Talk:Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oklahoma Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is of mid-importance within WikiProject Oklahoma.
This article is supported by Taskforce Tulsa.

Contents

[edit] What does this mean?

Three symbols which looked like the English letters "PIA.". To Barry Fell was reasonably certain that the top line formed Ogam script, and I suspected that the three capital letters might also be ancient script because of the shape of the A.”
“The Ogham script is 'G-W-N,' meaning 'Gwen' or 'Gwynn,' masculine form of 'Fair,' one of the commonest Celtic names and equivalent to the English 'White.' The inscription below the Ogham, reading from left to right, are the North Iberian letters, 'Pa-ya-a,' spelling a Punic word that also means 'white.'”

The first paragraph above does not seem actually to mean anything, while the second seems dependent on it for meaning. If I knew what the author had to say, I would edit it. But I don't. So I won't. --Sean Lotz 06:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality and detail

  • This article seems very strange to me, and if I knew more about Turkey Mountain I would do some maintenance. It would be nice for it to discuss the bike trails and perhaps link to a map. I'll try to add some content once I know more. -Duplico 02:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This entry appears to directly plagiarize it's source on Salon.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.73.36 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one paragraph was a word for word paste. I have paraphrased it. Til Eulenspiegel 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality big time

This article, at least the way it is now, has a hard time belonging into an encyclopedia. Why? Because people like Barry Fell are called specialists in urchinology and zoology for a reason: They are neither archaeologists nor -- quite evidently -- linguists. A bilingual inscription in Welsh and Punic...? At what time exactly would a Phoenician and a Welshman have popped over to Oklahoma and decided to each scribble the word "White" in their respective languages into the rock? That is nothing short of silly. I'm not trying to insult anybody, but Wikipedia does have scholarly quality standards, which are not met by Barry Fell's linguistic capacity. Trigaranus (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

not a "Welshman", you are clearly unacquainted with Fell's work in this field, and have never read his books. He says they were ancient (BC) speakers of a P-celtic dialect of Celtiberian, and P-Celtic branch also happens to include modern Welsh. However, Fell is not as isolated in this view as you might wish; several other authors concur on this point, and they have always had those who would vigorously silence them; the question is, would it truly be "neutral" for us to side with the silencers, or do they have something to fear from letting people know about this and make their own minds up on a controversial matter, without being told "what to think" about it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm certainly not a Welshman, no (although I lived in Cardiff for quite a while), but I have studied the Botorrita tablet and other continental Celtic finds in the course of my university studies. As for the possibility of P-Celtic elements in Spain, I would rather bet in favour than against it, be they dialectal (so-far undetected groups of P-Celtic speakers before the Roman conquest) or lexical (certain words that actually did participate in the kw>p shift). It is a sensible point, and I have no intention of silencing anyone who suggests such a theory. P-Celts in Spain is, however, a pair of shoes quite different from a Welsh/Punic bilingual North-Iberic/Ogham inscription. Still, this — as you will surely admit! — rather adventurous suggestion, should not be silenced, but examined, and that it lends itself to quite a lot of possible criticism should be what readers unfamiliar with linguistics should learn from the article.
Now with Fell's writings I'm unacquainted in the sense that I have never thought it a very sensible investment to actually buy one of his publications on things other than sea-urchins. Still, you can find some of his "decipherments" on various parts of the internet ([1], [2]), and what you see there ought to give you a bit of a hint. It really should. He wasn't an accomplished linguist. He sees parallels where there are only the faintest, most superficial traces of them. It's pseudo-scholarship, ascribing a rather random transliteration to a set of epigrammata and then applying pseudoscientific language comparison (please, go through the list on that page) to have Tom, Dick or Harry make sense of it. Let me give you a few instances just from those two words supposedly meaning "white" in that cave. All of the following is based on common sense and should be open for anyone to check (there is a good photograph of the inscritions here [3]):

If any pre-Christian people would have been capable of crossing the Atlantic, it would have been the Carthaginians. I actually find it credible that some of their vessels reached the Saragossa sea...! So, for arguments sake, let's assume a Carthaginian actually reached Turkey Mountain. The terminus ante quo for this would most reasonably be before 149 BC, from when on there was no more Carthaginian state capable of mounting such an expedition. Even if some lone merchant vessel had ventured out in the Christian era, it is not very likely that that happened any time after the 4th century AD, if we were to assume that the person in question still used both the Punic language and an Iberian script. As those scripts had fallen out of use by the Christian era, we should concentrate on a date BC.

[edit] "Punic" inscription
  • North-Iberian is probably Fell's name for the Northeastern Iberian script. However, when you read the "PIA" inscription as if it actually were in North Iberian characters, you can't possibly find it to read "Pa-ya-a", but rather "A-Ba-Ka" (verify for yourself, please).
  • Punic used to be written in Phoenician characters, of which you may find a beautiful example here [4], not in Northeastern-Iberian (findings of which do not extend south of modern Valencia, with Punic being virtually confined to southern Spain).

[edit] "Welsh" inscription
  • The alleged Ogham inscription "ǁɪǀǀǀ" (or "ǁ ɪ ǁ ǀ") would have to be read "G-B-NG" or "G-B-G-M"
  • Ogham was predominantly used for Gaelic or Gaelicised names, i.e. the names were commonly given in an Irish rather than a Welsh form (example: Welsh / P-Celtic "Voteporigis" > Irish / Q-Celtic "Votecorigas").
  • Not even in the core area of Ogham use is there an Ogham inscription from before the 4th century AD.
  • Welsh "gwyn" in turn is not an old form (5th century or younger). In Antiquity, from which we would have to assume the inscription to date if we were to assume any connection between the two (which we are, according to Fell), that word looked different. When you go down to an actually ancient form, being a Welshman or not, you will find that the Welsh "gwyn" comes from Celtic "vind-" (as in Vindobona). The name in question was very common in Irish, in its Irish form "Finn/Fionn", which would read "ɪɪɪ ••••• ɪɪɪɪɪ" "F-I-N-(N)" in Ogham. Even if the inscription was in Ogham and in Old Welsh, it would read "ǁ ••• ••••• ɪɪɪɪɪ" ("G-U-I-N"), which looks quite a bit different from the actual lines found at Turkey Mountain.

So this is hopefully not a show of silencing, but rather of indicating some of the methodological flaws in his theory. Should we not make this criticism a bit more prominent in the article itself? Trigaranus (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can, if it is attributed to a published source that mentions the article subject, i.e. Turkey Mountain. Otherwise, it would be a perfect example of WP:SYNT (qv). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration

I have included a transliteration for the alleged inscriptions in Iberian and Ogham scripts, which are both well-attested and conclusively deciphered writing systems. I am sorry to say that reading the graphemes in question (identified by Fell himself as "PIA" and "ǁɪǁǀ") is not in the least bit more disputable than the decoding of ιδιωτς, שָׁלוֹם, or "ᛚᚨᚢᚲᚨᛉ". Ancient writing systems are not a projection screen for any reading that one might feel useful to furthering one's theories. Reading them follows certain conventions, the first and foremost of which is adhering to the system by which phonemic/phonetic values are assigned to certain graphemes. It does not even go as far as WP:NOR: Anybody with an interest can look up the actual transliterations from the material provided by Wikipedia.
In other words: Fell's dissenting with the commonly accepted transliteration of graphemes brings along a rather heavy burden of proof. This burden of proof is further enhanced by the fact that he used his so far un-proven reading in turn to solicit his equally un-proven theories about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. If there are any pieces of corroborating evidence (i.e. evidence not tainted by logical fallacies) which speak in favour of Fell's readings, they should be presented in this article. Interdependent chains of speculative or circumstantial evicence cannot prove such an excentric point, even if one were to accept the validity of one of the components (e.g. accepting the possibility of the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head being a Phoenician import does not allow an inscription to be mis-read in order to form an allegedly Phoenician word). These very fickle chains of argument are a hallmark of Pseudohistory and other branches of Pseudoscience, to which Wikipedia absolutely has no choice than to offer an alternative.
In order to avoid the trap of WP:SYNT, which Til has kindly pointed out (thanks!), and so as to respect the possibility that Fell may have been right in his conclusions nevertheless, I have limited the additional information to the transliterations, whithout setting it up to form a rebuttal of the entire set of theories. Trigaranus (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-rebuttals and avoiding SYNT / OR

If you want to include a counter-rebuttal to Fell's arguments, in order to avoid SYNT and OR, it is required that you look for a counter-rebuttal that has actually appeared in print somewhere, and not make up your own. Also please avoid using the imperative voice in the article - it's just not encyclopedic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is extremely poorly referenced and from the archaeological angle is completely speculative. Barry Fell is not considered a reputable archaeologist and his theories are considered fringe theories by mainstream archaeologists. While I don't have the time today to address this, I will try to clean up this article in the near future. Thanks, Madman (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to see that what you have just stated "is considered' is a POV, and a subjective opinion... He "is considered", seems to be saying that all those who don't consider him such or do not agree with this pronouncement, do not count. It's kind of a classic ad hominem argument. Please refer to WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, per NPOV, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." — WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the level of mention is undue weight, it's the main notability for this subject. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the main notability for this subject derives from the fact that it's a geographical feature. Most sources refer to it in that context; see here or here, for example. Jakew (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For balance, how many sources can you find specifically rebutting this hypothesis? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's quite often the case that an obscure theory is completely ignored by mainstream scientists because they don't feel that it needs to be dignified with a response. As such, the test regarding undue weight is whether a viewpoint is held by a tiny minority, not whether rebuttals exist. As far as I can tell, there is only a single WP:RS that makes this assertion (there's nothing in academic journals), and that suggests that this material doesn't belong in WP. Jakew (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you say "the mainstream scholars have all rebutted this hypothesis and therefore it must not be mentioned" when you can't even come up with a single one? How are we to know they have rebutted it as you say? Did they communicate their rebuttal to you verbally? Oh, sorry, that's not good enough. It deserves mention on its own merit, not a cover-up without a single basis but your opinion. Find sources that disagree, then they can be added - it's what WP:NPOV and WP:RS is all about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Now I see that a couple have been added by Madman while I was typing. This is good, now we have both POVs represented. Keep up the good work, remember, it's all about what can be sourced! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not make the statement that you falsely attribute to me. Please do not misrepresent my words. As for "what WP:NPOV ... is all about", I encourage you to read the policy, in particular the section entitled "Undue weight". Jakew (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
We aren't pushing the hypothesis or stating that it is correct. But per WP:RS, we have enough to mention that the hypothesis exists among multiple scholars who consider this site notable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
"Multiple scholars" is a bit of a stretch. We apparently have three authors, none of whom are archaeologists, who hold this viewpoint. Further, as WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability notes, "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." Jakew (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In my experience working with the WP:FRINGE project, I can tell you how this would end up: they are mainly concerned that fringe ideas are not being pushed unduly. As far as I am concerned, this article is currently not pushing the hypothesis and would meet their standard, perhaps you disagree? Beyond that, we have enough to make note that the hypothesis exists, and we should have nothing to fear in doing so, otherwise it might appear like we were covering it up if we did not mention it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be thinking of articles about fringe theories. That isn't the case here: the article is about a hill. Unfortunately, giving undue weight to a fringe theory (in this case, more than half of the article) in the context of another article has the effect of making the theory appear to be more noteworthy than it actually is. The fact is that, as a rough estimate based upon the links I provided above, about 200 reliable sources discuss Turkey Mountain as a geographical feature, compared to perhaps three sources of dubious reliability that discuss it in the context of Punic and Ogham scripts. Since a credible encyclopaedia needs to reflect mainstream scholarly thought on a subject, a sentence or two about the scripts may be appropriate as part of a larger article, but the present article gives undue weight to this theory. Jakew (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid we disagree. Perhaps we ought to raise this question at WP:FT/N...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, Come to think of it, since the subject is notable and well referenced, I suppose it could be made a separate article, like Turkey Mountain inscriptions if you think this one should be mainly about the geographic feature... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think you are getting into Fringe Theory territory here. The Hypothesis that these incriptions are Punic script is essentially being presented by a few amature historians (clearly writing on a topic that is out of their various fields of expertise)... If this is only discussed by these amatures, none of which could be called "mainstream" when it comes to either archeology or lingustics, then it is clearly a Fringe Theory and the guidelines of WP:FRINGE apply.
The theory is not really notable unless someone in the mainstream has commented upon it. That comment could be in favor of the theory, neutral as to the theory, or even disparaging of the theory... the key is to demonstrate that someone in the mainstream has taken note of it. That does not seem to be the case here. It was asked above: "how many sources can you find specifically rebutting this hypothesis?"... but the real question is how many mainstream sources discuss the hypothesis at all?
While I do think that the inscriptions themselves may be notable... and worthy of a brief one or two line mention... I think you should cut any discussion as to the interpretation of what the incriptions might mean as being WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Till, do you seriously believe that the scratch marks and the PIA inscriptions are indeed "P-Celtic" in Ogham and Punic in "Iberian"? Think of Ockham's Razor for just one second, and then you will know that the burden of proof — i.e. making these hypotheses empirically feasible enough to be considered encyclopedic — is extremely heavy on Fell's side. In other words, although Fell is a published author, his readings would have to be corrobated by linguistics in order to be maintained. You must be aware of the fact that scholars of Celtic Studies have called Fell's so-called finds "semantic phantasy of the wildest nature", "stupid and ignorant fraud" and "ignorant gibberish" (those are from Ross/Reynolds and O Hehir), which would alone be encyclopedic justification enough to "silence" this article for good. The fringe content in this article is highly disputible at the very best, so your remark "would it truly be "neutral" for us to side with the silencers" should allow for enough room to include a simple reading of the allegedly Celtic/Punic inscriptions. Straightforward letters have straightforward meaning, no ifs and buts, no original research, it's an act called reading. Anybody can do this correctly. If you want the inscriptions to be mentioned in the article about this mountain, or if you want a separate article on the inscriptons themselves, you will want to have a transliteration into the Latin Alphabet. Otherwise you have completely lost any claim to NPOV. There is no room for fringe content without NPOV in an encyclopedia. Trigaranus (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said nothing about what I personally think of the hypothesis and I am not sure it is neutral to bring up our own opinions, I am merely asserting that the hypothesis is now objectively stated, is not being "pushed", and deserves mention as existing, at least as much as the other article subjects in the "See also" section. The references we have so far should probably appear on a separate article though, along the same lines of those articles. We do not want it to seem like we are afraid of people finding out about the fringe theory existing, then someone will accuse us of a coverup, rather let it stand on its own weak merits and don't try to sell the case in any particular direction. Please have a thorough read of WP:FRINGE to see where my attitude comes from. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The "see also" section is also somewhat problematic, since all nine entries relate to the "ancient scripts" theory, compounding the undue weight problem in this article. Jakew (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)