As the Editor who added the 'disputed antiquity' labels to SwastikaGirl's holy wells, I want to assure her that it was not motivated by personal reasons, or indeed in any way connected with gender bias. As Goffik has so eloquently explained, TMA does have submission guidelines which explain that sites shouldn't be added en masse with no information other than their location. I merely ran through the list of recently added sites and added the 'disputed antiquity' labels, as I would as a matter of course for sites that are not recognised generally as prehistoric (eg they are not on scheduled monument lists, fallable though those might be, admittedly). I would do the same to any others I find, regardless of who has posted them.

Prehistoric sites are indisputedly the focus of the website. Mountains, rivers, streams and springs may have had prehistoric significance (beyond their uses as physical resources) in the British Isles and further afield. But unless we insist on 'hard evidence' to support sites contributed, it is difficult for readers of the site to distinguish between 'proven' and 'speculative'. Agreed, some prehistoric barrows (etc) seem to be located in relation to nearby streams and springs, and perhaps it's better to mention the well or stream as part of the fieldnotes or miscellaneous notes of the barrow? 'Standalone' wells and springs, without accompanying artefacts are a difficult subject and in my own personal opinion (if editors are allowed such things) are perhaps better elsewhere on the web. I say this because I personally would not want to see TMA diluted by too many unproven sites. Do not think that the issue of holy wells, sacred mountains etc is not one of the topics being thrashed out behind the scenes, and I think it is interesting to hear wider views on the matter.

TMA Ed.