THC Science

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Physics B‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Older discussion

Let's agree that:
1) "Famous rock balancers" at least means people who are famous enough to have a Wikipedia entry about them which is not a vanity posting.
2) Putative information about "famous rock balancers" which is beyond a simple description of who they are is placed in their Wikipedia entry, not in the Rock Balancing article.
3) Substantive edits should be discussed here first, and are subject to immediate removal if they are not.
66.81.65.198 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also agree that:
4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown.
5) The appropriate place for an image credit is on the image page, not on the Wiki entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.65.5 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2007

Point 3 is incorrect - See WP:Be Bold.

Point 4 is slightly overly restrictive. Different angles and distances can be useful - we simply need to not overwhelm the small amount of text with dozens of images.

Everything else seems fine. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, IP editor, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't own the page and you don't get to make up rules for how people can edit it. I wouldn't normally respond to such old comments but people refer to these points several times below, making them appear to have a standing that they do not, in fact, have. Dricherby (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to...

So do you just eyeball a rock, up end it and jiggle it until it balances? A practical explanation of the mechanics involved would be very helpful. Thanks! AndyHuston 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliel (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding a tutorial, or at least a link to one. Thank you.Soltera (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual practice involving rock balancing and stacking

That's really a joke. Why Tibetan Buddhism instead of Zen, or even Hawaii music? --Mongol (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Section now removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone on earth can balance a rock... it's amazing seeing people of any race, any religions, any age, any color... the rock treats you all the same..." ~Travis Ruskus, author of The Rock Balancer's Guide: Discover the Mindful Art of Balance (2019). One of the exercises guides the reader to "find your mantra" (Ruskus, pg. 46) which is something Wikipedia says any religion/spirituality can do. Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Goring

The image from Goring does not appear to be genuine. The scene of the Thames meandering towards the Goring Gap in the predominantly chalk Chilterns, is bathed in typical soft, slightly silvery, English light, a chalk zone. The over-sharp edges of the red sandstones (from Somerset or Nottingham at best) are blasted by the pin-sharp red light more associated with Monument Valley, USA. Not to mention the amateurish emplacement on the soft drab grey Thames valley rock at the base. The poster needs to provide evidence that it was real, i.e. shots from other angles. Autodidactyl (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but this is absolutely genuine! This image has been on this page for many years and nobody else has had an issue with it. What Autodidactyl is calling the meandering Thames, is actually a white poppy field, you can not see the Thames in this photo. Also the rocks are all from my cousin's garden, so there are a variety of native and non-native rocks. What Autodidactyl is calling a soft drab grey rock at the base is actually a wooden gate post. Please cross reference the image on my flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockbalancer/page11/. Hopefully, this will be enough evidence for you Autodidactyl. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.54 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image on Flicker does not constitute verifiable proof of anything. Your points on the gate post and the Thames are accepted, but we cannot know your cousin's garden. As requested originally, please provide additional shot(s) from other angles. Yours sincerely. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autodidactyl, you asked for other images from other angles. I am not going to post these on the rock balancing entry, per the requirements stated earlier in the discussion "4) Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." Therefore, I will once again send you to my flickr site to see some of the same rocks balanced from a slightly different angle. If you are still unsure of my the image's authenticity please ask some of the other editors. Daliel knows my work, from his oversight of Bill Dan's Rock-on-rock-on webstie. Please check this statement for authenticity by going here: http://www.rock-on-rock-on.com/others-more-than-ever.html. Rockbalancer 13:15, 19 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer (talk • contribs)

Image of Point Balance

Avhell-hi and welcome to the on-line rock balancing community. I really like the rock balancing image you posted but there are a few protocols you didn't follow, and that is why I deleted it. Please read the agreed upon protocols listed above and then add to this page. Per point four listed above, "Images should only be posted which illustrate the topic in a way not already shown." The rock balance shown at the Petrified Forest already shows a point balance. Also note point three. Although, you only added an image, it did make a big difference in the formatting of the page, any substantive edits need to be agreed upon in the discussion section first. Thanks for understanding and hope to see more of your work.--Rockbalancer (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive edits do not have to be agreed upon first - see WP:Be bold and related pages. (Usually. Unless the subject is contentious or the article is protected).

Multiple illuminating images is fine. IIRC, we were previously having problems with someone adding many images of the exact same rockstack (from different angles), which was also overwhelming the small amount of prose.

I've added the image back, as it is a good closeup, and depicts a large boulder pointbalancing on a small rock. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I am sorry if I have broken any guidelines or etiquette with the image (or the page formatting!). I am in the process of releasing most of my images as cc-by-sa for anyone to use, and found that balance image to be a particularly interesting one. I figured there were no examples of this type of double point balancing, and was thinking perhaps it might be useful to illustrate. I'm sorry if I've disrupted anything! Avhell (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Rock Balancers

Does anyone else think the last three "famous" balancers should be removed? I at least think a wikipedia page needs to be available to be linked to for a famous balancer. I mean I know "famous rock balancers" is a bit of an oxymoron, but lets at least nip this in the bud before everyone starts listing themselves as famous. Lila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbalancer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the items could do with a single reliable-source reference. If no reference can be found (eg for the unlinked or redlinked people) then those entries should be removed. Simple :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more history?

The Andy G. article implies that he's the 'father of modern rock-balancing'. Which would be good to know for some casual browser reading about rock-balancing on this page.
Also, it would be of interest to know that balanced rocks are a historical (ie: prior to ~1910) means of marking trails, and larger instances of more rocks doing more balancing could be looked at as an elaboration of simple trail marking.
~ender 2011-09-25 22:20:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.53.38 (talk)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Diego (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks auto-bot! But, you can't source statements from other wikipedia articles (1) and I don't have sources for the other information I've learnt over the years (2), or a supposition/conclusion of my own - and since I'm not famous, and published elsewhere then it can't be included (3). So, I put it out there, in case someone else knows of sources, or feels like investigating them.

~ender 2012-01-07 17:14MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.52.42 (talk)

Trashing legitimate controversy

Why are some fanatics removing the "Opposition to Rock-Balancing" section?

Can they stand no criticism from nature lovers who want to be free of another building-driven and obsessed cult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.119.62 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply provide a verifiable reference that this critcism is held by more than yourself and I don't think you will have further issue. I am no rock balancing fanatic, and I see where this practice annoys you, but your opinion can not be the basis of an encyclopedic article. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more neutral way to approach this topic is to title the section: Appropriate settings for rock balancing (or something like that), and expand on the positive rather than the negative. Certainly there are settings that should be legally and morally avoided, such as a habitat restoration project, especially if endangered species are involved. The “knocking down . . ” statement in the current section is adversarial and should be deleted. Pinethicket (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references removed my concern over verifiability and give credence to the claim even if it is rather self-evident. There are groups that oppose everything; it just a function of whether that opposition is notable for any particular article. Are we now going to see a disclaimer like this in every outdoor recreational activity? Take en:Camping for example where no such opposition is found yet the references applied here are much more applicable to that activity than this? Would we accept a similar oppositional statement in the en:Inuksuk article? Knocking down an Inuksuk could actually put someone's life in danger as they may lose their point of reference. Well, not going to travel further down this rabbit hole as it would be unproductive. I don't know if their is such a thing as a rock balancing community and whether they have a code of ethics (for lack of a better term). With that said, your approach would be better than the one that is offered by the concerned IP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the latest change I have removed the sentence that was not verified for two reasons: it was unverified and rather confrontational in tone. I have also removed the redundant statement that the practice is not supported as per the note. I will add that the reference cited makes no mention of rock balancing although their guidelines do make it clear activities like rock balancing would be frowned upon if one were an adherent to the principles of Leave No Trace. I do hope this doesn't devolve into any more of an edit war than it already is and leads to this page being protected. It would be much more preferable if the IP discussed the issue here so that concensus could be achieved. Frankly, I think the one sentence covers the issue clearly and if readers need more info the reference is there. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sentences you removed had been vandalized to say the opposite of the source. I've restored it to its original status. Diego (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that strikes the right balance and maintains NPOV. If folks do indeed return the stones or at least scatter them then it is no different than the issue regarding fire rings, which are compatible with Leave No Trace. As such it seems clear to me Rock Balancing can be practiced in accordance with Leave No Trace ideals. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording

The images i saw on the article are great, but i found the text inadequate in ways that i think i've alleviated. I was also tempted to note three separate disciplines, but decided to construe what i contemplated as WP:OR. Perhaps the aficianados will be inspired to comment, or expand the article in this dimension:

The article is heavy with what i would call strict stacks, perhaps the most painstaking version: putting one rock on top of another, and putting the next one on top of that.
As i prowled, i saw more of what i'm more familiar: to some degree tree-like, in the sense of branches and branchlets and [some limit].
Arches, which surprised me from my awareness of how old the Roman arch is (even if i'm not sure whether that elaboration made first building a pile of rubble where you want a gate thru the wall into the new tech, or into the old pre-Roman tech). And of course, these are presumably mortarless arches, far more impressively skilled than right-angled, trapezoidal-element based, and/or mortar-dependent structures.

Anyway, i started to write

(Generally the discipline thrives on each rock being balanced on only one other, yet often directly supporting than one or more resting on it (and many indirectly supporting the weight of rocks supported directly or indirectly above them....

and realized i have neither the experience nor the passion that probably the topic deserves.
So kudos to the artisans and artists, and i hope that amounts to encouragement to "edit on, Garth!"
--Jerzy•t 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tupparo, Colombia phto

Very cool, even if that is snow, not surging water, around it. Have we any info on that, and how long the rock has been documented as surviving?
--Jerzy•t 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is snow. I think it is moving water. I think you are referring to this image. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an obnoxious behavior

As rock piles are now becoming ubiquitous on public lands, more sources are available that condemn the practice as a defacement of the natural landscape. The article should be updated to reflect this changing perspective. Potential sources:

Some of those may be duplicates, and not all are necessarily reliable. Geogene (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a helpful webpage with more info about why to be careful about not messing with cairns at the National Parks -- https://www.nps.gov/articles/rockcairns.htm Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but isn't it a bit much for a solid three quarters of the article to be about opposition?

Not even articles about plastic pollutants reach that 94.34.145.167 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because nearly all that's been written about rock piling (which isn't much) is news coverage of notable acts of rock pile vandalism, and PSAs from wilderness preservation orgs asking hikers and tourists not to pile rocks. I've also recently deleted a couple of paragraphs about the physics of rock piling that looked a lot like filler/cruft to me, which has made the article even shorter. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'balancing' is vandalism? Really?

1. Dry stone walls are probably the most permanent form of rock 'balancing'. A skill, a craft, and a business which is how many thousands of years old? Dry stone walls are here to stay.

2. Rocks are sometimes left as a memory of a person, an event, perhaps as a reminder of a memory. Who are those denying people their life choices? Why not take it further and stop the practice of leaving small rocks on the headstones of friends, family and loved ones, that is the next step if these drones have their way.

3. Rocks have been used to build cairns to prevent disturbance of burial sites. The ages old practice remains and long may it continue.

First few things that sprang to mind, horrified that this was given any credence, lunacy. You want to do something, stop the corporations from devouring the environment, stop fracking, oil drilling, deforestation, salmon spawning areas, chemical crop spraying, make them repair and enhance the damage they have done, redress their crimes, address the damage that they have caused to families as a result of corporate greed. Wonofone (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rock balancing as meditative practice

User:Arllaw yesterday i expanded on the meditative aspect of rock balancing, as I am a long time practitioner and that's how i apply it. I cited my gallery :a huge gallery of rock piles, on subject as opposed to inserting images on the page (keeping the edit moderate) and it further expands on the subject of rock balancing as meditation if someone was even more curious, but it was on subject for rock balancing as I thought maybe actual proof I was a practitioner would be validation and qualify my opinion...As that was my first or second time editing a post (although I did share a lot of Mexican landmark photos years ago) maybe you could qualify for me how it was spam or did you assume new account=spam? Am I correct in assuming you could give me a little more guidance, as I must have missed something reading up on editing posts. Thanks up front. I thought I was well within the guidelines of wiki and this was actually my trial run after reading up on how to. Maybe that's why this page seems so devoid of content? or is it mostly views opposed to the practice?...Its not like I listed myself as a famous artist at the bottom so I'm confused. Are you implying its not a meditative practice and if so could you qualify that statement Ryan Clark 1969 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reflection with the gallery... very thought-provoking and inspiring! :D Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for a "Further Reading" section

It's up to the moderators of your page, but I'll post it here so at least those of us interested in talking about rock balancing can take a look, and you can think about maybe adding something like this to the official page itself. (I'm just listing them alphabetically, not playing any favorites with notability levels here). I've only read 2 of them, but they all sound interesting! Has anyone read any of these? Do you know of any other ones? Should they hyperlink to a webpage? Should they have brief bios + summaries? Let's talk about that! :-)

Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021, thanks, but we don't really do bibliographies--certainly not for a short article like this. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Form of vandalism?

If someone does rock balancing in their own backyard, rock balancing is not vandalism... this wiki page should be reviewed and edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyBorneIce (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyBorneIce, if someone is balancing rocks in their backyard...why would someone write an encyclopedia article about it? The sourcing is all about rock piling in wilderness areas, and the problems it causes. Geogene (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene, but wikipedia is supposed to be all-encompassing and non-biased. how is the definition of rock balancing confined to vandalism in all situations... such a notion is illogical given the fact that the activity only requires a collection of rocks and a piece of land (not all land is illegal land).SunnyBorneIce (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, it really isn't meant to be all-encompassing or un-biased. It encompasses subjects that are notable enough to have a certain amount of reliable sources already written about them, enough to mine for the information to write an article about. And it's supposed to be biased in the same way the majority of mainstream sources are. Geogene (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the activity as "a form of vandalism" does seem inappropriate for the first sentence definition, particularly when it sounds like rock balancing is never actually done with ill-intent. Even the graffiti article - where people often do set out to deliberately cause damage - doesn't open "Graffiti is a form of vandalism in which..." --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to reduce this article to "a form of vandalism" and to cut all the content about what rock balancing is, and the fact that there are international contests. The Smithsonian Magazine, Guardian newspaper, BBC website and Denver Post articles are not "poor sources", User:Geogene, and I didn't remove any content, I just moved the word "vandalism" to slightly later in the lead. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Belbury, your edits [1] mentioned low notability contests, with poor sourcing, including a personal website. Geogene (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added stronger sources to the Process section in the next edit. All that's being sourced to Grab's personal website is that he uses the terms "click" and "natural tripod", which don't appear in the Smithsonian interview.

What do you mean by "low notability"? The Dunbar championship has a fair amount of news coverage in reliable secondary sources. The World Rock Stacking Championship in Texas less so, but there's a picture of it in the article so I thought I'd mention it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That picture in the article can always be deleted, along with the mention, since it's nothing but low quality local lifestyle journalism. As for "Dunbar championship", I just Googled the term in quotes and am not seeing any evidence of rock piling in the results. I've yet to see any evidence that rock balancing is some kind of recognized sport. But Google results do tend to substantiate that it's best known as an irritating, Instagram-fueled thing that people do in the outdoors. Geogene (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this, [2], but it's trivial coverage. Geogene (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling "European Stone Stacking Championships", it's had a few news articles over the years. Not enough WP:NOTABILITY for a full article, I agree, but enough WP:VERIFIABILITY to mention that it exists, in an article about stone stacking.

What's your objection to the "Process" section - do you want a stronger source than the Denver Post, or do you think this information doesn't belong in the article?

It would be good to hear a response to why you think this article should be framed as "is a form of vandalism", when even the article about graffiti doesn't go that far. That's the reason I added the disputed-neutrality template. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing nothing but trivial coverage of "stone stacking championships". As for the process section, this is the content you're arguing for including

Artist Michael Grab describes the process of stacking rocks as requiring a minimum of three points of contact for each rock, which form a "natural tripod". The fact that all rocks are covered with various indentations mean that such contact points can be found through experimentation. He talks of sensing the vibrations or "clicks" as two rocks move against each other as a way to locate these points, which must be in places where the rock's centre of mass lies between three of them. Grab says he finds it "pretty remarkable" how stable the structures are, believing that in the absence of wind or other interference they could stay standing for months at a time.

This is not encyclopedic content, it's WP:CRUFT. As for the graffiti article, I'm not involved there, and it makes no difference to me what that article says, that's just an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which you will find on the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages page. Geogene (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very broad summary of the method used for stacking rocks is not fancruft ("important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question"), it's a basic definition. The current article makes it sound like a hobby where you just grab some rocks and stack them into a cairn. Any reader who knows that the balancing sometimes looks very precarious (I tried to add a photo of that, to replace the current flattish-rock stack, but you reverted me) will be curious about how it's possible, so we should tell them. It's a question that's already been asked near the top of this talk page.

I really can't work out your angle here. Is your stance that this article should only be about people making simple stacked cairns in national parks and how this is bad? (Your "is a form of vandalism" source only talks about cairns.) I don't understand why you're apparently content with a section about professional rock-balancing artists and photo of some artistically-stacked rocks at a competition, but you think it's "cruft" to go into any detail about the former, and "trivia" to mention the latter outside of an image caption. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "process" section seems to me the very definition of fancruft, as some guy talking about "clicking" rocks together seems like the kind of thing only of interest to rock piling hobbyists. The fact that the original version was sourced in part to a personal website helps to support that point. Even if it did have instructional value, it would fall under WP:NOTHOWTO. My stance is this: articles should follow reliable sources in coverage, and is not necessarily what a small community of hobbyists feels like is fair. Nearly all the substantial coverage of rock piling is of it as a form of wilderness vandalism. Neutrality for Wikipedia is not about some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE thing. I also think that a lot of time on this has already been wasted by anon/IP editors and newly created accounts that take offense at the whole vandalism thing....I have a feeling that grievances with this article are being fostered in some internet fora somewhere, and if this disruption doesn't stop, then the article should be locked. Geogene (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, I am not here on behalf of an aggrieved internet forum. I was reading a news article about rock balancing the other day (maybe this one), wondered if Wikipedia had anything interesting to say about the history and science of it and was disappointed that we only had a short "form of vandalism" stub. I bookmarked the article to improve it, did so today, and you reverted every change I made.

I agree that articles should follow available sources. I disagree that we should omit a sourced section about the general physics of it as "fancruft", or that the sourced existence of a long-running international competition is too trivial to mention. Perhaps an RFC would help. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the graffiti article isn't an WP:OTHERCONTENT because it's not my sole argument, it's just an example to put it into context: if Wikipedia doesn't even call one of the most potentially angrily forms of vandalism-art "a form of vandalism" in the first sentence, that might suggest we reflect on whether to do so here. My point is that rock balancing is apparently never done with ill-intent, so it's misleading to describe it as "a form of vandalism". We should 100% mention that leaving balanced rocks causes problems, and mention that in the lead, but it's not its primary feature. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, Wikipedia should follow whatever it is that the best sources call it, instead of leaving it to editors to judge what they think it's fair to call it. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "rock balancing" seems entirely about people doing this for artistic or hobby purposes. Much of that is fluff, but a lot of it comes from strong mainstream press sources. The vandalism angle seems a significant but minority take, with your chosen cited source for it possibly just being about cairns. (Authorities at Petroglyph National Monument said Friday that visitors committed extensive vandalism by collecting rocks and stacking them in the form of cairns.) I suggested neutrally describing it as a "practice" in my edit. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixture of self-published sources describing it as an art or meditative practice, and journalistic sources describing it as a form of vandalism. These are not equally reliable. Geogene (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You only see self-published sources? I'm seeing many mainstream press sources which take the "art or meditative" angle: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7503175/rock-balancing-michael-grab, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-61743516, https://www.vice.com/en/article/d749aj/stacking-rocks-balanced-art-master, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61401003, and even the ones that write about the vandalism (eg. https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/cairns-rock-stacking-national-parks, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/sep/13/stone-stackers-ancient-sites-historic-england-stowes-hill-cornwall) frame it as an act of artistic expression which causes damage.

That seems the obvious way to explain rock balancing: it's a thing people do, they do it thinking of it as art or a hobby, and it causes damage or problems. The current article somehow omits the middle step entirely (beyond obliquely mentioning that four "notable artists" exist and showing a photo of a "championship"), which makes no sense. The rock piles aren't appearing naturally, or accidentally, or being built to cause deliberate damage. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources you've listed, such as this one [3], look like churnalism, or, at best, an excuse to post a photo gallery. This Guardian piece [4] is journalism, but is from 2017, before a shift appeared to take place in sources against rock piling in the outdoors. However, I could agree with changing the lead from "act of vandalism" to something like "art, practice, or act of vandalism" based on this. I'm also not in favor of continuing to list rock piling artists or the Llano photo, but I have not gotten around to deleting that stuff myself. Geogene (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that it makes sense to define something as "art, practice, or act of vandalism", when (so far as sources suggest) it's never the case that it's only the third of these: nobody ever balances a pile of rocks purely because they really hate salamanders. If you're definitely against mentioning the balancing-as-art practice at all in this article and moving it away from any artistic photos of delicately-balanced rocks, I guess I'll wait for other editors to give their input, and then consider an RfC on article lead and scope, if this is turns out to be a low-traffic talk page. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're overthinking this. It doesn't matter why people balance rocks, only that sources call it vandalism. Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on first sentence and scope

Should this article define rock balancing as a type of vandalism, or as a recreational/artistic activity which has drawn that criticism? Should it include any content about people's reasons for balancing rocks, methods of doing so where the process isn't obvious, notable artists who have done so, and the international contests held for it? Lord Belbury (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. This page is embarrassing. The article should note the criticism; it should not consist only of the criticism. Geogene, I think you should take several deep breaths. Lord Belbury is working in good faith to improve the page. Try to be a little more collegial. Have the insight to recognize your personal feelings are getting in the way, here. Regulov (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Regulov: the only substantial coverage of this subject is critical. Lord Belbury is making arguments not based in policy, primarily their claims are 1) that the graffiti article does not mention vandalism so this one shouldn't either, and 2) that people who rock pile in the wilderness are not doing it "because they hate salamanders" so it isn't vandalism. This kind of attempt at mind reading isn't based in policy either. The only issue is to be determined here is how sources view the behavior. Geogene (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, don't dig in deeper. The current page is egregious pov-pushing. You need to prepare to be satisfied with a Criticism section, because that is how this is going to shake out. I understand your strong feelings. I agree that from a certain perspective this is just another case of selfish idiots taking what they want and blithely destroying treasures they can't even perceive. But I hardly think the page as it stands is encyclopedic. Lord Belbury has cited some sources that will suffice to establish that rock-balancing is a fad activity whose purpose, for the practitioner, is aesthetic rather than destructive. Don't stonewall. Regulov (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Regulov:. A criticism section? Well, no, you need to re-read WP:CRITS, which says, Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. And you and Lord Bellamy need substantial coverage in reliable sources if you want a less critical article. These are fairly basic concepts here for editing Wikipedia....the NPOV policy states, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. There are more and better sources that are critical of the practice, so this means you'll get a negative article. Geogene (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. But your version is so extreme, Geogene. Can't you see that? It has us claiming in wikivoice in the first sentence that the activity is a form of vandalism. Lord Belbury is correct to note that this phrasing is problematic because it implies intent. Here at WP we don't label every typo or error vandalism; the term is reserved for errors introduced without a good-faith object. If a motorist swerves off the road and knocks over a headstone, is it vandalism? Depends on the intent, doesn't it? When opponents use the word "vandalism", they are not themselves reflecting wider societal consensus, but making a rhetorical move intended to shift perception of this activity. Rock-stackers or whatever they call themselves surely don't accept that they are engaging in vandalism. They believe they aren't harming anything or anyone. So is it vandalism? Is driving a piton into a cliff vandalism? Opinions vary, right?

Your own version of the page has only one substantive content section, headed "Opposition". What is this but a "Criticism" section? There is essentially nothing here about the activity itself on this page, only complaints about it. Why is that? Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors? I understand that you want strong sources and that a lot of the edits you've reverted are pretty low-fibre, but I think you aren't letting the page improve.

I'm sorry for personalizing it, but I think the reason for this is that you, personally, strongly disapprove of the activity—for excellent reasons!—and are stonewalling improvements to this encyclopedia article because you don't want to encourage people to stack rocks. That's what I see. I am not attacking you; I just think you rode roughshod over Lord Belbury's arguments and sources above, and it looks like you've been policing this page for a while. Regulov (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR: Here at WP we don't label every typo or error vandalism...If a motorist swerves off the road and knocks over a headstone, is it vandalism? Depends on the intent, doesn't it?. There is essentially nothing here about the activity itself on this page, only complaints about it. Why is that? because personal websites and churnalism aren't quality sources. I understand from Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors? is your recognizing that I'm right about sourcing, and so you're attacking the messenger instead. Geogene (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the sources you have chosen to cite explain why people balance these rocks, to provide context to their readers: Wikipedia should do the same. One source is even headlined "Stone-stacking: cool for Instagram, cruel for the environment". If your version of the article (where you say you "have not gotten around to" deleting the list of artists and the Plano art photo) were reflecting its sources, it would say why people were balancing the rocks. Instead describing it as a rough style of cairn construction undertaken in the same spirit as slashing tyres or breaking windows is actively misinforming the reader, to the point where they could reasonably assume that Wikipedia just doesn't have an article about artistic rock balancing - and walk away without realising that the National Park warnings were also talking about that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying there, Lord Belbury? That all you're asking is we mention that people do that because of Instagram? Because that's significantly different from your prior arguments. Geogene (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just an observation about the sources that you've considered acceptable for this article, but have only quoted in part. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene: I'm sorry, I don't follow that at all. What is "original research" about knowing the meaning of the word "vandalism"? Do you remember the Ecce Homo fresco fiasco? Everyone on Earth agrees that that was not a case of vandalism, Geogene, because the restorer was incompetent rather than malicious. The distinction is important.

When I ask "Is it because of the sources, or because of your priors?" I am indeed acknowledging that you can cite sources. I agree that your sources are reliable. Indeed, I agree that the activity is often more destructive than practitioners realize; that it is sometimes very destructive indeed; and that it is a real problem for stewards of wild or protected lands. I will be more explicit, since the subtlety may have escaped you: you are arguing in bad faith. You have an object: namely, to ensure that WP takes the hardest possible line against an activity you are at pains to discourage. All your arguments are designed to further that project. You have your priorities the wrong way round. Admit balancing content, and then work to improve the sourcing. Stop reflexively removing anything that discusses the activity qua activity rather than the activity qua crime.

This is not an advocacy channel. The sources describing rock-balancing from the perspective of enthusiasts are, unsurprisingly, pretty fluffy. This is precisely because these people do not see the activity as an environmental catastrophe; they see only a hobby, a harmless novelty. How and where do you expect treatments of harmless novelties? In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? I'm sorry Wolf Blitzer hasn't covered rock-balancing; he hasn't covered cup stacking, either, and I wouldn't hold my breath. That doesn't mean it doesn't merit a neutral treatment at WP. Regulov (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR because you're editorializing based on your own opinions about what is or is not vandalism, rather than following sources. Geogene (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "no original research" policy does not forbid editors from using a dictionary or from using their heads. If the sources say some people say it is vandalism, then we can say some people say it is vandalism. You have wikipedia saying, in wikivoice—that is, outside quotes, without qualification, without attribution—that it is vandalism. But every definition I can find includes language concerning intent: "deliberate", "intentional", "wilful", "malicious", "mischievous", "damage caused for the sake of causing damage", &c. I don't think we are safe to state as fact that it is vandalism. Regulov (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the page like there should be sources about it other than the sources for it being vandalism, if people are winning awards for it. Could someone please provide those sources? Loki (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the news sources already being cited by this article say that rock balancing is being done with benign or artistic intentions, and competitively:

The only other explanatory source (Rock 'Cairn' Vandalism Marks Petroglyph Park in New Mexico) was added to support the current opening sentence, and is a press release from the National Park Service which characterises cairn-building as "vandalism" (it does not use the term "rock balancing") and chooses not give any context for why people are doing it.

Some other articles and interviews:

Stacking Stones Gets a Rocky Reception, Wall Street Journal
Stones as Medium, Beach as Canvas, Hakai Magazine
Boulder rock artist Michael Grab is making the impossible possible, Denver Post
Yes, Balancing Rocks Is an Art—If You're This Good at It, Vice
Stone stackers are stuck between a rock and a hard place, The Times
Beaches 'spoiled': Should rock stacking be banned?, BBC News
Stone balancing: Using a challenge against physics to defy depression, BBC News
Gravity-Defying Sculptures Are The Result Of A Quirky Stone Stacking Contest, NDTV

I haven't seen a single source which explicitly describes rock-balancing as being done with ill-intent. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struck by how negative Lord Belbury's own sources are: Despite claims that it is an artistic, harmless and relaxing pursuit, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) says that it is unwanted and illegal....This week residents of Skye took matters into their own hands by toppling more than 100 stone stacks erected by visitors to the island. [5]. The Hakai Magazine piece refers to "visual pollution" caused by stone pilers, and quotes an environmentalist who refers to it as a "plague". And some of this coverage (Denver Post [6], Vice [7]) looks like churnalism, or an excuse to post image galleries. And if this is really a sport, where are the reliable, independent sources that substantially cover the trappings of sports, things like the prizes, who the officials are, who the champions and main contenders are? Who placed second in 2019? Geogene (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it has an official governing body, or a leaderboard, or carbon-fibre prosumer equipment, is beside the point. The noun we should be using is "activity". Sometimes activities emerge, organically, from the muck of human behaviour. The "contests" are unlikely to resemble college bowl games, Geogene; I think a better model is the pies and preserves at your local fair. Really more an expression of shared enthusiasm than a rigorous, highly standardized sport. And in any case not necessarily vandalism tout court. Regulov (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is pie baking something that often leads to threats of arrest? Geogene (talk)

I came to this page because the article has been quoted and turned into a meme. I was expecting to fix some vandalism, or find that someone else had recently done so, but find that while the text of the meme is not an exact match to the article, it essentially conveys what is here. This is an embarrassment. It is using Wikipedia's voice to call such stacked rocks "vandalism" when that was likely not the intent of those who stacked them. I didn't check the citations, but if they amount to RS, then it would be perfectly fine to mention that some people compare the practice to vandalism, but not as the opening sentence of the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 06:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've suspected for a while now that someone, and not necessarily a regular editor, is canvassing off-site, thank you for confirming that suspicion. Geogene (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully expect every rock balancing community in the world to have noticed that googling for "rock balancing" has, since May, returned Geogene's "Rock balancing is a form of vandalism" sentence in the summary box and first result. If anything I'm surprised that only five IPs and one new user have tried to edit it in that time. An RFC like this is certainly preferable as a neutral mechanism for outside input. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that's my sentence. But it does seem that rock balancers are trying to distort Wikipedia's consensus processes here. Geogene (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An IP condensed "art, hobby or form of vandalism" to "form of vandalism" in April. You've reverted back to that "is a form of vandalism" seven times since, whenever anyone tried to change it to "is a form of art", "is a practice" or even "is regarded as a form of vandalism". I would say it was your sentence in the sense that you alone have been keeping it in the article all this time, and now that I've looked at the page history there are clear WP:OWNERSHIP problems in the fact that you've point-blank reverted every edit made to this article since May.

I'm not sure what you're intending to say about rock balancers "trying to distort Wikipedia's consensus processes": do you mean the IP edits to the article, or are you concerned about contributors to this RFC? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And would you like to finally propose an alternative wording to that sentence, or not? Geogene (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to a neutral "is the practice of" when I got here, you reverted me, and I took it to the talk page above. What is your concern about rock balancers trying to distort the consensus process? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten that we've already discussed that diff, and there are several content issues with it other than the first sentence. One issue at a time. What wording for that first sentence would you prefer? You didn't even specify any alternative in this RfC. Geogene (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, like I say, I took it to the talk page above, which led to this RfC. And this RfC is a broad strokes question about the lead and scope of the article, not an attempt to negotiate a specific wording that the WP:OWNER of the article finds acceptable. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your unwillingness to propose any alternative will not allow for any progress to be made. Geogene (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]