Talk:Carved stone balls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old

in See Also section dodecaheder should be dodecahedra John McKay66.130.161.181 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 66.130.161.181 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean up, anyone?

From the same section:

"The lack of balls found in graves may indicate that they were not considered to belong to individuals."

"explaining why so many have been found in tombs."

24.130.199.233 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"I've removed the latter of the two edits above as, although cited, the source didn't mention CSB's so far as I could see, nor state that "many have been found in tombs". Ben MacDui 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"some of the Platonic solids do not appear"?

They do: see Paul Bourke's page. I don't know whether that picture can be used here. Rp (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Read The Scottish Solids Hoax - the picture at Paul Bourke's page appears to be both manipulated and manipulative (but no doubt reproduced in good faith)!--Nø (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you, but that page appears to overstate its case. First, it doesn't show evidence of any hoax; second, it doesn't show that the picture was manipulated; third, it doesn't show that any of the Pythagorean solids are 'missing' (i.e. that no ball with 20 regularly placed knobs has been found - there are in fact a few balls with 20 knobs). It shows that the balls on display aren't those presently on display at the Ashmolean Museum (there are pictures of the balls at the Hunterian Museum online), and that there is no evidence that any of these balls were intended as models of the Platonic solids, but that is already made clear in this article. Rp (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Celtic name for carved stone balls

what is the celtic name for carved stone balls.

Nobody knows, and they seem to long precede the Celtic languages where they were made. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Could stone balls be symbolic of a growing fetus?

The stone balls look like they are a symbol for life, kind of like an egg during Easter. The stone ball could be symbolic for the growing fetus, as it fertilizes and develops to the many cells that form the human body. 123.122.22.65 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Right to speak objects

This article speculates that these balls could have been used as "right to speak" objects. The talking stick describes another type of "right to speak" objects. Which Wikipedia article should this article link to for more information about such objects? --DavidCary (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Norway

A statement about one carved stone ball being found in Norway was recently added and reverted. Here's a source (in Norwegian): [1] It certainly looks like a close relation to the ones from Scotland, though the article also menitions speculations it may be a Vikgin amulet.--Nø (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"You don't say"

.. is not a valid explanation for a revert. The caption suggests that the image is the actual ball. It isn't. Thus the additional information. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously no image "is the actual ball". If you are confused about this you are in a minority. Obvious photos and obvious line graphics do not need this pointing out. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to make a subjective judgement on what you may or may not think I may or may not be "confused" about. Nor assumptions on what you think I may or may not be in a "minority" about - not without a peer-reviewed study of what you are claiming. Otherwise, you are just opining and attempting to belittle, for some unclear reason. At least, that's how it appears...

Both your responses to my edits thus far have been very definitely bordering on the condescending and therefore insulting:

Unhelpful sarcasm with your first revert "you don't say!"

I'm not sure what you mean about "no image is the actual ball". Unless you're quibbling over existentialism, I suggest that it is clear that there is a distinction between a photograph of an actual object, and an illustration or other representation of an object. It is certainly understood that a virtual digital screen cannot possibly contain an actual object. I can only conclude that you are being facetious, and therefore condescending.

This saddens me as it now means that I am making a third attempt, and wasting more of my time (although, hey - perhaps a lot of us have a lot more time on our hands at the minute), to elucidate a very minor part of a minor article of a minor subject.

It seems hardly worth the effort. Except that, I have to disclose full honesty, the air of condescension I got from you has particularly made my sphincter clench.

However, let me be as clear, fair and efficient in response to your revealed concerns about my simple edit. I shall try to take them at face value for, if nothing else, at least humourous reasons.

• "No image is the actual ball". Perhaps I should have been more exact: the caption suggests that the image is an image of the actual ball. On closer examination, I came to realise that the image is, in fact, an illustration of the subject, and not a photograph of the subject itself.
• I considered it appropriate to point that out - especially in light of the fact that, looking at the image on my small hand-held electronic device, I was initially unsure.
• Considering I have impaired vision, I thought it an even better reason to make my appropriate edit.
• Again, I am not "confused" with regard to whether or not an electronic display can actually physically present me with the actual petrosphere from Towie, as I'm pretty sure we haven't invented technology yet which can transport physical objects to our screens. Of course, I don't think I'm in any kind of minority with that thinking. Your suggestion to the contrary may be a little biased, based on what ever motivation you may have for blocking the edit. Perhaps you like to afford ambiguity to illustrations because you're a fan of art or graphic design?
• I, on the other hand, am free of such bias, and merely would like other people to realise instantly that the tiny image on their screen is, in fact, an artist rendition, rather than the real thing. Oh, sorry - rather than an actual photograph of the actual object.
• You state "obvious photos" and obvious "line graphics" (an interesting choice of phrase) need not be pointed out. However, you're making an assumption that this particular image is obviously not a photo. I would tend to disagree, as I've discussed. A fair mind might think, "Well, if even one person has any kind of doubt as to whether the image is a photograph or an illustration, then maybe we should make it clear!" Apparently though, you have a different thought process to that.
• Your last edit summary from your last revert of my edit pointed to a Wikipedia advisory essay. So let's now examine that...

Your argument in your edit summary comment, although you didn't mention it in this discussion, seems to suggest that a caption needs to be "terse". The article or essay doesn't actually specifically use the word 'terse'. However, let's not quibble over semantics and let's assume you're referring to the idea that captions should be "succinct", according to the essay. I can certainly understand this. Of course, 'succinct' may be a subjective term. Someone may, for example, consider this response to you as being succinct. I don't! But someone else might!

So I suggest to you that we examine that angle. Here are the two different versions of the text in the caption. The top one is the original, the second one is my edit.

• The exceptionally elaborately decorated ball from Towie in Aberdeenshire, dated from 3200–2500 BC[1]
• The exceptionally elaborately decorated ball, illustrated above, is from Towie in Aberdeenshire, dated from 3200–2500 BC[1]

Here is a compromise proposal, which might suit your apparent sensitivity to succinctness (perhaps well considered sensitivity - who can tell?):

• Illustration of an exceptionally elaborately decorated ball from Towie in Aberdeenshire, dated from 3200–2500 BC[1]

I think that's at least ten characters shorter than my previous effort at improvement of Wikipedia.

It is still longer than the original which, of course, you shortened by removing the grammatically awkward definite article. However, I will point out to you the following from the WP guideline that perhaps also go some way to support my perspective.

• A caption may be a few words or several sentences.

• ..captions [..] should be succinct and informative.

• Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject. What the picture is is important, too.

• "Succinctness" [..] is not the same as "brevity",

• While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial ("People playing Monopoly"), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image

• The guide suggests the possibility of adding a colon instead. So I'll offer an alternative edit below.

• As the image is a work of art, there is the suggestion that the artist and date should also be included. However, from what I can see, there is no information available for the artist. Certainly a rough decade could probably be included. The medium is also usually described. I'm assuming this is pencil.

The guide mentions the image's description page. However, as I recall, the fact that the image is an illustration and not a photograph is not immediately apparent in that page either. There aren't even any categories which refer to the image as an illustration, or as a photograph.

Here is my suggestion making use of the colon

• Illustration: exceptionally elaborately decorated ball from Towie in Aberdeenshire, dated from 3200–2500 BC[1]

In conclusion, I do hope I've offered some alternative options here, and examined any problem you may have considered, fully. Over to you. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Israeli Archaeologists Solve Mystery of Prehistoric Stone Balls" says Haaretz

I can't read the article.[2] but I can see that it does claim they were used for 2 million years. And see[3]

The original article is at [4]. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

These are not the kind discussed in this article. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, still interesting though. Although I guess you could say it's not about this article, so go ahead and delete it this thread. I was planning to add it to the wikiproject anyway. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No need to delete it here - it could make a different article, or perhaps a "not to be confused with" type addition here - we already have the Costa Rican ones. At some point this article could need a disam title, but not yet I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)