User talk:Talpiottomb

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Talpiottomb! Thank you for your contributions. I am Doug Weller and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Doug Weller talk 21:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Nielsen and Wolter
Thanks, but that book is self-published and thus shouldn't be in the bibliography. For some reason Wolter even refuses to submit his work for peer review, perhaps that's why he doesn't publish with normal publishers. Doug Weller talk 21:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The book is meticulously researched; has sold over 5000 copies and has been in the public domain for peer review for almost a decade. Isn't Alice Beck Kehoe's book, that is listed in the literature, and endorsed the research in Wolter and Nielsen's book considered peer review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.249.133 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I said that Wolter evidently is unwilling to submit his work for peer review - that means either to an academic publisher or a peer reviewed academic journal. You may think it shows meticulous research, others differ. Doug Weller  talk 15:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Which is a different issue anyway. We might mention self-published books in a book by the subject of an article, or one that became a New York Times bestseller, but those are rare examples. Doug Weller  talk 15:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused...? Wolter is an accomplished licensed professional geologist who has published numerous books through various publishers. My understanding is his geological work on the Kensington Rune Stone was peer reviewed, in writing, by several academic colleagues? How can you say he refuses to let his work be peer reviewed, and what exactly is a "normal" publisher? Who exactly "differs" with my opinion the research is meticulous? Do you have a sources for these statements? In 2007, he received a Grand Award from both the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), and a Distinguished Engineering Achievement Award from the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers, for his geological research of the Kensington Rune Stone. You apparently have not read the book as it is the most complete work on the Kensington Rune Stone to date. The book contains not just citations, but reproductions of hundreds of actual primary source documents, many that have never been published before that shed important new light on this subject matter. For my money, a licensed professional's work is more trustworthy than academia for the simple reason of accountability. Scientists like Wolter working in the professional world are held to a higher standard than academia, the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Every professional report they write is peer reviewed and they are often called in to testify to their findings. This is the highest form of peer review scrutiny there is. He also worked on the fire damaged concrete at the Pentagon after 9-11 for the government.

On a different note, why do you feel it's appropriate to list Anderson and Flom's papers that are both a over century old and filled with information and opinion's that are no longer valid today? In 1910, Professor Newton Winchell wrote the following in his peer review of Flom's address: "1. His (Flom) denial, instanter, prior to any investigation, of the genuineness of the stone. He has not shown the mental status of a frank and open minded investigator.  2. He, and R.B. Anderson are sharp business and personal rivals of Holand, and contestants before the Scandinavian people of the Northwest in the publication of historical and statistical works on the settlement of the Northwest by Scandinavians.  Such rivalry has broken out in flagrant personal attacks in the newspaper by one upon the other, and Anderson has culpably misrepresented some facts and has manufactured others.  The same having been published in his paper 'Amerika' at Madison, Wis.  Mr. Holand by his activity and by his greater sales of his printed works has provoked them to intense jealousy.  Mr. Flom has accepted some of Anderson's fabrications." Were these documents peer reviewed, and if so, how can academia then or now be trusted to get it right?

While on the subject of peer review, you have also allowed a citation by Nielsen and Professor Henrik Williams that is filled with factual errors about the Kensington inscription. Further, Kensington Rune Stone researcher, Jerry Lutgen (his contact information is available if necessary), in St. Paul, Minnesota, has repeatedly contacted Nielsen for access to the low resolution 3D data study he performed and they used to generate their findings. Both Williams and Nielsen are considered academics and are not allowing peer review of their research used to publish here a document that is filled with factual errors. It appears to me that a similar situation has developed between Wolter, who has a successful TV career, and Nielsen/Williams, as Holand and Anderson/Flom a century ago? Why are you not holding Nielsen/Williams to the same academic standards as Mr. Wolter?

With all due respect Mr. Weller, your comments against listing the Wolter book sound more like excuses to justify what appears to be censorship. Privately published or not, the book is the most important resource of factual information on the Kensington Rune Stone ever published. Isn't factual accuracy the most important criteria for any published source material the public has access to? Unless you or anyone else can prove the book contains inaccurate or inappropriate material this book should be the first source listed.


 * The user "Talpiottomb" made reference to me (Jerry Lutgen) in this conversation. I have been a frequent contributor to Kensington Rune Stone research for a few years now and I feel that I am well positioned to comment a few aspects of this conversation.  Firstly, "Talpiottomb" is completely correct that the book "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence", is an absolutely required reference for anyone making a serious study of the the Kensington Rune Stone, regardless of what one ultimately concludes about the authenticity of the stone.  There simply is no other source for much of the factual information contained in this book.  It seems to me that rejecting this well circulated and oft referenced book as a Wikipedia reference because it does not meet some roughly defined "peer review" criteria would be doing a disservice to many Wikipedia readers who need exactly this kind material to further their study of the Kensington Rune Stone. Secondly, I want to confirm that I have made multiple attempts to gain access to the 3D model of the Kensington Rune Stone obtained by Richard Nielsen in 2008.  My goal was use my expertise in computational imaging in order to help Mr. Nielsen get that resource into the public domain in an accessible way.  Now, Mr Nielsen may have maneuvered this in such a way that he has the legal right to with hold this work from public review, but by accepting him as a suitable source of reference material it does cause one to wonder if a double standard in being applied to the work produced by Scott Wolter, who is after all Mr. Nielsen's co-author for the Kensignton Rune Stone book.  Jllutgen (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)jllutgen

It's been a week now since I responded to your comments Mr. Weller and because you have nothing to refute the facts I've presented, most notably that the research in the book has been peer reviewed, I assume you'll do the right thing and allow the Nielsen/Wolter book to be listed as part of the literature.