brodgar because it seems to me particularly striking in their theory (60 stones on the 60th parallel). You can delete it if you think it's too much. Same thing for Avebury (as it has been studied by Thom and that
480:
3-The fact that the article is the 'Times' has been written by the authors themselves is not relevant: The Times, by publishing this article, implicitly endorses Butler and Knight's controversial views, it's not as if it had been placed there without them knowing it. Besides, who else than the
226:
This was a difficult closing to perform. Firstly, many of the participants failed to observe the instructions in AFD regarding only one bulleted point per editor, and indentation and placement of follow-on comments. I had to refactor many of the comments here, just to make sense of them.
381:
are dedicated to New Age pseudoscience topics, and will pay attention to anything, as long as it is not mainline science, such as decoding Nostradamus, or the theory that the megalithic monuments were built by using levitation. For both sources the content is an interview with Sylvain
289:
Having reviewed them, these seem to disprove the delete arguments. They do not only cover a single man's theory, they are reasonably independent of the theory itself, are multiple in number, and come from reliable sources. All other concerns are deemed repairable via the
369:
of 366-degree geometry of the article, but deals with main-line archaeological research. After I pointed this out, the article creator added a section on this to the article, which however has no meaningful relationship to the rest of the article, including the lead
469:) has 226 reviews on Amazon.com alone, it is a best-seller, and has been translated into many languages. I want to stress again that apart from Tristan and Butler, these two authors are both advocates of 366-degree geometry (in several books).
261:
Stone Circles and Megalithic Geometry : An Experiment to Test Alternative Design Practices - Author(s) BARNATT J. ; HERRING P. in Journal of archaeological science ISSN 0305-4403, 1986, vol. 13, no5, Publisher Elsevier Science, Amsterdam,
492:
6-The fact that Tristan's interviews have been made in specialized media should not hide the fact that at no moment does Tristan use any New Age flim flam to promote his views, such as levitation, extra-terrestrials, and so
266:
485:
geometry but rather the end of the book which deals with unlikely time traveling theories (in that case I would strongly agree that these theories are pure, unproven and unprovable pseudo-science indeed!)
509:
it is derived from the Earth's polar circumference in the 366-degree ('Megalithic') geometry. And as you say Thom's work is 'notable.' He even had a Wiki article before these discussions began.
267:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=MfeOkLyZ9KkC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=megalithic+geometry&source=web&ots=zhTzM5AvGp&sig=X2_h_s2YSyYVFypJODUxBV9mw7g&hl=fr#PPA370,M1
466:
393:
3 are not independent of the originators and evangelists of (versions of) the theory, having been written by them (K&B) or being uncritical interviews with one of them (ST);
234:
We do not selectively publish material about theories that we agree with or think make sense or are scientific. We are far too neutral for that. We publish articles that pass
512:
Now, weighing up the pros and cons and judging from the evidence, I must say I am genuinely surprised there can still be some debates regarding the notability of the subject.--
481:
authors themselves could have better summarized their views without running the risk of making mathematical mistakes in what is the most notable daily paper in Britain?
538:
The claim that The Times endorses anything because of their article is ridiculous. As for Colin Wilson, so what? He's another fringe writer, his review means nothing.
354:
The publications by Thom himself or about his research (which includes every single publication in the list with "megalithic geometry" in its title) all deal with a
496:
7-Tristan's publisher, by the way, seems to deal mainly with esoteric or New Age stuff, but it is also the publisher of the French translation of Al Gore's book (
400:
Of the four that deal with the subject matter of the article, only the last can be considered independent. Do book reviewers qualify as reliable sources?
277:
Radio Iciet Mainetnant, interview of Sylvain Tristan "Les Lignes d'Or" - L'Histoire du Monde : des histoires trafiquées ? - (25.07.05) - 5h.mp3,
17:
351:
in the sense that is common in science: the author is a book reviewer, and not a research scientist, nor is he otherwise an expert in this area.
591:
576:
521:
473:….this is the definitive proof that civilisation is thousands of years older than historians believe." -- Colin Wilson, London Daily Mail (see
455:
441:
422:
404:
The uncritical attention paid here to the theory of 366-degree geometry in a devoted article is completely out of proportion to its prominence.
315:
467:
http://www.amazon.com/Hiram-Key-Pharaohs-Freemasonry-Discovery/dp/1931412758/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206544491&sr=1-1
497:
461:
with pseudo science. However, I have to stress 8 important points that in my view strongly reinforce the keep decision of the article:
294:
process. No matter how nutty or flawed we may collectively think this theory is, that is irrelevant to AfD. My decision therefore is
255:
The Guardian, Peer review of 'Who Built the Moon?' by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler Paul Nettleton, Thursday September 1 2005
432:
of material by the promoters of the theory, not independent resources. I thought that was clear in the AfD, but apparently not. --
271:'Megalithic triangles' (about Thom too), Based on the article by M. Beech, Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 20 (3), 1988.
407:
366:
567:
Salt lines (the Butler type) are not notable. I agree with Lambian, this was a mistake and is now being exploited.--
500:), which I think makes it notable too (I agree it's only the publisher that is notable, not the author, but still.)
214:
Weak keep Needs some rework but possibly still is within the WP:N.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
587:
517:
358:
of "megalithic geometry" than the one in the article, a notion that – in contrast to 366-degree geometry –
498:
http://cgi.ebay.fr/URGENCE-PLANETE-TERRE-%2F-AL-GORE-%2F-Alph%C3%A9e_W0QQitemZ310029863245QQcmdZViewItem
572:
390:
4 are not about the 366-degree geometry that is the subject of the article, but about something else;
31:
If you choose to leave a follow-on comment, please do so in a new section below this one. Please do
583:
513:
446:
I'm going to have to agee with Kesh and Lambian. Ok, so who wants to take this to DRV yet again?
451:
419:
249:
Several sources were mentioned in the discussion that I felt warranted further consideration.
172:
sounds more like a persuasive essay attempting to convince us of the validity of this research
329:
trying to give credibility to their theory by having an article about it on Knowledge (XXG).
291:
243:
311:
347:
is a book review. Although this series of book reviews is named "Peer review", it is not a
239:
122:
568:
561:
410:, and in this case such parity cannot be achieved by adding more critical sources, simply
307:
278:
437:
274:
Alexander Thom, "Megalithic Geometry in Standing Stones", New Scientist, March 12, 1964
235:
429:
363:
447:
208:
article does not deal with a one-man theory; seems to involve at least six people
474:
348:
283:'SacreePlanate' (French magazine), interview of Sylvain Tristan, Aug-Sept. 2007
300:
504:
never used number 366 in his work. But yes, he thought the Megalithic people
433:
140:
not sufficient reliably sourced independent material to establish notability
557:
211:
Butler is a prolific English writer and a professional writer I think
163:
already Duly mentioned under Phaistos Disc decipherment claims
428:
I have to agree with Lambiam. The cited references are a
279:
http://icietmaintenant.info/emissions.php?idNouvelle=16
49:
Little sawyer (29 Edits, including 3 by 194.214.168.50
231:this article. These things only clutter the page.
146:lacks multiple and independent WP:reliable sources
416:because no attention is being paid to this theory
325:I disagree with the closing admin's decision.
475:http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_cknight.htm
8:
169:fringe-theory that has no scientific support
340:is written by Knight and Butler themselves.
194:additional sources mentioned (see summary)
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion
362:notable. It has nothing to do with the
332:Of the "several sources" listed above:
143:all sources seem to include Alan Butler
265:'Megalithic geometry' (about Thom) in
386:In summary, of the 8 sources listed:
217:several people publishing books on it
7:
24:
27:Closing administrator's rationale
418:(except by Knowledge (XXG)). Â --
1:
35:interrupt my comments here.
375:Radio Ici & Maintenant!
356:completely different notion
166:unsuited to an encyclopedia
153:discounted delete arguments
616:
592:18:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
577:15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
522:16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
456:00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
442:16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
423:15:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
316:07:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
201:Discounted keep arguments
105:Splash <nominator: -->
26:
412:because there aren't any
86:JzG (4 Edits, aka "Guy")
71:David Eppstein (4 Edits)
184:fringe/pseudo- science
181:theory has math errors
77:CRGreathouse (3 Edits)
74:Arthur Rubin (4 Edits)
258:The Times (precited)
396:1 is a book review.
39:Raw count analysis
408:parity of sources
314:
97:Non-Participatory
80:Lambiam (4 Edits)
607:
338:The Times Online
306:
303:
135:Delete arguments
615:
614:
610:
609:
608:
606:
605:
604:
562:Ring of Brodgar
343:The article in
336:The article in
323:
301:
224:
132:
41:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
613:
611:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
565:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
510:
501:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
470:
444:
398:
397:
394:
391:
384:
383:
379:Sacrée Planète
371:
352:
341:
322:
319:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
275:
272:
269:
263:
259:
256:
223:
220:
219:
218:
215:
212:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
196:
195:
191:
190:
189:Keep arguments
186:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
156:
155:
154:
148:
147:
144:
141:
137:
136:
131:
128:
127:
126:
121:85.107.0.106 (
118:
117:
113:
112:
111:TenPoundHammer
109:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
93:
90:
87:
84:
83:SheffieldSteel
81:
78:
75:
72:
69:
68:Kesh (3 Edits)
66:
62:
61:
57:
56:
53:
52:Golgofrinchian
50:
46:
45:
40:
37:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
612:
593:
589:
585:
584:Little sawyer
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
523:
519:
515:
514:Little sawyer
511:
507:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
471:
468:
463:
462:
459:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:walled garden
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
395:
392:
389:
388:
387:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:fringe theory
365:
364:pseudoscience
361:
357:
353:
350:
346:
342:
339:
335:
334:
333:
330:
326:
320:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
297:
293:
282:
280:
276:
273:
270:
268:
264:
260:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
221:
216:
213:
210:
207:
206:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
192:
188:
187:
183:
180:
178:possible hoax
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
142:
139:
138:
134:
133:
129:
124:
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
107:
104:
101:
100:
96:
95:
91:
88:
85:
82:
79:
76:
73:
70:
67:
65:Angusmclellan
64:
63:
59:
58:
55:DGG (2 Edits)
54:
51:
48:
47:
43:
42:
38:
36:
34:
19:
505:
465:Hiram Key' (
415:
411:
406:There is no
403:
402:
399:
385:
378:
374:
359:
355:
345:The Guardian
344:
337:
331:
327:
324:
299:
295:
288:
248:
233:
229:
225:
175:previous AfD
32:
30:
569:Doug Weller
414:, which is
349:peer review
160:non-notable
116:Non-counted
321:I disagree
312:count/logs
89:Pmanderson
564:articles.
130:Arguments
382:Tristan.
370:section.
92:Tim Ross
558:Avebury
448:JoshuaZ
420:Lambiam
292:WP:EDIT
244:WP:NPOV
222:Summary
108:GRBerry
102:SineBot
242:, and
240:WP:NOR
123:WP:SPA
60:Delete
373:Both
302:Jerry
16:<
588:talk
573:talk
560:and
518:talk
452:talk
438:talk
434:Kesh
377:and
308:talk
296:keep
262:1974
246:.
236:WP:V
44:Keep
506:had
493:on.
33:not
590:)
575:)
520:)
454:)
440:)
360:is
310:¤
298:.
238:,
586:(
571:(
516:(
477:)
450:(
436:(
125:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.