Talk:Davenport Tablets

Objectivity
This article is amazingly balanced, factual and devoid of conjecture.Cadwallader (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm, I take it. The article is unsourced and highly opinionated. 207.88.131.68 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a complaint that the article runs uses strongly opinionated ideas and words for the engraved stones. No scientific evidence is presented to support that opinion. The article is not independently verifyable data and filled with personal reporting. I suggest looking at the The Blind Men and the Elephants: The Davenport Relics Reconsidered By James L Guthrie, published by New England Antiquities Research Association publication on the Davenport Stones for a more balanced and scientific study of the stones and their linguistics. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither Guthrie nor NEARA can be considered objective or balanced, Guthrie is certainly not a linguist or an archaeologist, he is a research chemist. Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Guthrie presents both historical arguments of opinion against the stones, as well as evidence for their authenticity, and does so in a balanced and objective way. NEARA is a research association that provides access to information for serious researchers. For a complete understanding of these sources, it should be added to the bibliography, and wording of opinion should be cited. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what NEARA is (they've got a link to an article on my website). It's a hyperdiffusionist organisation and not a reliable source. That wouldn't necessarily mattered if Guthrie's article had been widely discussed, but it hasn't and is not a 'significant view'. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about your opinion of their orgization or a popularity contest of the engraved stones. Your opinion that Guthrie's article has not been widely discussed and is not significant is unwarranted. See:

http://www.neara.org/monographs.htm His article has been discussed among the scholarly community for years. Guthrie's presentation is fair and completely well researched. It should be added to references for the benefit of the group. The proper citation is: Guthrie, James L. The Blind Men and the Elephants: The Davenport Relics Reconsidered, NEARA Monograph, 2005. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And your evidence for this being 'discussed among the scholarly community for years' is? Doug Weller (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See a discussion on these stones located at http://www.equinox-project.com/esop81.htm . See WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.193.87.114 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know some of the people involved with the Equinox project. And you haven't given a link to a discussion, just Totten's argument about what he calls 'denunciations' and I'd call criticisms. WP:NPOV says "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Guthrie has been ignored by the scholarly community. Doug Weller (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, your bias does not meet WP:NPOV requirement of "as far as possible without bias". Guthrie has not been ignored by those interested in the study of the davenport relics, and numerous emails and discussions have taken place due to his significant work. Your desire to ignore his work only shows your personal and unscientific bias. Once again, this source should be added for the benefit of the group and the biased words should be removed. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, my thoughts on the issue don't matter, it is the guidelines and policies that matter. Emails and 'discussions', whatever they are, mean nothing on Wikipedia. How many times do I have to repeat "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" should be represented in an article?  Have you read WP:Reliable?  Guthrie's ideas do not show up in reliable sources as defined by that, period. This is an encyclopedia, not a 'group' (I'm wondering now what you think Wikipedia is), and reports on what other sources have had to say -- but not just any old source, 'reliable sources'. Guthrie is discussed via email, mailing lists, etc, among a very small community of like-minded individuals, but ignored by the wider world and is not a significant published by reliable sources (to repeat once again the guideline).  Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of a significant work about the Davenport Stones as not being reliable is false. Have you even read the source? An encyclopedia is not your opinion. Once again, for the benefit of the group, the Source should be added to the davenport page. SeeWP:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{unindent]I don't know why you won't read Wikipedia guidelines. 'Published by reliable sources' is what I wrote, and you don't seem to have understood this. Once again, read what this means -- WP:Reliable: And when you do the above, you get nothing. Guthrie has not been published in a reliable source in the sense described above. And I repeat, what do you mean by 'the group'? Doug Weller (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
 * Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
 * The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.
 * I should have added this, particularly as we are talking about 'an exceptional claim':

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources." Doug Weller (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your description of reliable articles matches the treatment that the monograph has had with a great reputation for accuracy. There is not a valid reason to say that the source that I have cited is unreliable. Apparently there have been peer-reviewed scholarly articles about the stones that are all referenced in the Blind Men source. The group is the readers of wikipedia. This souce presents a Neutral Point of View. Once again, Read WP:NPOV 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliability is not the default, you are going to have to show that the source, which is NEARA, is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. And as NEARA is certainly not judged as reliable by academic journals, you won't be able to do it. You won't find Guthrie discussed by archaeologists in professional journals which is an indication that his viewpoint is not significant. You are asking us to take your word that the monograph has a great reputation for accuracy, but Wikipedia wants verification, so where are the academic reviews (even critical ones might establish significance which would probably be enough). It doesn't matter that Guthrie mentions peer-reviewed articles, that is irrelevant.  And you don't understand what NPOV means although I've tried to explain it to you.
 * Go find some suitable mentions of Guthrie's article by archaeologists and linguists. Then we can discuss it further. Right now you are just repeating yourself (and so am I) and you aren't offering any evidence other than your opinion. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your words do not help with the understanding of this topic. The article says, “please help introduce links” and also references controversial authors. The NEARA publication does address these claims. You are going to have to show materials and publications that say that the Source, NEARA is not reliable. Your entire argument is based on your personal bias and opinion. The source is added for the benefit of the readers, as it presents an unbiased and thorough study that has been reviewed and is accepted by scholars. Who are you referring to when you say "us" to take my word? I am not asking anyone to take my word. I am contributing a worthy source that pertains to this topic for the benefit of the readers. Your attitude is irrelevant to this topic.207.193.87.114 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, show where it has been reviewed and accepted by scholars - not NEARA, by archaeologists and linguists, which I have already asked you to do. Reliability needs to be shown, not presumed. And Guthrie is not an unbiased source by any means. Doug Weller (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The attribution of motives and blanket condemnations present in this "article" make it sound like a blog comment. That is not up to the standards of wikipedia. While the author is most likely correct, this article needs to be replaced with something far more professional, and far less political. Steve Schaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.143.221 (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What is drawn on them?
Subj. This information is absent in the article. Alone Coder (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been distracted but I've got quite a bit of material for this article when I get a chance. Doug Weller (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the information about motifs present on the tablets are absent. I suggest adding photos of the stones. Marburg72 (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are now images of two of the stones. -- Auric    talk  15:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 2 our of 3 tablets. Can anyone find a decent photo of the third tablet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 08:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

what tablets?
This article, quite apart from questions of bias, is sadly lacking in factual information about the "tablets". They might be laxative tablets as far as the uninformed reader is concerned. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)