Talk:Alexander Thom

Untitled
I note that there is little content relating to Thom's work in Fluid Mechanics at Glasgow, or later at Oxford. His wartime service at the Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough, where he worked in the high speed wind tunnel is also missing. There was a relatively recent lecture given to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on his life and works. This might serve as a useful basis for extending the stub.--Stephen McParlin 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is now a very good book about Thom and his work on prehistoric sites by Robin Heath, who is probably the modern equivalent of Thom. It is called 'Cracking The Stone Age Code', published by Bluestone Press, ISBN 978-0-9526151-4-9 price £14.99. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in this great man's life and prehistoric sites work.--Kevin Rowan-Drewitt (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thom's work mostly confined to the British Isles
For example. His work also forms a major part of Aubrey Burl's The Stone Circles of the British Isles (Yale University Press, 1976). ðarkun coll 12:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reference is derived from the original incorrect Wikipedia article, and is not a reliable source - this is very easily verified by comparing the wiki article with your reference. The provided biographical reference  is the source I used for the article.  --HighKing (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. Thom's work was mostly confined to the British Isles - that's a fact. And even your own reference is part of a website called BRITANNIA.COM . . . AMERICA'S GATEWAY TO THE BRITISH ISLES SINCE 1996 (my bold). ðarkun coll 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. No point in asking you to check again, but I'm sure other editors will see that it is....  Also, I don't really care what the title of the website says - this isn't about the website (an American run website about all things British, and doesn't appear to realise that British Isles also contains Ireland), this is about the text of the biography.  Please stop inserting uncited and unreferenced material into wiki articles - or provide a reliable source for the text you with to insert.  --HighKing (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask again. Please provide a reference that states the author became interested in Stone Circles of the British Isles.  Your continuing refusal to discuss your edits and provide references is against policy and amounts to edit warring.  In addition, reverting me edits and labelling them "Political" is untrue and I have challenged you in the past to substantiate this claim.  --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you find one? It did take me maybe 10 seconds to type Thom stone circles British Isles into Google books (and discover it was in a book I have). Britannia.com, by the way, is not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the reference you came up with is not correct - it's an example of good old incorrect-use of the term British Isles. I've yet to find any publication by Alexander Thom that shows an interest in anything other than is work around British stone circles, and his work in Brittany in France.  And why isn't Brittania.com considered a reliable source - just curious... --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This book appears to include Thom's publications. --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't think Hutton, a very reliable source, is correct, so you remove the sourced edit. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. In any case, he's correct. The book you found is articles written in honor of him, it may well list his publications but you'd have to read it first. Britannia.com is a basically a tourist site whose owner has people writing articles for it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "became especially interested in the stone circles of the British Isles and France" is a fabrication - there is nothing to support this. He was especially interested in stone circles, full stop.  He spent considerable time personally surveying megalithic structures in Cumbria and an Brittan.  If you're going to use the term "especially interested", I believe it would be true to say he was "especially interested in stone circles" full stop.  Using the term "British Isles" in this sentence and in this context is unverifiable and untrue, and the fact that he surveyed structures in Brittany shows that his interest had nothing to do with being limited to the British Isles.  His own son writes about him in this book, and the biography of him on this book also suggests "Britain and Britanny" - again, nothing about Ireland. I suggest that the paragraph should be rewritten more accurately as:
 * Thom became especially interested in astronomical associations of stone circles. Thom travelled in the company of his son Archie, measuring prehistoric sites in Britain and Brittany and analysing the data created.
 * I belive the paragraph above to be a verifiable compromise to the existing situation. --HighKing (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, a catalogue of the Alexander Thom archive held in the National Monuments record of Scotland lists England, France, Scotland and Wales. No Ireland.  The research papers in the book included as being inspired by Thom includes subjects such as the stone circles of Cumbria, the Brainport Bay site, the stone alignments of Argle and Mull, Maegalithic observations of Britain, the stone rows of Northern Scotland, Stones in the landscape of Brittany, the orientation of visibility from the chambered cairns of Eday Orkney, the ring of Brodgar, Orkney, the geometry of megalithic rings (from the Isle of Lewis, North Uist, Orkey, Inverness, North Yorkshire).  Again, nothing to suggest an Irish connection.  --HighKing (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

England is also incorrect, on that logic, because he didn't survey any stone circles in Kent, for example (there aren't any). So England is therefore wrong. Isn't it? When we say such and such a thing took place in the British Isles, it is ridiculous to imply that we mean the phenomenon existed in every square inch (or whatever) of the British Isles. How about this phrase: Insular Celtic languages are spoken in the British Isles. Are you arguing that this is also untrue, since they aren't spoken in England? ðarkun coll 11:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a wide-ranging discussion on when to use the term British Isles, a better place is WP:BISLES. And from the guidelines there, then you will clearly see that in order to use the term British Isles, there must be a reference to Ireland.  Otherwise the closest geographical term is "Britain".  This is the term used in Thom's biography, also in the book documenting his work in this area, and the National archives show work done in England, Scotland, and Wales.  I've no objection if you want to use these terms instead of Britain...  --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we having this discussion when Thom wrote, with Burl, "Stone Rows and Standing Stones: Britain, Ireland and Brittany

By Alexander Thom, Aubrey Burl"?
 * @Doug, probably because that book was written by Burl, and not by Thom. The book you refer to in Google Books has a different title, and the introduction to that book states "This book is the outcome of a promise made several years ago to Professor Alexander Thom and his son, Dr. Archie Thom, that I would add archaeological comments to their analyses of stone rows and standing stones".  Obviously Burl wrote the book using a lot of material by Thom.  We're having this discussion because I thought we were interested in accuracy?  As I've pointed out above, Thom didn't appear to ever set foot in Ireland, and stating that he had an especial interest in standing stones of the "British Isles" is incorrect.  Feel free to address the points raised above, especially the fact that the National Archives have categorized his work and have no section for Ireland - because he didn't do any work there.  BTW, the sentence objected to in the article doesn't even have anything to do with his work, it's the assertion that he was "especially interested in the stone circles of the British Isles".  In light of the research, it is clear that this cannot be verified.  Please see my suggestions above for a new paragraph.  --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

B.A.R. publication. HighKing, you have original research. We are interested in what reliable, verifiable sources say. It's the source that has to be verifiable, and Hutton is verifiable. That would be the end of it were it not for the politics. Doug Weller (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the innuendo about politics and AGF. For clarity:
 * Have you now withdrawn the "Stone rows and Standing Stones" by Burl as a reference?
 * Are you now relying solely on Hutton as a reference? Hutton may be verifiable, but he does not provide any references for his use of the term British Isles.  Are you chosing to ignore:
 * Thom's listed publications
 * The Alexander Thom archive held in the National Monuments record of Scotland
 * Tthe description of Thom's life and work by his son in the introduction to "Records in Stone"? He states that Thom "He did practically no field work in Ireland, making only one trip as far as County Tyrone".  One trip.
 * I believe there is a more than reasonable argument to change the paragraph. There is nothing to back up that he took a special interest in stone circles located in the British Isles.  I would agree that he was especially interested in Stone Circles.  I would agree that he surveyed in Britain and France.  He has never published on any circle in Ireland, and according to WP:BISLES guidelines, it is incorrect to use the term British Isles in these circumstances.  I await to hear from you.  Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am including a publication of Thom's which clearly mentions Ireland. You've found that he did some field work in Ireland, and 'especially interested' doesn't even require field work if there are surveys available to use. The book is by Burl, the B.A.R. publication which I referenced is by Thom with Burl as an author also. So, we have a field trip to Ireland and a B.A.R. publication, and Hutton. All clearly suggest an interest in Ireland. We go by reliable and verifiable sources, if you have one that says 'Thom never showed an interest in Irish stone circles', fine. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. We are talking about Alexander Thom, there are no references that show Alexander Thom was 'especially interested in the stone circles of the British Isles'.  You have mentioned 3 references.
 * The B.A.R. publication only refers to one site in Northern Ireland, which is in Tyrone (which is in the UK btw). In addition, this site in Tyrone was surveyed by his son, A.S.Thom ("The stone rings of Beaghmore: geometry and astronomy", A.S.Thom; UJA43, 1980, pg 15-19), and not by Alexander Thom.
 * The B.A.R. publication states "Northern Ireland" when referring to the publications of A & A.S. Thom. It makes it clear which are by A.Thom and which are by his son.  None by A.Thom are in Ireland.  None.
 * The book by Burl is based on the B.A.R. publication except it doesn't refer to Thom as an author - so this is not a reference that supports your assertion (see above for why the B.A.R. publication isn't a reference either)
 * So that means you have a single citation by Hutton, which has now clearly been shown to be incorrect. There are no publications by A.Thom for Ireland.
 * You say that "especially interested" doesn't require field work. I agree, but I've yet to see *any* evidence that Thom had an interest outside of Britain and Brittany.  In light of the amount of work we've both done to try to find evidence to support the assertion, and the failure to find anything other than a 3rd hand reference by Hutton, it is clear that the assertion cannot be supported.  I await your response, but the Hutton reference is not enough as it is unsupported by the facts.  --HighKing (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more than enough. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you weren't trying to remove all instances of "British Isles" from across Wikipedia wherever you can. ðarkun coll 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tharky, that is a personal attack - it is grossly offensive to me to be accused of any underhanded motive, and it is just not true. How short your memory is - I supported the usage of the term in the Shannon article. I've made it very clear countless times in the past when usage is correct and when it is not.  If you had bothered to try to engage in the WP:BISLES task force, you'll see that the criteria I have been applying for the past year are pretty much exactly what the task force came up with.  Finally, how come it's always when we reach the part of the discussion where *you* can't find a reference that you starting with the personal attacks?  At least Doug has been calm and has tried to find actual references, not resorted to commenting on or attributing motives to the editor. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of any "underhand" motive. Your motivation is perfectly obvious. ðarkun coll 23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Doug, have you had a chance to read the latest update above? I await your response before editting.  --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hutton is a reliable source. Yes, you think he is wrong, but I've got no reason to think that he doesn't know more than you or I do about Thom's interest. And all we are saying is 'interest'. Doug Weller (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Would it be better then to talk about what Thom actually did and wrote rather than something as vague as 'interest'. Wouldn't that solve the problem? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Megalithic yard into Alexander Thom
This appears to be one person's crackpot theory, with little or no support from reputable scientists, and could adequately or perhaps better be covered in our page on that person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well it is a crackpot theory, but one which prompted a great deal of (critical) discussion, and became a formative moment in the history of archaeostatistics and archaeoastronomy which is still discussed today (see e.g. the refs in megalithic yard). I think it is still notable in its own right and worth covering separately, so oppose a merge. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points, that's more or less what I thought when I saw this nominated. If it had had little or no attention, maybe, but that's not the case. So no to any merge. Doug Weller  talk 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)