Talk:Pedra da Gávea

Untitled

I don't understand -- is the inscription in letters of the Phoenician alphabet, or in letters of the Latin alphabet? If in the Phoenician alphabet, then what have professional paleographers said about the purported ancient inscription? If in the Latin alphabet, in exactly the letters given in the article, then there are a lot of linguistic problems... AnonMoos 09:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The inscription is illustrated here. Feel free to add Phoenician character display to the article. As the article says, this is in no means a verified inscription: it's most likely a crude forgery from the 19th century. There don't appear to be any proper archaeological investigations into the site, it makes absolutely no sense for a Phoenician ruler to have been immortalised in this way without clear examples of Phoenician influence in the locality... you may well find the entire inscription in a book collecting (and translating) Phoenician inscriptions known in the early 18th century, if you have time to track down and read such a thing. You might try Wilhelm Gesenius as a starting point. 172.215.44.40 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, "FOENISIAN" is totally and utterly bogus -- the Phoenicians called themselves Kana`nim ("Canaanites"). It was the ancient Greeks who called them Phoinikes ("people of the Palm tree"), and in ancient Greek and Latin "ph" was NOT pronounced as "f", and a "k" sound did not ordinarily become an "s". I'm not sure what language "FOENISIAN" is, but it's not anything that Phonicians would have called themselves, and it's definitely not even ancient at all... AnonMoos 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Taken into account - thankyou. If there's anything else wrong with the translation please do add it to the article, because I don't have a clue about that whole language group. :) 172.215.44.40 07:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's silly what you guys are talking about, trying to overanalyze it. Why can't you admit the obvious? Stop trying to fit in data with your preconceived notions of what the Phoenicians could or couldn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.21.176 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See also pt:Teoria da presença de fenícios no Brasil. --Pdms (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As AnonMoos said, this "inscription theory" is completely and utterly bogus. I mean, Phoenicians were speaking with Portuguese accent or what? Calling themselves "Foenisian", my God... Replacing tsade in the name of Tyre (Tzor or Tzur) by tet and zayin as if they were "transliterating a transliteration"? Writing two alephs where one ayin should be? This is beyond ridiculous and should be mentioned only as a curiosity. It's a pity that such preposterous theories are attributed to an actual archeologist... There is no need to invent a bogus history instead of the actual one. 12.11.149.5 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Some good work here thanks to a hard working editor, but I'm dubious about using Cyclone Covey's self-published book and am not convinced this will do for a GA article. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The book is being sourced to show that other people have proposed (bizarre and probably wrong) ideas about the "inscription". I could try to find a third-party source rebuking what he says, though, to make it clear that his claim is largely scoffed at in the scientific fields. Also, in regards to the GA nomination, do you mean the article as a whole isn't good enough, or just the source?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't really find any other article that backs up his crack-pot theory, so I just removed it. The other crazy ideas are backed up by third-party sources.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Odd story about Covey, he sent an article into Frank Joseph's Ancient American rag and was furious when the editor 'edited' an article by Cyclone Covey to change its meaning. Even the writers of crack-pot stuff are happy to fudge someone else's work. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pedra da Gávea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Image Review (per criteria 6)

• File:Pedra da Gavea proche.jpg - It is listed as public domain and on commons, but the information is written in Portuguese and will require confirmation by translation. Nao fala portugues. Please clarify.

  I will fix this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, it was written in both Portuguese, French, and English. I tidied it up a bit, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Silva Ramos, Pedra da Gavea, interpretation.gif - is given a public domain tag claiming it is 70 years since the death of the author, but no public domain tag explaining its usage with regard to the United States. The book this image is taken from was published in 1932, which would not be public domain in the US. I have to check is this is permissible vis-à-vis the GA criteria. Please clarify.

  Scratch what I last said. I have uploaded a new version of the image onto Wikipedia. In this version, I have corrected the licensing (it is public domain in Brazil, but not in the US) and have argued that the image can and should be used in this article under the proper fair use rationale.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First comments

General comments

• The article needs an intensive copy-edit because of awkward idioms, improper syntax, and sentence constructions. Some of the statements do not flow well in English.
• Check the article for verb tense agreement.

  I'll comb over both of these.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• You have two sections on history--effectively splitting the discussion of history. I would reorganize the article's sections to reflect Geology, History of its discovery/settlement/role in community, The inscription and its analysis, and alternative theories (their statement and refutation).

  I renamed the second "History" to "Timeline" to emphasize that it is focusing on the inscription's history, rather than the mountain itself.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just renaming one of the two history sections doesn't fix the fact that you're splitting historical content that ought to be put into one section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede

• "The rock is composed of gneiss and granite, and due to its position, size and coastal location, as well as the lack of purchase for vegetation."
  • This sentence is either not clear or badly constructed or both.
  • due to its position/size/location/etc...what exactly? Usually if you point out that "due to this" you have to mention the result of those variables.
  • what do you mean by "lack of purchase for vegetation"?

    That was just a bad sentence. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Damage caused to one side of the rock creates the impression of a stylized human face, and erosion on another face has been interpreted as an inscription"
  • Split into two sentences - one focusing on the damage (whatever it is), and the second focusing on the erosion.
  • Damage from what? Mention it. Further, if the damage happened in the past, the sentence should be "has created", not a present tense verb. (especially since the second clause in this sentence uses the "has been interpreted" past tense

    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "This inscription has been claimed by many, including Brazilian archaeologist Bernardo de Azevedo da Silva Ramos, to be of Phoenician origin and to be proof of pre-Columbian contact from the Old World."
  • rephrase: "Several scholars, including Brazilian archaeologist Bernardo de Azevedo da Silva Ramos, have advanced the position that the inscription is of Phoenician origin and possibly proof of pre-Columbian contact from Old World cultures."

    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Other claims have been put forward as well, such as that the rock was a Viking colony or that it is a UFO hotspot."
  • Rephrase..."Alternative theories proposed include that the rock was the site of a Viking colony or that it is connected with suspected UFO activity."

    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "almost unanimously agree" - rephrase that "almost unaminously" - "Geologists and scientists are nearly in agreement that..." or similar.

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "No evidence has ever been garnered" - syntax - no one uses that idiom in English in this context.

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• official archaeology in Brazil - is there an official government office issuing edicts on the subject? or is it just in the academic community? Rephrase it as "the consensus of archaeologists and scholars"

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Geology

• While you mention that the rock is gneiss and granite, you don't sufficiently explore why this is important or unique (the mix of metamorphic and igneous rock), the forces that brought this into creation, when in the geological time this happened, etc. Was this because of tectonic plate movement? volcanism? some prehistoric orogeny? The lack of geological information is very telling--it renders the article skewed (WP:UNDUE) with undue weight toward the inscription and its theory without discussing the topic adequately for its position as a geological feature (this goes right to the 3a criteria on sufficient coverage of major aspects).

  Tracking down this info was a little hard, but I added quite a bit more about its creation. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  I have added even more. How does it look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• If this inscription is due to rain/water erosion/weathering patterns, discussion of these historic/prehistoric weather patterns and analysis should be discussed in geology as well.

  Again, this was hard to find, but I added a bit about it. Most of the references to erosion are vague and simply concluded that it was eroded, without going into great detail.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More to come - awaiting nominator's response to this before proceeding. nominator pinged. @Gen. Quon:--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any remaining issues regarding prose. Thank you for doing a copyedit/revision on the article, and for finding some good geological information.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Review and criteria analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Article's prose is clear and concise, no evidence or indication of copyvio issues, no obvious spelling and grammar issues.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Article complies with the criteria 1b MOS requirements.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Article present a suitable reference section that complies with MOS and citation guidelines.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Article is sufficiently sourced and employs appropriate inline citations.

   C. No original research:

   No evidence or indication of original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article sufficiently addresses the major aspects of the subject.

   B. Focused:

   Article's content is focused and complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article appears neutral as there is no evidence or indication of a bias or POV.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article's history is stable and there is no evidence or indication of content disputes that led to disruptive editwarring

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Article presents two images which are suitably tagged with fair use rationales per the image use policy. One image is non-free content with an appropriate explanation and minimal usage.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are relevant to the article's subject and are suitably captioned per WP:CAPTION.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Promoted to GA

Comments from others

I have no idea how this is supposed to work, I'm just going to comment here: this review is, frankly, a joke. You only have to get as far as the second paragraph to encounter the mangled mess of Differential weathering has caused to one side of the rock has created the impression of a stylized human face. Once you manage to parse that head-scratcher, you come to the geology content of the article. AfadsBad has done a thorough analysis of it. Unlike me, and apparently unlike the editors responsible for this article, AfadsBad actually seems to know something about geology. Reading what he or she has to say about this article, it appears to be little more than word soup. This article should be declassified from being "good" immediately until someone who actually possesses some education in geology has had the chance to fix its numerous glaring factual errors. — Scott • talk 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry Scott, AfadsBad's rant is about as credible as seeking reason in the flailing of a Mantis Shrimp...a lot of misdirected rage and not worth my time or anyone else's. His behavior was rather troll-like and petulant. I recommend he consider therapy for his rage issues because he apparently has severe frustration and stress over his experiences with Wikipedia--most of which was self-inflicted. I addressed your sentence issue...that looks like it was my fault in revising that section myself combined with another editor's attempt to address my comment on that section days ago. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you need to immediately stop making personal attacks. I don't care if you have a prior disagreement with this other user. Either you downgrade this article, or I will shortly do so myself; it is completely unworthy of being described as "good". — Scott • talk 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Woo. Ultimatums. Seems like rage issues and petulance are en vogue anymore. Nothing stopping you, Scott. Enjoy your power-trip.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the next administrator that you encounter to address your obvious conduct problems when interacting with other editors. In the meantime, I am rescinding this article's GA status until its severe issues with factual content are resolved. — Scott • talk 21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Take a chill pill. You aren't that important, so you can come off that pedestal of yours. Such hubris. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to rescind the GA status, you don't just change the talk page because that's consider vandalism or disruptive...you go to WP:GAR. In this case, because it's a contested issue, you apply for a community reassessment. The point of GAR isn't to delist an article, but to bring it up to snuff. So if you think GAR will automatically get you your wish, you are in for a learning experience. The sources that the nominator provided in the article established the material presented. AfadsBad's blog, sadly, is not a reliable source no matter how loud he choses to argue and rant while looking in the windows from outside. If he (or you, by proxy) have other reliable sources that say otherwise, bring them to bear. Unforunately, academic pissing matches are often petty, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. So keep that angry mentality and ultimatums to yourself.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As a coda to this charming little exchange for the sake of future readers, the article was downgraded by fast, unanimous consent based on AfadsBad's concerns and ColonelHenry was strongly warned to refrain from making personal attacks in future. — Scott • talk 23:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Why is [1] being used as a source? It's used as a source for the translation - although I'd rather use it for its suggestion that this is a Victorian hoax. But it's not a source I'd use for anything. Is this really a GA quality source? Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You can add/remove do whatever you think is right. I've pretty much given up on this article after the disastrous GA review and subsequent blog post.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Use this commentary somewhere?

"Nowadays the most famous place in the Phoenician cartography in Brazil is the Pedra da Gavea, in Rio de Janeiro, where there is a supposed Phoenician inscription. Most probably fake or false, the writing is mysterious enough to bring many curious people, especially tourists, to the place, a very scenic spot. The myth of Phoenician origins is a living force in Brazil, and there is little space for scientific contradiction. A whole literature on the topic grows at its own pace, and it does not matter if the supposed Phoenician inscriptions have been demonstrated to be the remains of Masonic dramatizations or just natural rock formations. The same happens in the cases in Piaui and Paraiba (north-north-eastern states of Brazil), where the signature of the Austrian ancient historian Ludwig Schwennhagen provided the necessary support to confirm that there were ruins of Phoenician cities, in a place later called Sete Cidades, a National Park in Piaui which is much visited." [2] Rethinking the Mediterranean' Wendell V. Harris, Oxford University Press. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Geology changes

Here's a "log" of the changes I made to make this more accurate and fix the issues that were present back in the day:

• Completely rewritten. Any mention of a morro has been removed,
• I left the mention of "igneous granite" v. "metamorphic gneiss" so as to differentiate between the two types of stone. Wikipedia is written for laypeople.
• The whole intruded v. intruding snafu has been fixed. That was entirely my bad.
• The bit about weathering and erosion has been tweaked. I left the 'northern side' bit, since the source shows a picture and clearly labels it as "facing south". Thus, it's safe to assume the 'face' is the northern side.
• I conceded in regards to the bit about weathering v. erosion, although that is a stylistic choice, I feel.

Boom.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New page

I made a new page, Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea, so that undue weight is not being given on this page to the (pseudo)archaeology.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Great idea. I've added {{copied}} to the talk page for attribution.  — Scott • talk 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)