Talk:Turkey Mountain inscriptions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WP:FRINGE and other issues
Before we get into the issue of whether this article violates WP:FRINGE or not... let's start with a more glaring problem... we need a source for Fell's theories. He is quoted, so I assume he published his speculations somewhere... yet the article does not cite him at all. That definitely needs to be addressed. I have tagged the appropriate spots.
Let us now turn to WP:FRINGE... The theory that these letters are in some ancient script is proposed by Fell, who apparently is/was a Zoologist and not an archeologist or a linguist. None of those cited as supporting his theory are archeologists or linguists... they are therefore not experts on the subject... they are simply fans of Fell's speculation and their opinions can be discounted. The article does mention that people who are experts in this field disagree with it (the article should probably tell us why they do so).
So... unless there are supporters who are archeologists and experts in ancient scripts, I think we have to call the hypothisis a Fringe Theory. Which means WP:FRINGE applies.
Now... WP:FRINGE does not rule out having articles on Fringe theories on Wikipedia... but it does set restrictions on them. It says that in order to be included in Wikipedia, there has to have been significant discussion about the theory by multiple mainstream sources. Is this the case where it comes to the Turkey Mountain inscriptions? If so, the article needs to mention what has been said in those mainstream sources. If not, then the theory is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looking at Google books, I have found numerous published books of all kinds that mention this hypothesis. Apparently one that does so far less favorably to Fell is: A Permeability of Boundaries?: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore p. 94 by Robert J. Wallis, Kenneth Lymer, 2001, this would seem to be a scholarly source establishing that not only proponents have discussed this fringe theory. There may be others, I am only on page 1 so far of about 100 hits. It looks like there is also a mention of it in Melbourne Historical Journal, p. 76 by Melbourne University Historical Society, 1981. I will let you know what all else I find as my search continues. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
