`  == See Also == Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian ``pyramid`` is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge.    Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian ``pramids`` are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The ``see also`` list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of ``legitimate pyramids``. Gene_poole   :: I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats ``because some people claimed they were`` boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian ``pyramids`` in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles.  `