Talk:New study claims Stonehenge was a place of healing

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. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 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)
 * ✅ --SVTCobra 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)