Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Surprised? Consensus is not a votecount. Please see my closing rationale on the talk page before you flame me on my birthday. Thanks. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megalithic geometry

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Megalithic geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This was previously deleted in Nov 2007, following a discussion centering on whether (a) the theory itself was 'notable' and/or (b) whether possible merge targets might be. In the end, the merge targets were unavailable or deleted, and so the AfD was also a delete. The article was recreated, with substantial increases in content and referencing, but subsequently WP:CSD#G4'd. Following a reasonable request (from the author) at DRV, and the "substantially identical" requirement in G4 which this article clears the hurdle of, I've restored it, so you now have before you the new version of the article to consider. Abstain myself, but you might study the prior AfD for starting points. Splash - tk 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


One of the main issues I think is that this article deals with a one-man theory. In my eyes this is not completely true for it involves Xavier Guichard, the 'inventor' (discoverer) of Salt lines, Scottish professor Alexander Thom, the discoverer of the Megalithic Yard, Alan Butler, the discoverer of the Megalithic Geometry (the one who claims to have understood the connections between Thom and Guichard), Christopher Knight, Butler's fellow writer in 3 books, Robert Lomas, Knight's fellow writer in a book dealing with the Megalithic pendulum and Megalithic geometry ('Uriel's Machine') and Sylvain Tristan, the French author who claims that most ancient capitals are located on Salt Lines and who went further into the investigation of this so-called 'Megalithic geometry.' So the theory seems to involve at least six people from three countries (France, England and Scotland). I included all the references in the article. What is more, Alan Butler is a quite famous, prolific English writer and a professional writer I think (which means he makes a living out of his writing, something rare enough to be included in Wiki in my humble opinion, but the article was deleted as well). Here's the (unfinished) bibliography that I had added in the 'Alan Butler' article:

    • Butler, Alan and Stephen Dafoe. The Warriors and the Bankers: A History of the Knights Templar from 1307 to the present. London: Templar Books, 1998. ISBN-10: 0968356729
    • Butler, Alan. The Bronze Age Computer Disc. London: Quantum Books, 1999. ISBN 0-572-02217-4
    • Butler, Alan and Stephen Dafoe. The Templar Continuum. London: Templar Books, 2000. ISBN-10: 0968356761
    • Butler, Alan. The Goddess, the Grail and the Lodge. London: O Books, 2004. ISBN-10: 1903816696
    • Butler, Alan and Christopher Knight. Civilization One: Uncovering the Super-science of Prehistory: The World Is Not as You Thought It Was . London : Watkins, 2004. ISBN-10: 1842930958 and ISBN-13: 978-1842930953
    • Butler, Alan and Christopher Knight. Who Built the Moon? London: Watkins, 2005. ISBN-10: 1842931636
    • Butler, Alan. The Virgin And the Pentacle: The Freemasonic Plot to Destroy the Church. London: O Books, 2005. ISBN-10: 1905047320
    • Butler, Alan and John Ritchie. Rosslyn Revealed: A Library in Stone. London: O Books, 2006. ISBN-10: 1905047924
    • Butler, Alan. Sheep: The Remarkable Story of the Humble Animal that Built the Modern World. London: O Books, 2006. ISBN-10: 1905047681
    • Butler, Alan and Stephen Dafoe. The Knights Templar Revealed.agpie Books, 2006. ASIN: B000OHHNJ0
    • Butler, Alan and Christopher Knight. Solomon's Power Brokers: The Secrets of Freemasonry, the Church, and the Illuminati. London: Watkins, 2007. ISBN-10: 1842931687

Finally, I think that this theory is widespread enough (and notable enough, having been heard of in such well-known papers like the Times and the Guardian, to deserve objective treatment in Wiki. --Little sawyer (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(An answer to Angus) Let me tell you why I have a slightly different opinion. I’ve read hundreds of books in my life, dealing with hosts of different topics, and many of which dealing with bizarre theories. My humble opinion is that most of these theories are crap or pseudo-science indeed (not to mention the loads of loony theories you can come across the web nowadays). But I do have the feeling that here we’re dealing with something slightly different. Not only do these theories involve different researchers working in three different countries, but also there seems to be too many ‘coincidences’ that are apparently difficult to explain with chance only. Let me give you a few examples. The 366 degrees are claimed to be derived from a 366-day calendar (the Phaistos Disc), and later this geometry would have been simplified into 360 degrees for easier computation. That seems to make some sort of sense. What is more the 366 degrees are echoed by the 366 Megalithic yards that form the Megalithic second (with a staggering accuracy). The 40-year cycles of the calendar (hence 366 days times 40 = 14,640 days) are echoed by Thom’s claim that the yard was divided into 40 inches rather than any other number (hence there were 366 yards times 40 inches = 14,640 Megalithic inches to the Megalithic second). One last example – the Minoans are known to have used a unit today called the Minoan foot, and that foot is exactly one 1000th of a Megalithic second (the Minoans, of course, are the ones who made the Phaistos Disc). Again, I may be wrong of course, but my feeling is that what we have here doesn’t seem to belong to the run-of-the-mill pseudo-science that spawns on the web.--Little sawyer (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect- Regardless of how famous the author is, or how prolific his writing, this is a fringe-theory that has no scientific support. At best, it deserves a few paragraphs in the article about the author. And, even if the article is kept, it would need a significant rewrite to read as an encyclopedic article. Right now, it sounds more like a persuasive essay attempting to convince us of the validity of this research. -- Kesh (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to edit the article. Two heads are better than one. --Little sawyer (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I curiously find myself having some sympathy with your view that all this could be a huge real-world hoax, but on second thoughts I think there are just too many books about it and I don't really see what the authors would be after. But interesting thought all the same. --Little sawyer (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Alan Butler/Rename 'Alan Butler' and trim appropriately. As a 'discovery' it's fringe/pseudo- science, but if the author is notable (at a glance, I'd suppose he is) a mention of this at his page would be appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alan Butler's article has also been deleted and recreated and deleted several times; see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Butler. The most recently deleted version was sourced only to the many publications of Butler himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to comment on the notability of Butler, I'm not well informed enough (and frankly don't care to be). If the article exists at some appropriate point, this content could be merged there. If that article is deleted for WP:N, that's fine too. I'm sure that if at some point the community was to accept an article on Butler as notable, content from this soon-to-be-deleted article could be retrieved by some admin for addition to that hypothetical article. Regardless, I don't think the content is important enough to justify its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand the general attitude. No one talks about the numbers, no one explains why everything works so well. Not only did I write the article in detail, summing up an apparently sound theory involving SIX men (again, NOT ONE man), so I think it would be fair for anyone to discuss the numbers before deleting it. What is more at least two of you are from California and, although I have nothing against the sunshine state, I understand that this British ancient history might be the last of your concern but here in Europe this theory is taken a bit more seriously I think. One more thing, En.Wiki is international, and there is nothing so great as universal knowledge, it is just sad to see so many quickly-written 'delete' by just the few same persons who initially voted for the deletion. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet and it would be sad to delete something like that just because it is not the personal interest of a handful of Wiki admins. Or at least please prove the numbers wrong because as far as I'm concerned I can't, and so far no one (except for Arthur Rubin, but timidly so) has even cared to discuss them. Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked, in the talk page of one of the deleted articles, whether analysis was done of 366 vs. 360, and did not receive a reply. In fact, I noticed even we mention Tristan moved Alesia away from its (now verified, although it wasn't in his time) archaeological location. That makes the coincidence (if any) rather weak, at best. And it's not 6 men. Only Tristan and Butler appear to be the people working in the field, and they have different analyses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one talks about the numbers because it's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia inclusion. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arthur Rubin, if there are several people publishing books on it, its notable enough to have an article. That the article lacks coherence is because the subject is an incoherent collection of nonsense, but that doesnt make it un-notable. DGG (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Arthur Rubin's recommendation was "Weak delete"!  --Lambiam 07:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And several is awfully close to one in this case :o) Guy (Help!) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Arthur's conclusion was weak delete. But his argument , however, gave good reasons for keeping it--on the basis of books being published about it by more than one person. the books about it do not agree with each other, but that doe not make the concept non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
A collective answer to everybody: I don't really understand what's going on here, honestly. In my view Wikipedia's aim is to describe objectively checkable facts that have reached a certain notability level, thus providing general information to the public about things that are known to exist in this world. I don't think it should be a pseudo-democratic debate held by a handful of people when there are billions of people living on the planet, otherwise it would be considered as a sort of tyranny, wouldn't it?
a) First of all, the research presented here is notable enough, according to one of you (DGG), for it relies on published material.
b)My writing of the article might not be good enough to suit all the Wiki conditions, but so far NO ONE has been able to show demonstratively that any of the figures might be wrong. So, until proved otherwise, what we have here is one of the greatest mysteries of all times, and that alone would be almost enough to warrant treatment in Wiki, in my opinion.
c) The debate has focused on very simple terms, i.e. notability, and a bit of mathematics, but NEVER on historical grouds. Again, in my view, the chronology presented by the Megalithic geometry authors shows no obvious flaw, so again, on what grounds should it be deleted just because five or six people say so without giving any solid arguments, may I politely ask?
d) Again, I have to stress that there are SIX men involved:
1) Xavier Guichard discovered the Salt Lines, whiich he thought was a geometric system working w/ 360 degrees, but he himself admitted the interval between the lines was too small (which is normal if there indeed were 366 degrees). What is more he was notable enough to have a Wiki article long before this debate started (not my article in the first place).
2) Alexander Thom is probably the most notable of the bunch. He clearly devoted his life to show that the Megalithic people used units of measurements and that they were in their way geometric 'experts' (see all his books dealing with the geometric structure of stone circles in Britain). He might have been wrong, of course, but this is not really the issue here.
3) No need to come back to Butler, who is obviously central to the theory.
4) Christopher Knight has coauthored three books with Butler, and clearly endorses the Megalithic geometry theories.
5) So does Robert Lomas, who in 'Uriel's Machine' clearly endorses them too, the book being devoted to the astronomic capabilities of the Megalithic people, with a full discussion of the Megalithic pendulum.
6) No need to come back to Tristan, who is central to the theory too. He clearly endorses the Megalithic geometry and went on writing a full book about how all the ancient capitals align on the Salt Lines.
Now, even if only one man was involved instead of 6, which is not the case, it wouldn't necessarily mean the article should be thrown away. Some great theories have been ultimately vindicated throughout history and at the beginning they were held by a single man.
e) To finish with this too-long-already note, let me put it this way: by deleting this article, aren't we running the risk of weakening Wikipedia itself, which is supposed to be an easy source for universal knowledge? These books exist, like it or not, and so far I don't see anyone constructively arguing against it half less than I do for maintainaing it. I'm not trying to force my article, just giving you food for thought.--Little sawyer (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) One last thing, please feel free to edit the article to make it as objective as it should be, I did my best, but I'm far from being perfect.--Little sawyer (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For inclusion of the material in Wikipedia, it is immaterial whether the theory accurately explains many otherwise great mysteries, or is complete hogwash that does not explain anything. It is also irrelevant on the shoulders of how many great people the authors of the theory have stood. What is important is notability. Has the theory been reported on by multiple and independent WP:reliable sources? Butler and Tristan do not count. Thom has written on the MY but is wholly innocent of this 366-based geometry. There are also the Wikipedia guidelines for fringe theories. To properly report on this theory, we also need sources that offer a critical discussion of the theory – which should not be hard to find if it is truly notable.  --Lambiam 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is that I'd love to discuss its historical basis and how much explanatory power it has, but the WP guidelines are about notability and other concepts, not these scientific reasons. Now I tend to think the science in the articles is bad as well, but it would be great if it could be discussed on that basis. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'It's not science.' Right. But suppose Alan Butler and all the rest of them were right. Then you will have deleted something of primary imterest about our history. Isn't it more logical for you to edit the article so it meets all Wiki requirements of objectivity? Right or wrong, these theories DO exist, that's what I've been trying to say from the very beginning. This is an inevitable fact, isn't it? You can delete a Wiki article without even discussing it apparently, but you can't delete reality. --Little sawyer (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) By the way you've written two lines on this page only (as compared to 108 as far as I'm concerned). It is very easy to write 'it is not science,' it is much harder to explain why, and even harder to demonstrate why. Why don't you at the very least discuss the subject in detail (historical aspects, mathematical aspects, and so on)? --Little sawyer (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It exists" is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article on the subject. THe subject must meed our notability guidelines, and we're not seeing it here. -- Kesh (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, there are not so many independant sources dealing with Meg. geometry. I could find those though:
1-The Guardian, Peer review of 'Who Built the Moon?' by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler Paul Nettleton, Thursday September 1 2005
2-The Times (precited)
3-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, 1974
4-'Megalithic geometry' (about Thom) in 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
5-'Megalithic triangles' (about Thom too), Based on the article by M. Beech, Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 20 (3), 1988.
6-Megalithic Science and Geometry, http://www.geocities.com/sk8agrrl/science.htm
7-Alexander Thom, "Megalithic Geometry in Standing Stones", New Scientist, March 12, 1964
8- Radio Iciet Mainetnant, interview of Sylvain Tristan "Les Lignes d'Or" - L'Histoire du Monde : des histoires trafiquées ? - (25.07.05) - 5h.mp3, http://icietmaintenant.info/emissions.php?idNouvelle=16
9-'SacreePlanate' (French magazine), interview of Sylvain Tristan, Aug-Sept. 2007
Little sawyer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up a few of the publications with "Megalithic Geometry" in the title, which were mostly related to Thom's reserach, and they use the term "megalithic geometry" in a very different sense than the article. The issue treated there is: what geometrical construction method was used to created the circular or elliptical arrangements of stones, like was it that with a loop of chord around two poles moved around while being kept taut, or some other method. 85.107.0.106 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you are but you're absolutely correct. Thom never imagined, apparently, that the Megalithic people could have used a 366-degree circle. However, Thom was one of the first to suggest the Megalithic people could have been cognizant with some form of geometric knowledge that they used when building their arrangements, and he based his theory on this precept. I agree that my article doesn't stress that clearly enough, that's why I asked if someone could edit it (you could do it, for example?). The title of the article is 'Megalithic Geometry,' not '366-degree geometry,' so I think that the article could be slightly rewritten to include Thom's research as well, all the more so because Butler includes the Megalithic yard in his theory.--Little sawyer (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I've now started to edit the article myself, giving more details about what Thom considered as 'Megalithic geometry.'--Little sawyer (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, except for Arthur Rubin's short analysis of the figures, none of you has been able to offer any counterargument to the theory. No one has even tried to edit the article (for example by giving a few more details on Thom's findings). I had the intimate gut feeling the theory was unassailable. Now the feeling has grown. This complete lack of arguments confirms only one thing - it proves the theory right. --Little sawyer (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of what we're doing here: our purpose in AfD is not to argue about the theory itself. All we're trying to determine is if we should keep or delete the article based on Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this quite well. the only thing is that some comments include sentences such as 'it's not science,' without saying why it is not. I take note of Guy's comments that the discussion of figures is not relevant. --Little sawyer (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, discussion of the figures is irrelevant here, except to the extent they show mistakes indicating lack of scientific review. If the figures are correct, they should be noted outside the walled garden, and some (modern) analysis could be done to determine which of the numbers from (say) 350 to 370 would best fit the observed ancient site locations. If that had been done, I'd consider the results notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally decided to edit a full paragraph describing what Thom considered as 'Megalithic geometry.' Although this geometry was not regarded by Thom as literally being 366-degree geometry (he apparently never imagined anything like that), Thom was convinced the Megalithic people had astronomical and geometric knowledge and that they used it in their stone structures. As what Butler seems to have discovered is obviously related to the Earth's geometry and to the Megalithic people's stone circles, and as the Megalithic yard is part of Butler's theory (one 366th of an arcsecond), I now believe the connection between Thom and Butler is sort of inevitable.--Little sawyer (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megalithic_geometry_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144626072"