Talk:New study claims Stonehenge was a place of healing

Revision 699436 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: One sentence is close, but different enough I'll let it slide, only so may ways to skin a cat. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 699436 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: One sentence is close, but different enough I'll let it slide, only so may ways to skin a cat. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

If a large number of injured corpses in an area makes it a place of healing, Agincourt must have been a place of healing, as well. As the article provides no evidence that could not be interpreted that Stonehenge was a place of either battle or where humans were sacrificed, I'm going to rename the article. Jade Knight (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"claimed to have found evidence that" . This piece was about evidence they found, not a study that was conducted. I can find evidence of a person living in my house, there is no "study" involved in that proccess. If you wanted to rename it to say "New evidence suggests Stonehenge might have been a place of healing" - that would have made more sense. This new title does not. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But that fact of the matter is that the new evidence does not suggest that it was a place of healing; that is pure speculation on the part of the authors. Jade Knight (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
"Independant" => "Independent" Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)