Archives:1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 100 days
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Stonehenge was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative Views articles
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)[reply]
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(TalkContribs)21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following sentence should be removed or seriously emended: "Whatever religious, mystical or spiritual elements were central to Stonehenge, its design includes a celestial observatory function, which might have allowed prediction of eclipse, solstice, equinox and other celestial events important to a contemporary religion"
This implies consensus about the "celestial observatory" function of Stonehenge, but all that is cited is Hawkins, GS (1966). Stonehenge Decoded, which as the rest of the article makes clear is far from generally accepted today (Cf. also Encyclopedia Brittanica s.v. Stonehenge, which makes the same point re Hawkins' work). 195.252.220.68 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. I disagree and reverted the deletion pending further discussion. Nothing in the article questions Hawkins's conjecture about the design of the monument. Yes, there are other conjectures about the subsequent funerary use of the site but none that propose alternative theories that explain its multiple astronomical alignments and apparent functions as a lunisolar calendar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conjecture, and the sentence proposed for removal reports it as an unchallenged fact. I'm not going to get into a battle of reversions here, but the OP above is correct - this theory is not universally accepted and we should not present it as such. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkins was a professor of astronomy and I don't see that we can reasonably question his assessment of the astronomical alignments. But maybe we can find a more circumspect way of writing it? How about simply "It is conjectured that the design of the monument included a celestial observatory function, which might have allowed prediction of eclipse, solstice, equinox and other celestial events important to a contemporary religion". (citing Hawkins for the conjecture). Would that be acceptable? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hawkins book is well-known, but even if some of the claims in it are no longer accepted, but that does not justify removing the sentence entirely. It should certainly be rewritten; I would amend JMF's proposal to "It has been conjectured that the design of the monument included a celestial observatory function, which might allow prediction of eclipse, solstice, equinox and other celestial events important to the builders' belief system". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely support that wording, but we should check it in the context of the full paragraph to ensure we don't repeat ourselves too much. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should never have been in that paragraph (about subsequent funerary uses) in the first place. I have removed it but added the compromise sentence to the opening paragraph of the section, which is more about design. I've been bold, of course, since it is easier to discuss an idea in context rather than in isolation. The new sentence makes clear that it is a conjecture and suggested see also Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge goes into more detail. WP:BRD is available if anyone still feels strongly that it is undue. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it has become too long, too unwieldy and has passed the TL;DR point. How about a split between peer-reviewed archaeology (on the one hand) and popular culture (on the other). The latter would include the Arthurian legends etc.
Oppose - I think this is a bad idea. It would likely have the effect that someone with a general interest Stonehenge, but little knowledge, would get diverted to the ‘popular culture’ article, and never find out anything about the real Stonehenge. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Too much weight given to certain aspects of the article, e.g. the recent additions under neopagnism. Disagree that readers will get misdirected to other articles, a search for "Stonehenge" comes to this page, the minutiae and trivia are summarised here with links to relevant articles where they can be explained in detail. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs)19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: Vandalized may imply that the stones were damaged, whereas marked is unambiguous. Hypnôs (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Done: I agree. Sorted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
