Talk:Monks Mound: Difference between revisions
Questions |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I also have serious problems with his insistence on adding his personal web site[http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/] here and elsewhere. I'll ignore the conflict of interest in his adding his own website as it is the site itself that is the problem. First, it's a personal website, and it is rare for those to be acceptable as either sources or external links. (see [[WP:LINKSTOAVOID]]. Another editor has pointed out that it includes "much incorrect information", which is true. It is also [[WP:FRINGE]. For instance, it refers to "expert Rick Osmon, the host of the Out of Place Artifact show called OOPA LOOPA CAFE". The 'Out of Place Artifact' more or less makes it clear Osmon is fringe, and I'd question the use of 'expert'. Osmon also publishes in the cult archaeology journal Ancient American[http://ancientamerican.com/issue71.htm] and is clearly not a reliable source. Marburgy2/Vince Barrows[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cahokia&diff=next&oldid=155523689] appears on his radio show from time to time according to his website. The website also treats as genuine fringe stuff such as the Walam Olum (with no mention of recent criticism and an implicit claim that someone who has now acknowledged it is a hoax still supports it), the Grave Creek Tablets, Burrows Cave (rejected as a hoax even by most people who support hyperdiffusionists like Barry Fell) etc. Sure, there is a lot of hard work in it, but it doesn't belong as a source or link in Wikipedia. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
I also have serious problems with his insistence on adding his personal web site[http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/] here and elsewhere. I'll ignore the conflict of interest in his adding his own website as it is the site itself that is the problem. First, it's a personal website, and it is rare for those to be acceptable as either sources or external links. (see [[WP:LINKSTOAVOID]]. Another editor has pointed out that it includes "much incorrect information", which is true. It is also [[WP:FRINGE]. For instance, it refers to "expert Rick Osmon, the host of the Out of Place Artifact show called OOPA LOOPA CAFE". The 'Out of Place Artifact' more or less makes it clear Osmon is fringe, and I'd question the use of 'expert'. Osmon also publishes in the cult archaeology journal Ancient American[http://ancientamerican.com/issue71.htm] and is clearly not a reliable source. Marburgy2/Vince Barrows[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cahokia&diff=next&oldid=155523689] appears on his radio show from time to time according to his website. The website also treats as genuine fringe stuff such as the Walam Olum (with no mention of recent criticism and an implicit claim that someone who has now acknowledged it is a hoax still supports it), the Grave Creek Tablets, Burrows Cave (rejected as a hoax even by most people who support hyperdiffusionists like Barry Fell) etc. Sure, there is a lot of hard work in it, but it doesn't belong as a source or link in Wikipedia. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*What about the limestone slabs business? I've never heard of that, seems easy to prove or disprove. This claim that the [[Codex canadiensis]] says the the site was inhabited past 1500 is odd, since the map shows the join of the Missouri as uninhabited, (although this is just me and my OR). How can there be debate over the dimensions? ''Why'' is there debate over the dimensions? [[User:Phlegm Rooster|Phlegm Rooster]] ([[User talk:Phlegm Rooster|talk]]) 08:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
*What about the limestone slabs business? I've never heard of that, seems easy to prove or disprove. This claim that the [[Codex canadiensis]] says the the site was inhabited past 1500 is odd, since the map shows the join of the Missouri as uninhabited, (although this is just me and my OR). How can there be debate over the dimensions? ''Why'' is there debate over the dimensions? [[User:Phlegm Rooster|Phlegm Rooster]] ([[User talk:Phlegm Rooster|talk]]) 08:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Depends what everybody means by "the limestone slabs business". So far, drilling has encountered some areas of rocky material which the operator said (just before the drill bit fell off) felt like limestone; and excavation last summer revealed some limestone slabs in a different location, probably a ceremonial feature from an earlier phase of the Mound's development- but there is so far no evidence that limestone was a significant constructional material within the Mound. The Codex Canadiensis claim does indeed defy both conventional scholarship and site archaeology. And there is debate over the dimensions because of the notorious slumping. Where does slumped Mound end and open field begin? [[User:David Trochos|David Trochos]] ([[User talk:David Trochos|talk]]) 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:12, 2 July 2008
Illinois Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
St. Louis Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Indigenous peoples of North America Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Archaeology Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Merge?
Monk's Mound is the largest surviving mound within Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. There is no reason for the two articles to be separate from each other and if someone wants to merge them, I would cheer them on. Bigturtle 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge them. Most of the info repeats anways.
- I oppose the merge. There is a lot of information available on Monks Mound. The fact that it hasn't yet been incorporated into Wikipedia does not mean that it won't be. I didn't know there was a Monks Mound article, or I would have added the information. Also, analogously, Teotihuacan and the Pyramid of the sun have separate articles. Might as well treat Cahokia and its largest monumental construction the same way. TriNotch 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits and an editor's personal website
Yesterday a pretty poor article was replaced by one which I think would have passed the WP:GOOD article process. Since then, and with very few edit summaries explaining why, it has been changed in a way which changes it considerably (eg reverting the statement of 'there is no evidence of significant settlement' to 'there is evidence'. I think a lot of this has to do with Marburg72's own personal experience and a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has stated elsewhere that he supports the truth, which is laudable in one sense, but I believe has led him to edit in line with his understanding of 'the truth' (an elusive goal normally). For instance, he (twice at least) removed a quote sourced from a university press book co-authored by the dean of Cahokia archaeology because he didn't believe the statement was accurate. He has very strong views on what is the 'truth' here about recent excavations, and it is understandably difficult for him to be objective about something in which he has been heavily involved and has very strong feelings. I am sure that he deserves the credit he has been given for his work with the Cahokia Archaeology Society, but personal knowledge cannot be a source for Wikipedia. I also have serious problems with his insistence on adding his personal web site[1] here and elsewhere. I'll ignore the conflict of interest in his adding his own website as it is the site itself that is the problem. First, it's a personal website, and it is rare for those to be acceptable as either sources or external links. (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Another editor has pointed out that it includes "much incorrect information", which is true. It is also [[WP:FRINGE]. For instance, it refers to "expert Rick Osmon, the host of the Out of Place Artifact show called OOPA LOOPA CAFE". The 'Out of Place Artifact' more or less makes it clear Osmon is fringe, and I'd question the use of 'expert'. Osmon also publishes in the cult archaeology journal Ancient American[2] and is clearly not a reliable source. Marburgy2/Vince Barrows[3] appears on his radio show from time to time according to his website. The website also treats as genuine fringe stuff such as the Walam Olum (with no mention of recent criticism and an implicit claim that someone who has now acknowledged it is a hoax still supports it), the Grave Creek Tablets, Burrows Cave (rejected as a hoax even by most people who support hyperdiffusionists like Barry Fell) etc. Sure, there is a lot of hard work in it, but it doesn't belong as a source or link in Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- What about the limestone slabs business? I've never heard of that, seems easy to prove or disprove. This claim that the Codex canadiensis says the the site was inhabited past 1500 is odd, since the map shows the join of the Missouri as uninhabited, (although this is just me and my OR). How can there be debate over the dimensions? Why is there debate over the dimensions? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Depends what everybody means by "the limestone slabs business". So far, drilling has encountered some areas of rocky material which the operator said (just before the drill bit fell off) felt like limestone; and excavation last summer revealed some limestone slabs in a different location, probably a ceremonial feature from an earlier phase of the Mound's development- but there is so far no evidence that limestone was a significant constructional material within the Mound. The Codex Canadiensis claim does indeed defy both conventional scholarship and site archaeology. And there is debate over the dimensions because of the notorious slumping. Where does slumped Mound end and open field begin? David Trochos (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Start-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- Start-Class St. Louis articles
- Mid-importance St. Louis articles
- Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- Unknown-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- Start-Class Archaeology articles
- Unknown-importance Archaeology articles