Talk:List of archaeoastronomical sites by country

Validity of some content?

There seems to be some changes done to the list under India around 14Dec2010 which has listed some sites which do not (seem to) have an importance in astronomy. The original list seems to consist of Jantar Mantar and Gyarah Sidi both of which are observatories. Does anyone know any particular reason or have verifiable information for the rest of the sites under India? They might be of an archeological importance but not necessarily astronomical/logical importance. Kulendra (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

New Page

The list of archaeoastronomical sites on the main archaeoastronomy page is both a bit cumbersome for the entry and out of date. If the list were properly updated it would be huge, so I've moved it to this new page following the model for List of archaeological sites.

I've merged the Old and New World lists into an alphabetical list as the primary reason for splitting the two would be methodology and that's a bit dated these days. --Alunsalt 08:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate categories?

I've removed this page from the astrology category. Most of the sites might have astrological significance, but there no way to verify this. There is no astrological information for prehistoric Europe, nor for North American sites. There is possible data for Mesoamerica, and for Babylon, Historic Europe and China, but not for the sites as a whole.

A suitable solution might be to list individual sites in the Astrology category where there are verifiable connections.

additional details

I have added a few additional details to some of the sites listed. Archaeoastronomy has a bad reputation among some people and it may be partialy justified but not entirely. By providing a few details to the site for each location if it isn't to much it may clarify that these are ligitimate archaeoastronomy sites. If there are some that don't have any explanation as to why they are on the list then they may not belong, but I'm not going to remove any unless I'm sure they don't belong. If anyone else would care to provide brief discriptions please do preferably with sources. I'll check more when I have the time and possibly add a few more details. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Goloring

I think Goloring should be added for Germany but I'm no expert. German.Knowitall (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rujm el Hiri

Rujm el Hiri is not in Israel, but in an area internationally recognized as part of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to this edit, which removed Israel from the article under the misleading edit summary, "Not located in Israel." In fact the reverted edit was careful to indicate that the site is located in the Golan Heights. It is listed under the "Israel" section because this is a scientific article, and scientists in the field of archaeoastronomy should be able to find the site that's now in a territory controlled by Israel in that country's section. Whatever political motives compelled the user to make his edit, they shouldn't take precedence over the purely scientific cause this article exists to advance. The edit in its earlier formulation was neutrally worded and there's no reason not to restore it to the article for the benefit of the scientific community.—Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that edit didn't remove Israel from the article under a misleading edit summary, it removed it under an accurate edit summary. The list has country's where sites are located, and since you added a name of a country where Rujm el Hiri is not located, it was accurate to remove the name of the country where its not located in. Its true that you indicated that its in the GH, but the GH isn't in Israel, so your edit was still inaccurate. Well if its a scientific article, there is no reason to ad inaccuracy's into the article, like listing a place to a country that its not located in, like you did. That seems to be the exact opposite of science, and more in accordance with fiction. Archeological sites in Iraq and Afghanistan are not listed under the Unites States because the US occupies them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How is listing Rujm el-Hiri as being located in Syria (which, for argument's sake I'm not disputing now), when no scientist in the field of archeoastronomy can get to it from Syria, serving the wider interest of the scientific community? My proposal, which left Rujm el-Hiri under "Syria" but also added it to "Israel," is the most practical solution I can think of that still upholds the spirit of WP:NPOV. The article says Rujm el-Hiri is in the Golan Heights, but in addition to listing it under "Syria," also lists it uner "Israel" since that is the name of the country that controls the site today and through which archeoastronomers can access it. Your proposal would have an archeoastronomer fly to Syria thinking that's where Rujm el-Hiri is, only to discover it's actually Israel's on side of the UN's de-facto border.—Biosketch (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The list is for where sites are located, not for who occupies them. The area is internationally recognized as Syria. We can ad a sentence explaining that Israel occupies it. Your suggestion wouldn't "uphold the spirit of WP:NPOV", it woulds straight out violate it as it would claim its in a country its not located in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just have the section title be Golan Heights. If it is necessary to include that Israel controls (occupies) that area, have it say Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories. This really does not have to be this hard. The material shouldnt simply be removed, and it also should not be listed under Israel. nableezy - 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit is counterproductive for two reasons. In the first place, the edit summary provided makes it sound as though the Golan Heights were listed under Israel. That isn't true. There was a link from "Israel" and "Syria" to "Golan Heights" without committing to either disputant's POV that the area is in their territory – per WP:NPOV, which instructs us to edit Wikipedia in a manner that doesn't involve Wikipedia in taking sides. Secondly, the edit replaced the internationally-recognized name of the State of Israel with another name that isn't Israel's neutral designation. I expect the editor who changed Israel's name to something that isn't Israel's name to revert his edit and restore Israel's name to "Israel."—Biosketch (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rujm el hiri was listed to Israel, that is incorrect, thats why the name was corrected, because Rujm el hiri is not in Israel, though it exists in the Israeli-occupied territories. Nowhere in npov does it say we should give a minority believe the same weight as a majority, this has already been discussed before many times and nowhere did you get consensus for your personal believes, and you arent editing other Wikipedia articles about disputed places according to what you want do to here by giving a minority believe the same weight as a majority. Even at this talkpage two editors objected to adding Israel, despite this you ignored what happened in the discussion and added Israel anyway, in straight violation of npov and what has been discussed here at the talkpage. What is also even more disingenuous and sneaky is that you waited several days without saying or doing anything pending the closure of nableezys enforcement, and then as soon as nableezy was topic banned, only a couple hours later, you went right ahead to force your pov into this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell es-Sultan

Tell es-Sultan is the west bank, not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Eagle Rock in Georgia, USA

Should Eagle Rock be added to the list of archeological astronomy sites or is it a different subject matter altogether? 2600:1005:B064:ACD2:0:55:30DB:7E01 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

AngelaD65 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)