Talk:Ancient mysteries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Easter Island 2 Stonehenge 3 Troy 4 Potential candidate for deletion 5 Folklore and legends are part of cultural anthropology 6 Ys 7 Definition 7.1 Article is defined properly and is legitimate 8 Proposal - convert this article into a category 9 Removal of non-mysteries 10 Dispute about possible copyright violation

[edit] Easter Island

Why are the Easter Island Statues included in this list? What is the current mystery surrounding them? Easter Island's archaeology has been studied at length and much has been put forward. To89o8o89hese statues may have been a mystery 100 years ago, but I think they can now be removed iiom the list. If anyone has any reason to keep them on this list, please post below. --Dumbo1 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stonehenge

Why is Stonehenge included in this list? I understand that we may not know too much about Stonehenge, but that goes for almost all pre-historic sites. In which case I would argue that we either include lots of stone circles and henge monuments, or none of them. Any comments? --Dumbo1 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stonehenge remains on the list because there are many open questions about it as the main entry on Stonehenge in Wikipedia discusses. In answer to the question of why not include all henges, etc. that have mysteries surrounding them, that obviously would not be practical and Stonehenge is included because it is the largest and most famous. John1014 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troy

why is troy on the list? We found it. case closed i second the above stonehenge and easter island there are some questions remaining but no real mysteries

Easter Island and Troy have been removed from the list. --John1014 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a section "solved mysteries" and put them there? Peter S. 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The "solved mysteries" section sounds like a good idea to me with the exception of Stonehenge. I think it should remain listed as a mystery since there are still many unanswered questions concerning it. --The Templar 20:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A rename to "Subjects Popularly Considered Ancient Mysteries" might allow us to keep things such as Easter Island, Stonehenge etc., since while we recognize that they perhaps might not still qualify as such, the History Channel does not agree with us, and that seems to be where many people get their ideas about "ancient mysteries."  :P --TurabianNights 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential candidate for deletion

I've tried to edit this article a bit, but it still bothers me. Is there anything really encyclopedic here? Ultimately, it seems to be nothing but a list of self-proclaimed "ancient mysteries" out of a pseudohistory book. --Elonka 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folklore and legends are part of cultural anthropology

The entries I've made in the article are not pseudo-history but involve folklore and historical questions. No claims of "magic" or the supernatural have been made by me. Folklore is an academic discipline, often under cultural anthropology, and legends are part of folklore. Read my entires carefully and you will find no claims of the extraordinary other than stating belief by the "folk." I am reverting the edit by Elonka because the focus of the piece should be on folklore and legends which by nature involve the mysterious and they are perfectly justified under a folkloric or phenomenological approach. John1014 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You reverted all of my edits? I can see disagreeing with some, but a wholescale revert strikes me as bad faith (see WP:FAITH). Please also read WP:OWN. --Elonka 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted only your most recent edit, which was panoramic and changed the entire meaning of the article. I do not claim ownership but your edit changed the entire tenor of the piece. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the history. John1014 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe we both have the goal to craft something good here, why don't you add that there is a fair amount of historical revisionism and sloppy research that results in unsubstantiated claims in pulp literature, or something to that effect, but don't equate folklore and legends with pseudo-history. In fact, I think it would be a good addition as a section in the article. John1014 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One final thought, I am amused that you accuse me of bad faith when you go in and completely change the direction of the article with your repeated assertions of "pseudohistory" (sic), "fraudulent claims," and "hoaxes" (which as I have explained are completely non-applicable) and then suggest it should possibly be deleted. How about NPOV? John1014 08:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ys

Hi. There could be a mention about Ys a city/realm engulfed by the sea, in Breton legends (a celtic legend). A Japanese video game have been _very loosely_ inspired by this legend.

[edit] Definition

It strikes me that this article lacks definition. As it stands, the article asserts, "They [ancient mysteries] can include artifacts, structures, sites, or people with which mysterious events are associated. The ancient mystery can be how the object or site came to be, its mysterious properties, what has become of it, or other open historical questions." As it stands, this definition applies to essentially all archaeological sites, most pre-historic monuments, and a great many other things. There are persistant questions about almost all artifacts/sites/structures of a great age. When do those questions constitute 'mysteries'? Also, when is a given subject sufficiently 'ancient' to meet these criteria? Bérenger Saunière is a late 19th/early 20th century priest! He's not ancient by an streatch of the imagination. Granted, he is eledgedly related to the activities of a supposedly ancient/mysterious (but probably fraudulent) group, but that hardly makes him an ancient mystery!

It seems to me that this is not a list of "ancient mysteries" (whatever that means) so much as it is a catalogue of historical/archaeological artifacts, topics, sites, & structures that frequenly attract occultist and/or pseudo-scientific specuation. I do NOT mean to desparage the topics in question catagorically. Many are legitimate and interesting objects of historical study. The rest are at least interesting as modern cultural/social phenomena when studied anthropologically. The subjects listed are not themselves "Bad," but they do tend to attract bad scholarship because of their percieved "esoteric" cultural cache.

With all this in mind, I propose that some change in the article as it stands is need. It should either be:

A) Retitled/redefined within the article to reflect the actual selecting criteria being used (not 'ancientness' or 'mysteriousness' but rather association with esoteric theories/beliefs). Something along the lines of "Legitimate areas of study which are frequently subjected to bad methodology" or "Sites/Beliefs/Objects frequently associated with the esoteric" but less cumbersome.

B) Merged with the Pseudoarchaeology & History articles

C) Deleted

These are of course not the only possibilities, they are simply the ones that have occured to me. As it stands the pseudoarchaeology article needs some editing anyway, which I may go do. Regardless, I will wait several days for replys. If none are forthcomming I will proceed as I think best.

--Dunraven 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is defined properly and is legitimate

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. As has been stated above, the study of folklore; which includes cultural anthropology, history, archaeology, legend, and mythology; is a completely legitimate academic endeavor. In fact, in many universities it is taught by an interdisciplinary faculty from these various disciplines. I also cite as examples two books, both of which have university faculty as authors, and both use either the term "ancient mysteries" or the words "ancient" and "mysteries" in their titles. These books are Ancient Mysteries by Peter James and Dr. Nick Thorpe ISBN: 0345434889 and The Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World: Unlocking the Secrets of Past Civilizations by Prof. Brian M. Fagan ISBN: 0500510504. Dr. Thorpe is part of the archaeology faculty at King Alfred's College, Winchester and Dr. Fagan is Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here are SOME of the topics these books cover: King Arthur and the Holy Grail, the story of Atlantis, Garden of Eden, Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, the Nazca lines, the Maya, Robin Hood, etc. As to mentioning people like Sauniere, it's their connection to ancient mysteries that make them relevant. I feel the article is completely legitimate and should remain as it is. --The Templar 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)l

I have read Peter James and Dr. Nick Thorpe's book three times, enjoyed it thoroughly each time, and have no doubts as to its strength. However, to the best of my memory (admittedly I do not have the book with me at this location) the standard for inclusion in the book is essentially the one I proposed. That is to say, the authors explicitly state that they are trying to explore topics which often attract pseudoscientific theorizing with an open yet skeptical mind - cutting a moderate position between the "beliver" and the dismissive skeptic.

As I tried to make clear in my critique, I do not challenge the validity of, "the study of folklore; which includes cultural anthropology, history, archaeology, legend, and mythology" as an academic endeavor. But this article is not entitled "subjects in popular western folklore" or any other permutation of that idea. The article, as it stands, certainly mentions folklore, "Ancient mysteries are often featured prominently in a culture's folklore, mythology or legends." But it does not actually use 'folklore' as the standard for inclusion/exlusion of items on this list.

There needs to be a consistant, clear, and useful definition of what constitutes an "ancient mystery" for the purposes of this article. At the moment there is not one. That is not to say the article does not imply a definition. Clearly the following section vaguely attempts a definition - "They [ancient mysteries] can include artifacts, structures, sites, or people with which mysterious events are associated. The ancient mystery can be how the object or site came to be, its mysterious properties, what has become of it, or other open historical questions." However, it is far from concise.

The above, to me, seems to imply the following definition - an 'ancient mystery' is any relatively old object, site, practice, or belief, be it real or mythical, about which there are or have recently been persistant unanswered questions. If that is not the definition of an "ancient mystery" as you se it please advance another concise one that is not simply an appeal to authority. The above is not a bad definition in any way. However, it is not, as far as I can tell, the definition that has been used to determine the entries in list of "ancient mysteries." If that were the case, many other topics would be included. To cite just one example, the 'Anglo-Saxon' migration/invasion to Britain during the 5th & 6th centuries is a topic about which there are many unanswered questions. Yet it is not present. At the same time the questions surrounding Sauniere, Rennes-le-Chateau, the Priory of Sion, &c are widely considered to be settled by the vast majority of legitimate experts in the relevant fields, as the articles on the subjects note. Yet these are included.

My point is not that this topic is in any way illigitimate. I would like to try to renevate the article. BUT it must have more consistancy and clairty. Either the definition of an ancient mystery must be narrowed, or the list of ancient mysteries must be dramatically expanded. And regardless the definition at use needs to be clarified. An appeal to authority that books exist which use the worlds "ancient" and "mystery" in their titles is not a sufficient basis for a definition in an encyclopedia. On a separate note, the fact that there are NO citations in the article is proof that it should not and cannot remain as it is according to wikipedia policy. I hope I have cleared up my position and that we can work together to make this article the best it can be.

--Dunraven 04:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you and for that I apologize. I guess my point was that this article explores the folklore, history, and other issues which surround what are generally termed ancient mysteries. Although it is not the fallacy of 'appeal to authority' when the question is one of perception by an accepted expert in the field being discussed, I do understand the point that you are trying to make. I, for one, would greatly appreciate your assistance in this article. I thought the introduction was fairly clear in explaining the value of legend and mythology (which by nature meld history and fictional tales) and how ancient mysteries often arise out of this, but if you feel it needs a tightening up, I am certainly okay with that. I DO appreciate your interest and I look forward to your input. --The Templar 05:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that ancient mysteries do combine fact and fiction and are studied from a variety of disciplines. This fact makes a concise definition difficult. Cultural anthropology is aware of this and in fact cultural anthropologists fight over definitions of what cultural anthropology is. Definitions are often not clear cut and academia recognizes this. --The Templar 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that your editorial input is appreciated by me. --The Templar 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dunraven that this article's existence needs to be questioned. In the past, I have tried editing the article to try and find a better focus for it (see [1] and talk page discussions above), but my edits were wholly reverted by John1014 (talk • contribs) [2] who seemed to be claiming ownership of the article (Templar, was that your old account? The edit history implies that you just switched names at one point [3]). In any case, I haven't seen much improvement. Why is Sauniere, a 19th century priest, considered an "ancient mystery"? What outside references are being used for the information on this list? How is "ancient mystery" defined? Either this article needs to have its focus better described, or the information should be merged into other established Wikipedia articles. If we cannot reach agreement on the discussion page, I recommend a formal AfD proposal to bring in other opinions as to whether or not the article should be deleted. --Elonka 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, Elonka, that you went around removing links to this article and are not saying so in your edit description, in fact, you leave misleading descriptions as to your edit. This is not proper Wiki conduct. You also incorrectly state Dunraven's position, he just mentioned deletion as one possibility. I am going to be offline for awhile as I am going to be traveling so if you want to mark the article for deletion, go ahead. I think it's a good article but I don't want to waste any more of my time trying to justify its existence. --The Templar 07:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Elonka, if you want to go around removing links to this article on pages this article cites, please be honest and state so and give a reason. --The Templar 07:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Proper Wiki conduct" also involves civility, and refraining from making personal attacks. I recommend reviewing WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN, especially the "policy in a nutshell" at the top of the page on that last one. --Elonka 09:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. You know it to be true and it does show your intent in regard to this article. I'm curious why you consider a factual statement an attack. I can cite more than one instance if need be. --The Templar 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition I in no way claim ownership, and how can anyone 'own' an article that is open to editing by all? --The Templar 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, I just spent twenty minutes writing up a long comment, and it got deleted. :( My problem with this article is that it appears to conflate "ancient mysteries" - that is, objects and ideas of a certain antiquity which have lingering questions about their origin, purpose, etc. - with plain conspiracy theory or folklore. For instance, there is nothing mysterious about "et in Arcadia ego" - it is merely the subject of a conspiracy theory (and one rooted in a poor understanding of Latin, I might add). Not ancient, and not a mystery. The same goes for Sauniere - he was involved in a conspiracy theory from the early twentieth century which happens to deal with ancient things, but is by no means ancient itself (and not even considered a mystery by many, anyway). A modern-minted myth is not an ancient mystery - that sort of thing belongs in conspiracy theory. And why is Robin Hood here? What's mysterious about him? He and Merlin and King Arthur surely belong more in a folklore article. Arthurian legend has its mystique, to be sure, but wouldn't the Long Man of Wilmington's inclusion here be more appropriate?

Overall, this article needs a much tighter definition of "ancient mystery," preferably one based more heavily on physical remains, since there are innumerable WP articles on ancient folklore and oral tradition. As it stands now, the article reads more like a list of "stuff some guy thought was mysterious and maybe kind of old, too." I would axe most of the conspiracy theory and the non-mysterious folklore (Robin Hood goes but the Maya prophecy stays). I would also add linguistic and semiotic mysteries - Etruscan language and Masons' marks come to mind. And speaking of Masons, most of the Masonic stuff in this list could surely be consolidated. Not everything the Masons ever did was mysterious (and most of it certainly wasn't ancient) - again, a lot of this stuff belongs over in conspiracy theory article.

(To be honest, in the end, I feel this would work much better as a category than an article. Categories don't need to be so rigidly defined, and if the article is basically going to be a laundry list anyway, why not use a category instead? That's what they're for.)--TurabianNights 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about all of this some more, and I've arrived at the following. My ideas are, of course, completely open to challenge/rejection/whatever. This is no more my page than it is anyone else's. That having been said, the problem, as I see it, is that "ancient mystery" is not a technical scholarly term in archaeology, history, cultural anthropology, or the study of folklore. It is a popularly used general discriptor not a precise category. There are many things in this world which are both ancient and mysterious, but they would not commonly be considered "ancient mysteries" - witness the Anglo-Saxon example. Furthermore, some subjects which are considered "ancient mysteries" are, according to the relevant scholarly consensus, either not ancient, not mysterious, or neither of the two - withness the Priory of Sion. Which makes this article somewhat problematic if left as is. The title, in particular, prividges the notion that the is a fixed, widely know, rigorously defined, and scholarly catagory of things/practices/places which are commonly refered to as "ancient mysteries." But that is not really the case, is it?

HOWEVER, we cannot simply ignore the appelation "ancient mystery(ies)" as it is a definite, prominent, and noteworthy feature of popular culture. There is a steady stream of books and television shows about "ancient mysteries" that cannot and should not simply be ignored. BUT, this article needs to make it clear that those subjects which are labled ancient mysteries come to be so out of popular interest not out of a particular scholarly definition. I believe that James & Thorpe actually back me up on this (which would be nice, since regardless, we need more citations). I'll be back "in range" of my copy of that book by the middle of next week, but if I recall correctly, in addition to being constrained by temporal concerns, they set forth a definition which is in part dependant on popular interest - they write that subjects they address are ones which people frequently ask them about, or something to that effect.

With all this in mind, I think we should re-name the page to, Subjects Popularly Considered "Ancient Mysteries" with a redirect from "Ancient Mysteries." Then we can go about clearly laying out the actual, popular criteria for ancient mystery status, using book's like the one written by James and Thorpe, and explain that the term, while worthy of an encyclopedia entry, is not a strict scholarly definition. Thus subjects like Easter Island (currently excluded but included at least in the book by James and Thorpe) and the Sauniere/PS complex can be included, as I think people would feel they should be, on the basis of their popularly percieved status as mysteries irrespective of the scholarly consensus on the matter. I hope all of this make sense to someone other than me!

--Dunraven 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. It would certainly lend us a lot of flexibility, which would resolve many of the problems we all seem to be encountering with the article as it currently stands. Perhaps we could also add some explanatory text on why each thing we list is considered an ancient mystery. Easter Island would be a great addition.--TurabianNights 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally like the methodology being proposed and I agree that there needs to be a more precise criteria applied, but I do feel the title should remain as it is. One might find an article entitled Ancient mysteries in a regular encyclopedia but I doubt seriously that one would find an article named Subjects Popularly Considered "Ancient Mysteries." Remember that Dr. Thorpe's book uses just the term Ancient Mysteries in its title. I feel this other "title" belongs more in the definition. Speaking of the definition, I believe it should be clear that there is no causal connection to magic or extraterrestrial methods implied, just that there are "mysteries" out there that are open, unanswered questions. --The Templar 21:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the re-titling idea, or turning this into a category, since I agree that there is a perceived link between topics as diverse as Atlantis, Easter Island, the Pyramids, the Voynich Manuscript, and the Knights Templar. When dealing with this subject in other articles (such as trying to document the claims in The Da Vinci Code), I've found some success with starting sections such as "<subject> in popular culture". Another possible category title might be: Category:Perceived ancient mysteries, which could be linked to the above subjects, plus parent/children categories such as:

• Category:Pseudohistory
• Category:Pseudoarchaeology
• Category:Conspiracy theories
• Category:Lost cities and towns
• Category:Phantom islands

...etc. Thoughts? --Elonka 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be somewhat a fixation on "pseudo" here. My university background is in history, with an emphasis in the ancient and medieval periods. "Mysteries," if defined in a in a way that does not imply a paranormal cause (meaning magic or alien), are perfectly acceptable in academia. Once again, I feel the title should remain as it is, and the article kept, but with a more exact definition. --The Templar 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that the term "mystery religions" is an academic term used to describe mystery cults or religions, some of which we know little about, as is the case with the Eleusinian mysteries. "Mystery" is in no way limited in history to a paranormal meaning. --The Templar 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - convert this article into a category

As discussed above, the leading opinion seems to be that this collection of topics would be better served on Wikipedia by being a category, instead of an article. I recommend creating the category Category:Perceived ancient mysteries, though the name is open to debate. Is there consensus for the change to a category though? Please indicate support or oppose. --Elonka 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Elonka 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the reasons I have previously cited above. Also, the use of the term "perceived" appears pejorative and ergo violates NPOV. There are definitely mysteries associated with the topics listed, with the term mysteries being defined as open historical questions as to the origin and purpose of the subjects listed in this article. This is made clear in the definition of mysteries on the article's main page. "Ancient mysteries are often featured prominently in a culture's folklore, mythology or legends. They can include artifacts, structures, sites, or people with which mysterious events are associated. The ancient mystery can be how the object or site came to be, its mysterious properties, what has become of it, or other open historical questions. Ancient mysteries can be an integral part of a nation's psyche as England's King Arthur and Merlin are in Arthurian legend, which is also known as the Matter of Britain, or as the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx are in Egypt. As argued by the noted mythologist, Joseph Campbell, and the esteemed psychiatrist, Carl Jung, the intrinsic value of studying these aspects of a country's mythology and folklore lies not in the actual veracity, or lack thereof, of the legend, but in the understanding of a culture's archetypes and the psyche of individuals and the society itself." No assertion of actual paranormal activity is listed in the definition.--The Templar 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What category title would you like better? Perhaps just Category:Ancient mysteries? In that case, there already is a category, which makes our work much easier (and I see that you've already been participating there). We would just proceed to further populate the category. --Elonka 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Elonka incorrectly states that the "leading opinion" is that this article should be turned into a category. One can read the discussion above and see that is not the case. I also stand by my contention that the title Ancient mysteries is correct. To reiterate my previous statement: "One might find an article entitled Ancient mysteries in a regular encyclopedia but I doubt seriously that one would find an article named Subjects Popularly Considered "Ancient Mysteries," as previously suggested. --The Templar 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Compromise? Is that even a valid WP vote? While I believe that this makes a far better category than article, that is largely because the article as it stands needs some work. Most great WP categories have "Main Articles" that explain the category - if this article could withstand some vigorous cleanup , it might do very well. Honestly, I do not believe one might find an article entitled Ancient mysteries in any respectable encyclopedia. But that's the beauty of Wikipedia, and I think that, with some cleanup, this article can stay. We need to tighten the definition - however, "mystery" is so subjective, I believe we will find this difficult... particularly since many things people popularly consider ancient mysteries are not in fact very mysterious, but certainly deserve inclusion here. Easter Island, for instance, completely belongs on this list, even though it is not generally considered mysterious by experts. It is a "perceived" ancient mystery, a subject "popularly considered" an ancient mystery. That's what's nice about the titles "Perceived ancient mysteries" (which is in no way pejorative!) or "Popularly considered ancient mysteries." Those titles are merely stating the fact.

I therefore support the name change and oppose the article's conversion to a category, at least for now. I think we need to go through our list and establish why each thing on there is an "ancient mystery" - that process will help us tighten the definition, as well as cull extraneous material.--TurabianNights 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

convert and remove the rediculous, like pyrimids -ishmaelblues

[edit] Removal of non-mysteries

Not convinced we need a separate article called "ancient mysteries", but as long as it's here I'm happy to help tidy it up.

The folowing are not true mysteries, ancient or otherwise:

• Ancient Astronauts(pseudohistorical theory)
  • Alchemy (obsolete scientific theory)
• Berenger Sauniere (person commonly referred to in the pseudohistorical Priory of Sion hoax)
• Cathars (religious movement, frequent subject of pseudohistorical conspiracy theories)
• El Dorado South American legend, there is nothing requiring explanation about it.
• King Solomon (Solomon is a historical figure. If one wants to link him to allegedly mysterious events, people or objects, one should be more specific.
• Solomon's Temple Solomon's Temple was a temple, not a mystery.
• True Cross There is nothing requiring explanation in apocryphal stories of the Cross's provenance or what happened to it after the Crucifixion. Georgeslegloupier 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a ton of things on this list which are pseudohistorical, pseudoscience, not ancient, or just not relevent. It seems that King Arthur and Christian mythology is showing up in great density on the page, but most of it doesn't seem to be mysterious at all. I don't see how these are the same as stuff like the Ankethyera Mechanism, the Pyramids, or similarly "mysterious" objects which aren't really mysterious either, just odd. This list doesn't really seem to have any rhyme or reason to it. Titanium Dragon 11:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I worked on this a bit in the summer - it looks better than it did, but I still can't help feeling it would do better as a category, as it's so loosely gathered to begin with.--TN | ! 08:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about possible copyright violation

There's been a revert war recently. Please present evidence as to whether or not this is a derivative work of http://www.questmagazine.com/library_ancient_mysteries.html ... i admit that i haven't looked into this too much, but at first glance, i'm leaning towards, "No, it's not." Comments? --Mike Schiraldi 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, honestly; if anything, it looks like something stolen from Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, I suggest you check the history of the article. Quest is credited from day one as the origin of the piece. You are completely wrong about who took what from whom. --The Argonaut 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC) In fact, as per Wikipedia policy on sources, Quest should remain listed as a source as long as the article remains on here. --The Argonaut 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)