Talk:Viking Altar Rock

Todd community centre
Is that really a reliable source? Not only is there no sourcing of the statements done there, and it's hardly a scholarly source but should probably be seen as self-published. But also, the effort to connect it with the (possibly non-existent) expedition to Greenland in 1354 by way of completely baseless speculation casts serious doubts on the content. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article states clearly that the stone is promoted as a local landmark and attraction on the so-called Viking Trail; that's part of its notability. A local history website is certainly a valid source for what local historians think. The article also states with extreme clarity that while this claim is made, it is controversial and not supported by a consensus of historians and archaeologists. This is true in general of claims that Viking explorers traveled through inland North America (you may wish to start arguing about this at Norse colonization of the Americas), which is a topic that meets notability requirements. Hence this landmark, whether or not it is authentic, is one of the pieces of debatable evidence that pertains to that historical question. The book published by the Minnesota Historical Society takes note of the landmark, and describes the dubious nature of this interpretation. The information about the 1354 expedition isn't even in this little article, which simply describes why this stone is regarded as a local landmark. It in no way endorses the interpretation of the stone as a Viking site. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly a local history site, and it references no local historians. It's the Todd Community Center, and you have no idea who wrote the text. On the History page it says "We invite you to send your stories and photos to: Webmaster". As far as we know, the text about the Viking Altar Rock can have been written by a prominent local historian, or it can have been written by a stoned teenager. We just don't know. That means the site is not a reliable source for anything. I appreciate you following me here and helping to improve the article, but I don't think we can use the Todd Community Center's web page as a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't follow you here; please retract your accusation. If you check my contributions, you'll see that I frequently write about topics pertaining to ancient religion, and have included some comparative material on early and medieval Scandinavian religion in other articles. The material on the local history site is also in the book published by the historical society; this is not a scholarly source, nor does it assert what the landmark is, but simply points out what local tradition is and that the rock is regarded as a tourist attraction promoted as part of this so-called "Viking Trail." The book is a source for the fact that it's a landmark and an attraction, with an explanation of why. There are many articles on attractions and landmarks. I'm not sure why you object so strongly to this innocuous little piece that's existed for four years. I added a published source, and felt that I improved the wording of its claims. I'm not sure what led you to this article, but since you've decided to start editing again, you might want to consider exploring ways to improve articles through positive contributions and to engage in a less adversarial manner. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The material on the local history site is also in the book published by the historical society;" - So then we can use that as a source instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is used as a source; please follow the link given, which also provides pieces of information bizarrely tagged as uncited, even though footnoted and linked. It's bad practice to tag something as unsourced without reading the linked source. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)