Talk:Irish megalithic tombs

Three or four types of tombs?????????
At the beginning it says there are 3 types of tombs. Afterwards 4 types are stated. Should be corrected!!

Number of 163 portal tombs is wrong too!!

--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Distribution by province: tag: not specific enough to verify
I always do my best to give sources so the interested user can check the statement. When first I gave the two sources I stated at the begin of the chapter: The numbers of tombs in each province of Ireland are derived from the Irish National Monument Service and the Northern Ireland Sites & Monument Record. This was obviously not enough for the statement about the unclassified tombs, as it was tagged with citation needed. So I stated the same sources a second time, as I got the information from there.

Now it is tagged with: not specific enough to verify. I do not think wikipedia is meant to teach how to use different sources, but to get rid of this tag I will describe it here:

First I start with the Historic Environment Viewer (for the Republic of Ireland): once you have reached ths website and given your consent you can use it: on the right hand top is a kind of funnel: click on this and you can start a database query. For county select All counties, for class type megalithic tomb. You can select now: Megalithic structure, and at the bottom you get the information: Results returned: 449.

After having clicked on Clear Query you repeat this with: unclassified, and you get the information: Results returned: 430.

So we are near the 1000 stated in the article.

Now we move to Northern Ireland: Northern Ireland Sites and Monument Record - Search. Unfortunately I did not see any line that gives a sum. But typing megalithic tomb and click on search gives all the megalithic tombs in NI. Counting the results that do not have the information like unlocated or wedge tomb gives enough tombs that fall in the category unclassified, thus bringing the number well above 1000 as stated. (qed)--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . I have not restored the tag. But what you describe above sounds very much like "combining material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources". IE: WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Also, the number derived from the mathematics and source combining you note above (1000 monuments which remain unclassified on top of the 1373 which have been classified) doesn't seem to stack-up with the sources which suggest that there are "over 1,000 known megalithic tombs in Ireland" (in total).
 * Absent a source which doesn't have to be synthesised or a source which doesn't seem to conflict with other reliable sources, I'd be inclined to remove the claim. Or temper it. From "More than 1000 further "unclassified" megalithic structures are also recorded" to "A large number of "unclassified" megalithic structures are also recorded". Guliolopez (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Sorry, as long as Northern Ireland and the Republic have two different websites on this topic one always has to add the two together. Or does it mean not to state any fact that is only derived by adding values from different (but disjunct and very reliable) sources? And only state facts that are explicitely mentioned in the sources? Example: a source says: World War II lasted (in Europe) from September 1939 till May 1945. Can I not write in the article, that the war lasted more than 5 and a half year, but have to state the dates as they appear in the source?


 * I do not know where the Farmers Journal got its numbers from, but the two sources I stated are by far the most reliable ones, and they are updated whenever new facts arise. On this topic I certainly would not use it as the source to contradict the others.--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * RE: "combining the NI and ROI numbers". My concern is not that we are adding NI numbers and ROI numbers to come up with a "total number". My concern is that we are subtracting classified numbers from total numbers to come up with an "unclassified number".
 * RE: "the Farmers Journal number is unreliable". That Farmers Journal article was (according to the article) written by or submitted by someone in the National Monuments Service. It is then republished, by the National Monuments Service, on their own website. If it is unreliable or inaccurate, then I would question why the National Monuments Service would not have corrected it before their name was attached to it. Or why the National Monuments Service would then republish materials which they know to be inaccurate (with their name still attached to it).
 * RE: Compromise. I do not see that the compromise that I have proposed is unreasonable. "More than 1000" is already a little on the woolly side. Changing 3 words, to make it slightly woollier, is unlikely to detract from the readers understanding. In particular when, effectively, the existing sentence seems intended to communicate that "the above table doesn't include monuments which haven't been classified". Which the proposed wording also achieves.
 * Anyway, I'm not especially interested in making a big issue about it. Or pitting sources or editors against each other. For the sake of 3 words. But I don't think what I'm saying (or proposing) is especially controversial. Or should be considered as such.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi .I think the wording should mention the fact that there are megalithic tombs that are not included in the table and that their number is not just 5 or 6 or 222 or ... but that there are many more (when I checked the two sources: probably nearly twice as much), that are either too destroyed to be classified or not classified yet. Maybe you have an idea about the wording that includes this fact.


 * If you add the numbers of the four classified types you are somewhere in the region of 1000. Maybe that is what was meant in the Farmers Journal.


 * I too hope we can conclude this. Regards--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . In honesty, I'm still struggling with the maths. Which is half the problem. As editors and readers shouldn't have to do the maths themselves.
 * I say this because, when I follow the instructions above, for the NMS Historic Environment Viewer (ROI), I see the 430 "Megalithic tomb - unclassified" entries. So, I think, the 430 number is verified and verifiable. So, to my mind, we might be able to say "more than 400".
 * However, I do not understand why we are adding the 449 results from the "Megalithic structures" search to this total. Many of the entries in this result-set are not megalithic tombs at all. They are potentially standing stones, naturally occurring boulders and other sites which are not tombs. For example, just randomly clicking on the 449 results, the first entry I clicked stated that the entry was for a "site comprises a pair of rough boulders [..] not accepted as a megalithic tomb by de Valera and O’Nualláin (1972, 101)". Another as an "anomalous stone group". And another entry stating that the "Site may be largely natural in origin. (de Valera and Ó Nualláin 1972, 138, No. 5)". And another reading "de Valera and Ó Nualláin (1982, 48) consider feature too doubtful for inclusion in main list of megalithic tombs". And so the source states that many of these entries should probably NOT be classified as megalithic tombs. Certainly not all of them should. And so I do not think we should just be adding the 449 to the 430 to come up with >800. And from there (once we decide ourselves to add in the NI ones) to get from >800 to >1000.
 * In short, I can get behind the 430 number (unclassified tombs in ROI). And possibly even the 288 (unclassified tombs in NI). But I cannot get behind the 449 number (unclassified structures in ROI). As the archaeologists and archivists themselves weren't confident enough to describe them all as tombs. And so we shouldn't be.
 * To close this out, and as a compromise on the compromise, perhaps we can state "Many hundreds of 'unclassified' megalithic structures are also recorded". As I do not see that the references support a "more than 1000 claim". And any other number (>400, >600, >800, whatever) is just courting SYNTH issues.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi .I think we can settle the argument with your change. As it seems to have improved the article I think it was worth it. Regards--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Let's consider it settled/closed then. Have a great weekend. Guliolopez (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)