Talk:Stonehenge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stonehenge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 28, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

England Top‑importance

	England portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Top‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Mid‑importance

	museums portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neopaganism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites

	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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Mike Pitts (February 2011). "Digital guides: more work needed". Council for British Archaeology.

Why was Stonehenge constructed?

What was in the mind of them??? 103.54.101.15 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of books and articles debating this subject. No one really knows but we can make some intelligent guesses. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

meep. 209.242.141.143 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could read Theories about Stonehenge? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest remove vandalism reference

Stonehenge has been vandalised many times in the past, generally considerably more significantly eg https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1961/mar/14/stonehenge-defacement and https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/03/21/Stonehenge-scarred-by-graffiti/1863637995600/ (Note second source's mention that on average graffiti artists vandalise these stones about once a decade)

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]

I'm not opposed to a mention of it, but an entire section is highly WP:UNDUE, yes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. WP:NOTNEWS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "marked three standing stones" to "vandalized three standing stones" Marcell.Lovas93 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Vandalized may imply that the stones were damaged, whereas marked is unambiguous. Hypnôs (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request Aug 26 2024

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]

Done: I agree. Sorted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:58, 28 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]

Stonehenge Decoded may be borrowed from the Internet Library, at https://archive.org/details/stonehengedecode00hawk/page/n3/mode/2up , if anyone is sufficiently interested. There is some critical analysis at Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge, though it is poorly cited (specifically regarding the credentials of Atkinson, the main critic). But Hawkin's conjecture regarding the Aubrey Holes has been broken by subsequent archaeology even if the main alignments remain valid. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 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'm happy with that. Any dissent? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:16, 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]

New findings about redstone origin

Hi ! , here are two articles about a recent discovery related to the origin of the redstone :

It can be used as a source for future edits.Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to split this article

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.

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you envisage the split? What remains in the main article - or would be summarised there - and what gets spun off into standalone articles? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. Sending off the "Folklore" section to "cultural depictions of Stonehenge" won't reduce the size appreciably, & I don't see what else you could do. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for the proposal. Could we try to get WP:RECENT events into some sort of proportion at the same time?--AntientNestor (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would split it at Stonehenge#Modern history, since almost everything from that point on was/is speculation and mythology (the subsection Stonehenge#Archaeological research and restoration would go in the scientific section). "In popular culture" is not new: the Arthurian stuff was no better by being old. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems about right: would deal with the WP:RECENT concerns.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic, not Bronze Age

The "quick facts" panel says "Founded Bronze Age". The main text says "Stonehenge was constructed in several phases beginning about 3100 BC". 3100 BC may have been the Bronze Age in the middle east but it certainly wasn't in the British Isles.

86.19.192.41 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic infobox misinformation - changed to "Founded Neolithic and Bronze Age". Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]