Talk:Stonehenge

1. REDIRECT Template:Press

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)

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

Latest research

Probably also noted by others, but anyway: Scientists think they know why Stonehenge was rebuilt thousands of years ago. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Another Mike Parker Pearson theory? Could be added to Theories about Stonehenge. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous ISBN

Please note that the correct ISBN for Patricia Southern's book The Story of Stonehenge (2014) is 978-1-4456-1900-2; the mentioned ISBN doesn't exist. Thank you! — Ar choler (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's the link. The ISBN in the article is correct. AntientNestor (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Data and information visualization

Interesting thought. Should the article include some sort of reference to Data and information visualization. The solar alignments have been shown. The lunar alignments presented. There are constellational/cosmological presentations.

Have to be careful to separate from Astrological and other pseudoscience. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Stonehenge disappearances

(Moved from User Talk:Suriname0. I (Suriname0) reverted the addition of a section on the 1971 disappearance of five teenagers in Template:Diff2.)

I see that you removed my video source that showed written information about the disappearance. Do you of a better source that I could use? If so please let me know. It has been published in this wiki: https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Disappearance_of_the_Stonehenge_Hippies. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed it because I went looking and couldn't find a better source! Probably a good sign we shouldn't cover the information on Wikipedia, since it hasn't been published in a reliable source. An editor with access to the British Newspaper Archive might be able to check for contemporaneous reporting. Suriname0 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if verified, it has no relevance to the monument and shouldn't be here. See WP:HTRIV.--AntientNestor (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It should go without saying that wikis in general, being user-editable, are not reliable sources. Creepypasta is, by definition, a collection of urban legends and otherwise unverifiable material. If you cant find an actual contemporary news source (for instance through the British Newspaper Archive) then I think it's highly likely that it never happened. Please apply a little critical thinking before rushing to write an entire paragraph on something whose authority is about the same level as 'some guy in the pub told me'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the insertion is also a violation of copyright, being taken verbatim from the creepypasta wiki. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

New paper on Anglo-Saxon stone henge=

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-medieval-england-and-its-n/article/anglosaxon-stonehenge/DEB21B1A256727875B07F5782D64934C

In particular it provides a much greater range for that beheaded saxon "on its own, covering a broad range between the last three decades of the seventh century and the end of the ninth century"

Unfortunately I can't immediately get my hands on the sources it cites.©Geni (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)