Talk:America's Stonehenge

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

anyone got a picture of this? i would like to see it :) Steeev 14:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually I've got some (it's really underwhelming), maybe a few days to get them up. Stan 16:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cool! :) Steeev 16:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was looking for information on Mystery Hill, NC and ended up redirected here instead. How odd.--68.210.255.48 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the old name of this place. I've turned Mystery Hill into a disambiguation page - care to create an article on the NC site? - DavidWBrooks 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"America's Stonehenge" is a really, really idiotic name - it sounds exactly like the type of "roadside oddity" they are trying to distance themselves from. Mystery Hill or just make something up. I really want to believe this is for real in some way, but Pattee's Cave would even be better than some oblique reference to an archeological site in England that nobody even understands. Yeah, you know, every summer on the longest day we all stand on 3rd St and look down Western toward the setting sun, which is right in line with the center of the street, and the bell towers of two churches which frame the orb ring out in unison. It's like so ritual, just like the beer we're all guzzling, it's a downright religious experience.76.105.136.241 (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the same ridiculous rewrite get reverted six or eight times in the last few days, from several different anon IPs, I have semi-protected this page (only registered users can edit it). I have to find out how to put the box it, though ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ClovisPt (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darned if I can find instructions about what template to put on the article, though. Do you know? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No template for a short semi, those blocked can use the template {{editsemiprotected}} to request an edit. Thanks for doing that. I was tempted even though I was involved (I guess I could have put up a note on ANI or AN asking for a review of it). Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm writing down a correspondence I've been holding with Dougweller, hoping to come to an agreeable conclusion for all parties once the page can be edited again. Verbatim Veritas (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dougweller, 'Thank you for your response concerning America's Stonehenge. Could you be more specific concerning which rules I violated? The current article states that the site was built in the 18th or 19th century, which is grossly untrue. It also includes several ad hominem attacks on the owners, the Stone family, and that does not settle well with me. All the information I put up is accurate, and has papers to back it up. If you notice, I used citations of the different laboratories,etc. that have done research on the site. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to stop by the site, and I'm sure the Stones would be happy to show you the neccesary facts for you to agree that the information I put up is 100% accurate. Thank you for your time. Verbatim Veritas (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

'First I think I need to warn you about making comments on other editors in edit summaries. These looked like personal attacks and you need to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF perhaps. Secondly, your 'citations' were simply links to the home pages of various laboratories, etc., not to any actual reports by them. See WP:Verify. Thirdly, the article does not state when the site was built although it does say " The origin and purpose of the structures is usually attributed to a mixture of land-use practices of local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as construction of structures by owner William Goodwin in the 1930s.". You've written things such as "When dating was performed by Geochron in 1989, it was found that the pit was from approximately 650 A.D. It was concluded, therefore," -- have you seen a report from Geochron stating that they concluded anything other than the date from the particular pit? You say there are ad hominem attacks on the Stone family, but they are not mentioned in the article. Can you please point to what I've missed? This article is covered by WP:Fringe and WP:REDFLAG. You might want to read those pages. You are also editing against an apparent consensus that your edits are not helpful. If the IP whose edit summary looks like yours is you, you were asked to take your edits to the talk page for discussion but didn't do so. That's often a sign of someone who has decided to edit war rather than discuss. At the moment, none of us can edit the article, only the talk page -- where any discussion should be about the article, not an attempt to prove anything about the subject of the article. I hope this answers at least some of your questions. I've got a number of sources for the article and will add them when the article is unprotected. I may bring them to the talk page first. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)'

Thank you for your detailed response. I will avoid from making comments in the future that could be perceived as personal attacks. I agree my "citations" weren't actual copies of the documents, they were simply meant to verify the validity of the research groups that have done work on the site. For the actual documents, they're on display at the gift shop, and can be viewed for free anytime 9am-5pm every day of the week. I didn't have access to scan them...would you like me to check with the owners and see if they'd be willing to do that?

Concerning when the site was built, saying " The origin and purpose of the structures is usually attributed to a mixture of land-use practices of local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as construction of structures by owner William Goodwin in the 1930s." is highly flawed, and I think it's rather assuming at the most conservative estimate. Who is usually attributing this to be true? Certainly not the owners of the site, the researchers, many prestigious professors, and multiple visitors to the site. From what I've seen, someone just wrote that to vaguely legitimize what they were saying without actually using statistics. In essence, it's certainly not any better than my "citations" that you rightly critiqued. And quite honestly, anyone who has seen the structures I would assume wouldn't be naive enough to believe they were the work of farmers. The boulders weigh up to a few tons apiece -- why on earth would farmers be moving these around? I'm not aware of any land use agricultural practices of the 18th and 19th centuries that involve megalithic structures, astronomical alignments, or sacrificial tables -- if you know of any, please enlighten me. Concerning the quote you used from me, yes, I have seen the reports from Geochron, University of Washington, etc. They're all hanging up in the gift shop, which as I already stated, is very accessible.

The ad hominem attacks I made reference to have been deleted. When I first started editing the page, it was much worse than it is now. Thankfully, there have been a few improvements. There are still arguably indirect attacks on their integrity, however, by questioning the credibility of the site, and suggesting that there is a general concensus that they're running a fraudulent operation. I will agree, however, that it may just be a part of healthy controversy.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss a compromise for the page. I apologize if it seemed that I wasn't explaining myself. In my defense, however, no one else was really either. If people such as Mr. Brooks explained what they found flawed with my edits, I would have been happy to talk to them. After all, I'm talking to you right now. I do find it quite petty that someone locked the page for weeks, leaving an editing consensus that is, as I've stated, highly inaccurate. And if you view the history of the page far enough back, it appears I'm not the only one to feel that way, just the only one who will continue to debate the topic rather than giving up to pugnacious editing by dissenters.

Once again, thank you for your time, and I apologize if I seem terse. This is a topic that I feel passionately about, and as I mentioned, I'm rather peeved at its current state.

In closing, I'd just like to highlight a few facts:

-William Goodwin was not an insurance agent. Goodwin also purchased the site in 1937, not 1936.

-The name change to "America's Stonehenge" in 1982 was an attempt to more accurately describe what is believed to be the original use of the site. There is no connection to "roadside oddity sites"...who came up with that? At least have a cited quote here…

-Goodwin did move many stones around, but there is no reason to believe he did this to support his theories of Culdee monks. This could simply be to clear out what he found to be excess rocks around the chambers, not having a complex knowledge of archeological disturbance it would create.

-There is no such thing as "America's Stonehenge Foundation." And where did the supposed quote come from ("one of the reasons the enigma of Mystery Hill is so deep")? There isn't any citation, and for a quote that bold, one would hope there would be.

-If there is to be no bias in the article, it really shouldn't read: "Proponents of a pre-Columbian, yet non-Native American, origin for the site argue that some stones are encased in trees that may have sprouted before the arrival of the first colonists..." This is a clear-cut case of the Weak man fallacy. In the very least, mention here that carbon dating has been done on the site...

- A quote: "Artifacts found on the site lead archaeologists to the conclusion that the stones were actually assembled for a variety of reasons by local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries." What archaeologists? Who with any credentials came up with this? This "conclusion" was certainly not shared by Geochron, U Washington, Barry Fell, etc. And the sacrificial stone table is an estimated 4.5 tons. Once again, why would farmers go through the difficulty of moving that, especially before modern equipment, for simply making lye? I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable about the topic of lye-leaching stones, but common sense dictates this wouldn't happen...

- "Carbon dating of charcoal pits at the site provided dates from 2000 BC to 173 BC, when the area was populated by ancestors of current Native Americans." Once again, making assumptions. This is not a fact. Common inference, maybe, but not a fact. Verbatim Veritas (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your response. I think this needs more references and I am getting them. It may take a while.

You need to realise that this article is covered by WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV, as well as the ordinary policies on verification and reliable sources. And have you read WP:OR on original research, which means that we shouldn't discuss either here or in the article our opinions of what would be difficult, practical, or common sense.

My guess is that the 'foundation' bit came from here: [1], as did your other quote. We should not be using that as a reference and both the foundation bit and the quote should go.

Note that Barry Fell was a marine biologist, with no formal training in linguistics, archaeology, etc. If we can get verifiable quotes from Geochron, etc, we might be able to use them.

Goodwin's motives for moving the stones can't be used unless we can verify them, and the important point is probably that they were moved from their original location.

I'm sure the article can be improved, but it will take few weeks probably. As I said, I'm trying to get hold of some sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that the article is subject to those policies, I was just stating that how it is currently is not any better as it's also relying heavily on opinion. I'm fine with sticking to the facts, and only listing theories in a manner without bias that is described as simply a theory. I actually think it's better that way.

I'm not sure if Fell has more credentials than that, I'll check with Dennis. You could very well be right, though, on his lack of credentials, in which case I would agree with you. I'll try to scan a copy of Geochron's reports on at some point.

And I agree with your statements about Goodwin. We should simply state what happened, and not try to guess his motives.

Thanks for trying to work this out. I think we're making progress.

Verbatim Veritas (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll be only on intermittenly until Tuesday anyway. Fell was a marine biologist at Harvard. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARRRRGHHH! New York Times ran an article on the site on December 11. Quoted the Stone family, brought in a professor of astronomy, and a mystery writer, all in support of pre-Columbus European input. No mention of 20th century rework of colonial stone work. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an incredibly lame freelancer piece - and it was run without the ability to add comments, alas! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Alan Hill? New Hampshire Technical Institute is a 2 year college, no astronomy department and I can't find an Alan Hill either. Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a terrible article. To be fair, it's in the travel section, which has always been the Times' weakest area journalistically. I find their science section to be among the most accurate and well written sources of archaeological articles aimed at the general public. Don't know if this would be worth anyone's time, but is there a procedure for contacting the paper and asking for clarification or retraction of certain points in an article? Doug's comment regarding the mysterious Alan Hill suggest to we might actually have a case. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to write a nice, short, calm, pleasant letter to the editor.

[2] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found Alan Hill. In 2003 he gave a talk at the NHTI: "Alan Hill, Professor of Social Sciences Emeritus, NHTI Prof. Hill will discuss the mysteries behind America's Stonehenge, the stone structures on a hill top in North Salem, NH.Also, he will examine the many stone chambers found throughout the Northeast U.S., and the Canadian Maritime Provinces and examine their similarity to those found throughout Europe." Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still discrepancies in that the article is biased against the site being legitimate. I've no concerns with stating that it may be a hoax, fraud, etc. as that follows along with the concept of a balanced evaluation. At the same time, however, saying that the site is generally attributed to land use practices of the 19th century is incredibly biased. Also, stating that a 4.5 ton stone slab was used for making soap is a little far-fetched. I'm not against including it, but the size of the stone should be mentioned so people realize what they're dealing with. The site by nature is surrounded by speculation. As previously mentioned, it should be mentioned that some people think it's a fraud, but the argument for its legitmacy should be adequately presented as well. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.181.251 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "biased" you mean "I don't agree with it" (which is how most people use the term, unfortunately) then you're misusing the word. If by "biased" you mean "prejudiced", then there are, it seems, at least three of us who disagree, and who think the description accurately and fairly represents the overall viewpoint of the history of the site. That's why your wording keeps getting reverted.

But this is wikipedia, and opinions can change. The way to change them is to present new evidence to demonstrate our error. With that in mind, I have added a reference to the lye stone argument (which, as you correctly pointed out indirectly, was unsupported). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It is usually attributed to a mixture of land-use practices of local farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as construction of structures by owner William Goodwin in the 1930s." -- this should have a citation. Otherwise the sentence itself violates WP:NPOV. To stand it requires support from Wikipedia:RS. I say this because of the commentary above in this discussion section. It should be fairly easy to provide sources for this sentence if, in fact, it is "usually attributed" as it says. I will return in a few weeks or so -- if the sentence has no citation at that point I will delete it. This provides plenty of time for the sentence to be justified. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on America's Stonehenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726130637/http://granitegeek.org/blog/2006/11/01/locals-like-idea-of-utility-scale-wind-farm/ to http://granitegeek.org/blog/2006/11/01/locals-like-idea-of-utility-scale-wind-farm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site has zero connection to Stonehenge except for an advertising-gimmick renaming. It should not be, for example, part of the Stonehenge template, any more than if I named my mattress storeroom Sleephenge! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I have restored the infobox as it mentions America's Stonehenge in the "Replicas and derivatives" section and America's Stonehenge is also mentioned in the article Stonehenge replicas and derivatives in the "Comparable archaeological sites" section - so whether you like the association or not, it's there - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shouldn't, as this pleasant spot is neither a replica - it's not a henge, it's not made of standing stones - nor is it derivative in the sense of being a prehistoric astronomical construction. It's "Mystery Hill" rebranded for attention, exactly of the sort that the infobox gives it. I don't know how to edit an infobox (life is short!) or I'd remove it from the "replicas and derivates" section, where it does not belong. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hkolyvek (article contribs).