User talk:Marburg72

The authorization permits for the monks mound backhoe destruction from the IHPA were requested August 25, 2007. The state policy to respond to the request for public information such as this is 1 month. As of October 2, 2007, the permits have not been received. This is a violation of the freedom of information act.

I finally got a response to my FOIA request. The legal boss said “No permit is required when they are working on their own property.” They are going to send me a letter saying the same thing. Marburg72 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Walum Olum

Many archaeologists have been convinced it was a hoax for 50 years (Jimmy Griffin and Glenn Black famously addressed this). The recent publications that address this in detail are those by David Oestreicher and Herbert Kraft. The citations are on the Walam Olum page. The debunking is lengthy and I am not truly qualified to summarize it. TriNotch 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One book that shows support of the evidence for the authenticity of the Walum Olum is the interesting book "Man and Impact in The Americas". Other supporting evidence for the walum olum includdes: sacred scrolls of the southern ojibwe, Tablets found at Wickliffe Mounds, Pictographs from around the country, the Ketika Figurines from central ohio, and effigy mounds that also depict Walam olum images.Marburg72 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MONKS MOUND DESTRUCTION

a reference to the Monks Mound destruction under the claim that wikipedia or photobucket is not a reliable source to show that the actions were "controversial". One source you should look at that discusses the facts of this fiasco is the Wotanging Itcke Vol 15.051. I recommend this citation for validity that the "excavation" is not appropriate. It also was shown in the article entitled "Accelerated Soil Erosion" located: http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/66/6/1911.pdf that soil erosion has not been a problem since farming and plowing has stopped on mound surfaces. The article located on Lithic casting lab about the fiaco also shows that this year was a drought.

Your terminology choice "excavation" does not match any of the types of excavations on Wikipedia. The responses from Professional archaeologists show that no archaeologists were even on site when the backhoes were being used to tear apart monks mound. No inspection was done on the west side at all, and backfilling occurred before any inspctions could be done.

further scientific references relating to the relevence of the slope stability plan can be seen at http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/08/the-excavation-.html

There are to many misconceptions being passed around about Monks Mound; it is important that the facts be understood. Marburg72 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you add this source to the article? I'm not questioning that it was controversial, just the way in which it was cited, which was absolutely not okay. Murderbike (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, I removed the ref to nanews.org because it was not formatted correctly. If an article was published on this website that says there was controversy, please cite the specific article. You may want to read WP:CITE to get some tips on how to cite sources. Murderbike (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is not a correct term to describe destruction. When part of the mound was removed without inspection, it was destroyed. It either was destroyed or it was not. There is no controversy, it simply was destroyed. That said. the source that you are looking for was added to the references section on the bottom of the page. It is a featured article in the wotanging ikche. Vol 15.051

Ah, here's where the confusion comes in. I didn't question whether or not there was destruction. I added the "citation needed" tag because the sentence says that it was "controversial", which needs to be cited. And i bothered to check the article you cited, but it isn't on their website, the back issues only go up in the 40s, not all the way to 51. If a source can not be provided that states that the action was "controversial", I will remove the wording. Murderbike (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to access the referenced source, Volume 15.051, you will need to send an email and ask the Wotanging Ikche publication for that particular issue. It appears that they have not published it on their website yet. There are no sources that state the opinion that the excavations were controversial accept on wikipedia website. The article discusses the events that took place on the mound. For a professional response on the issue of Cahokia Mounds mismanagement, see the ias professional archaeologists website.http://virtual.parkland.edu/ias/member_com/announcements/announcements.htm Marburg72 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok cool, i'll just remove the wording and leave it be. thanks for your prompt replies. Murderbike (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest instead of removing the sentence completely, adding the following: Removal of 30,000 cubic feet from both sides of Monks Mound caused inappropriate damage to the archaeological record. [Wotanging Ikche. Volume 15 issue 51]

Digging into a mound without a permit is a state crime; unauthorized digging into an Indian grave is a federal crime; destroying part of a World Heritage Site is an outrage. See Wotangng Ikche Volume 15 issue 51 for the complete story of the Monks Mound fiasco. See illinois law 20ILCS 3420 for a complete explanation of the legalities of excavation of over 30.000 cubic feet out of the sides of Monks Mound with Backhoes with no permit. :::::http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=372&ChapAct=20%A0ILCS%A03420/&ChapterID=5&ChapterName=EXECUTIVE+BRANCH&ActName=Illinois+State+Agency+Historic+Resources+Preservation+Act.

"Adverse effect" means: (1) destruction or alteration of all or part of an historic resource;

See also the Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act (Illinois Comp. Stat. Ann. 20 ILCS 3440/0:01, et seq.). yes, Monks mound ::::contains and contained burials - both native and historical. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), ::::P.L. 101-601. What part of this law do you not understand? Marburg72 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that there were burials in the area that was "repaired"? David Trochos (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Excavation on the top of Monks Mound continued through the summers of 1965 and 1966 with mixed results. On the third terrace the archaeologists found the remains of a house, possibly Amos Hill's, and, in the northwest corner. Amos Hill's Grave."http://www.archive.org/stream/cahokiagreatnati00youn/cahokiagreatnati00youn_djvu.txt Excavations from the 2007 work removed 30,000 cubic feet from both the northwest corner and the northeast side. Amos Hills burial was located at the location of excavation on the northwest side. On the east side (at the location of the birdman tablet discovery- next to a burial) there was a circle of limestone slabs hit by the backhoe operator inside which was a clearly visible chamber containing dark organic materials lined with cedar and bald cypress posts. Both are very visible in the photos. Perinos work shows that these chambers invariably contained burials. (see 2004 (with M.D. Wiant)Illinois Hopewell and Late Woodland Mounds. The Excavations of Gregory Perino: 1950-1975. Studies in Archaeology 4. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Marburg72 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought Hill's grave was at the northwest corner of the area excavated in the 1960s (terraces 3-4) and the 2004 slump was in the northwest corner of the mound (north of terrace 2). As for the limestone slabs- nobody knew they were there until the digging revealed them. David Trochos (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hill's grave is on the Northwest corner according to the above source - and they had taken soil cores throughout the year prior to digging, they knew what they were digging to reveal.Marburg72 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the Young/Fowler quotation again, including the commas. As for the soil cores- are you suggesting that Bill Iseminger was lying when he called the limestone slabs an "unexpected discovery"? (On a related subject- are you aware of how often you indirectly accuse others, including me, of lying?) David Trochos (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotation is clear - it states that Hill's grave is at the northwest corner. Secondly, I talked with Paula Cross after the excavations and asked if soil cores had been taken on that location of the stone "discovery". She replied that indeed that they had been taken - and that is how they "determined the slip face depth". I am stating the facts - site mangament and state historic preservation agency explanation of the fiasco as "preservation" is entirely incorrect. I am not accusing you of lying, I am simply stating the facts. Marburg72 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are stating your interpretation of the information you have received. Your interpretation appears to be at variance with Bill Iseminger's published account, but it is likely that another person who talked with Paula Cross about the same subject would interpret her response differently. The same sort of thing has happened with information from Joe Napora and Jerome Rose. David Trochos (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Monk's Mound

(to David Trochos) Your removal of the link stated "website contains much incorrect information". Please explain. Marburg72 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll offer a few examples:

a) The title of the page is wrong (a trivial point perhaps, but symptomatic).

The title of the page: Historiography of Monks Mound - this is entirely correct. The historiography is the narrative presentation of history based on a critical examination, evaluation, and selection of material from primary and secondary sources and subject to scholarly criteria. This is exactly what is presented.

Now you're doing to your own writing what you do to academic sources- ignoring the bits that don't fit. Read your title again.

You think I dont know what the title of my own website is? Historiography of Monks Mound - definately relavent information that is well cited from primary and secondary sources. The information presented does not include false information or unverifyable speculation.

You still haven't quoted the full title of your website in this discussion. Why not?

You can look at the website yourself and read it - you might learn something (probably).It is located at http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound

b) Claims about the construction of Monk's Mound contradict archaeological evidence (e.g. time, design etc.).

The contruction of Monks Mound is necessary to re-evaluate on the basis of Colored Soil, Limetone Slabs, and purple pottery sherds found therein. All evidence is presented in the article with photos. The archaeological evidence is presented and examined.

If there is a source for these claims which has been through proper academic review processes (pre or post publication), then by all means you can cite that. Anybody can "present and examine" archaeological evidence, but, to give a tangential example, somebody with 40 years' experience in the analysis of recovered human remains is more likely to be able to interpret those remains- particularly with the advantage of seeing them at first-hand- than somebody who lacks such advantages.

The website includes peer-reviews in the blog - showing that many experts have expressed great interest in the information. For example- "The information is aweseome!" from Dr. Gomer - chair of the AACA - and many others.

Dr. Gomer (Thornton Pyle) may be a brilliant restorer of lithic antiquities, but he's not an archaeologist. And blog comments are not the same as professional academic review.

Archaeologists have also commented positively about it including David Penney- who stated commendations on the extent of the research and interpretations, even though he stated he believed the Welch Butterfly was a nineteenth century fantasy.

Indeed; nobody is denying the extent of your research. David Trochos (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

c) There is no evidence that the De Soto expedition ever came to Cahokia; and on the latest scholarly estimates, they never got within 100 miles.

The evidence the DeSoto visited Cahokia is presented in the article. Monks Mound is was drawn by a member of the DeSoto expedition upon return to Spain - in a horrid scene.

A copy of the drawing, or a link to someone else's copy, would have been nice. You have a lot of research to argue against.

I originally included the drawing, then later removed it due to graphic nature of the period scene depicted including hands and eyes being chopped off, people being eaten by mastiffs, and monks mound in the background with bodies being thrown off all sides of the mound. I removed the drawing because of the graphic nature and it is unsuitable for display.

If readers can't find the evidence, it isn't evidence. I would have thought somebody would have put it up online, but so far I have not been able to find such a picture.

Readers can read the DeSoto chronicles and research to find the historical drawing.

d) The triple-notched arrow-heads depicted in the Codex Magliabechiano are not the same as Cahokia triple-notched arrow-heads; they are, as one would expect, a design found further south.

The triple- notched cahokia Points in Codex Magliabechiano are shaped in the the same exact way as the Mound 72 points.

No. Look at the shape of the base. David Trochos (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The shape of the base on the drawing listed shows an indented form, with the three-noticed and serrated edges. This type of point was specifically found in Spiro, and as stated, it was believed by many professionals to be made at Cahokia Mounds due to the majority of such examples found at the site. Similar examples of over 900 points were found in Mound 72 at Cahokia.

No, you're still not looking closely at the base- the Spiro points are not the same as the Codex ones.

Yes, the base is identical to Spiro Mound points: See: http://lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/tributetriplelarge.htm

Please note that I am also going to have to revert all edits to Monk's Mound based on such incorrect information. David Trochos (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of the information linked to in the Historiography of Monks mound does not comply with Wikipedia Standards of "Further reading/External links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic. The Wikipedia guideline for external links that are not used as sources can be found in Wikipedia:External links."

See on that page "Links normally to be avoided" section 2.David Trochos (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

None of the criteria in Links Normally to be avoided can be applied to the website in question.

That one can, for the sort of reasons outlined above. Informed outsiders who compare your website with the evidence will find numerous examples of false conclusions.

No, there are no examples of false conclusions in my website.

Aha, I see I've been beaten to the punch. That reminds me to ask a relevant question: where on the map at page 3 of The Great Knob are the dimensions of Monk's Mound explicitly stated? David Trochos (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The dimensions are stated explicitly on the topographic map- in Meters. These dimensions are not "debatable" and are higly accurate based on an actual survey of the mound- why is there any misundersanding here?Marburg72 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The question I asked was "where on the map..." David Trochos (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The website I put together includes a scan of the map - and it is clear if you know about topographic maps that each contour is at 1 meter intervals - and they have the elevation shown ever 10 intervals. Length and width can be read easily on the side of the map.Marburg72 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So the dimensions are not "stated explicitly" (which they are on pages 1-2) but can be measured (by you, based on your definition of where the Mound's boundary lies). That's precisely the sort of thing that Wikipedia cannot allow. David Trochos (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you read a topographic Map? If so, you can read the dimesnions directly off the map.Marburg72 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Marburg72)

Hello, Marburg72. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72Template:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate. -- David Trochos (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Way to go. You have taken your personal bias against the information I have added and the Walam olum to a whole new level. Obviously, We do not agree. I can live with that. Your accusations are completely false however and only show that your personal opinion of sources that do not "square" with your hero Oestreicher are not worthy. Your accusations are way out of line!Marburg72 (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz accused me numerous times of commiting violations including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam. Upon inspection of this regulation, I see that External link spamming includes NO criteria that are not met in my website - which was relavent to all topics and added only as a contribution of interesting materials.

I was not : Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. No personal information or product promotion is seen on my website. Marburg72 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC Policy States :RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. David Trochos is in direct violation of the poilcy.Marburg72 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)