Talk:Ley line

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ley line. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ley line at the Reference desk.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views

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

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

Archives

Omission of origin[edit]

Why isn’t ancient Egypt referenced in this article? This is an ancient Egyptian concept; it is a fallacy to state its ancient European in its origin l. Purocaribe (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Purocaribe: because there are no sources meeting WP:RS. The sources I've seen are all fringe. If you have some good academic sources, bring them here. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what they believe, than shouldn't the article at least state the fact that this is what is commonly believed among proponents? I could see the claim that it was actually derived from Ancient Egypt needing academic sources, but are those really necessary just to state that the Egyptian origin is one of the widely held beliefs?

Idumea47b (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Including section about pop culture or fiction?[edit]

Considering the popularity of the idea in fiction I think it's deserving of mention. To my knowledge it's used in a good handful of novels as a supernatural means of transportation, among other things. As a trope within literature and video games I think it's had a significant influence. Learncraft (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communiy comes before a magazine[edit]

" Michell's publications were accompanied by the launch of the Ley Hunter magazine and the appearance of a ley hunter community keen to identify ley lines across the British landscape." I have never yet heard of a magazine being launched prior to the appearance of reader base. Usually a community of interested people forms and a magazine is created to target and serve that group. Simply changing the order of the second sentence would improve it greatly. I think it probable that such a community existed even before Mitchell's book, and the interest simply spread more widely after the book, culminating in the publication of a magazine to serve the swelling community.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance of pizza map[edit]

I love the map showing an alignment of pizza restaurants, however, is there any provenance for this? Otherwise would it count as original research? I think it's good to have it included, but some sort of reference would be great here. It's discussed in some archived chat, but with no reference to dataset etc.

Orbific (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim[edit]

Somehow I reverted this edit by User:Skyerise when I just wanted to remove the word "intentionally" inserted earlier by User:Leutha. I don't know how exactly this happened, but afterwards I intended to revert those removals of "claim" too, then noticed I had already done it with the first edit, without explaining it in the edit summary. So, I'll explain here.

"Intentionally" is original research. The ley lines fans may sometimes say it was intentional, but usually the just point at it and goggle.

"Claim" is not a word to always delete, it is just a word to watch. WP:CLAIM says, To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, and that is exactly what should be done here. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "claim" is simple, it the source cited calls it a "claim", then we can call it a claim. We cannot, as editors, introduce the word "claim" where the source doesn't use it. You will find I did not remove every instance, because in some cases it is in the source. The article already clearly states it is pseudoscience, so there is no good reason to use "claim" except where a source does. Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a much better reason than the one given in the edit summary. But "not an improvement" is an even worse edit summary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my edit summaries can be vague or cryptic. But I'm actually generating content so please forgive me. I only came by here due to the fact that I was writing an article on the album Leylines... Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]