Talk:Canada's Stonehenge

Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wcanstonehenge0129/BNStory/Science/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20090129.wcanstonehenge0129

Copy pasting?

VIO DETECT ...--Moxy (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomical basis?

I have copied this discussion from my talk page, since it is more relevant to this article --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - not sure what to do with this. Unless Ruggles book here discusses it, I can't find any reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for bringing that one up; I've never heard of the site before and the book seems to be by an amateur. Of course, Alexander Thom was an amateur, but Freeman is no Alexander Thom. The site seems to relate to the family of Medicine Wheels, which have been studied for their astronomical functions. There is a short article on Medicine Wheels in Ruggles's Handbook but it doesn't mention this site or refer to this book.

Offhand, the article seems like a case of WP:BOOKSPAM or perhaps falls more appropriately under WP:ARTSPAM. If the latter, it might be open for deletion. An article on the purported astronomical site would be more appropriate than an article on the book. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll ask at WP:FTN. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Done that. It's notable enough, found a a review in an archaeological magazine on it[1] (I presume you have access, if not, I've got a copy), so it would pass AfD. I also present to you the stub Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site - if you can find time to improve it that would be great! Doug Weller talk 11:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the link to Yellowhorn's review in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology. He points out several details:

• The Book is self-published.
• The Author engages in "speculation that treads close to fiction".
• "Too many passages pivot around conditional phrase structures, such as perhaps, presumably, seems to be, and might have been, that leave the impression of speculation where a conclusion ought to be."

I'll work some of that into the article on the book.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Doug's recent query: what in the world does the claim that the 28 rays "correspond exactly to the lengthy of a lunar cycle." The passage makes no sense and probably should be deleted. Since much of the article is a summary of the book, citations to passages in the book seem appropriate. However, there don't seem to be many copies in libraries.

This brings me back to the question: Is this book really notable? It is held by the Canadian and US copyright libraries, which is a minimum threshold standard for notability, however "meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable". Moreover, it is a self-published book and self-publication does not "correlate with notability". As I see it, the book fails Wikipedia's criteria for notability and we should just delete the article rather than try to repair it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey: I'm afraid that the reviews and the newspaper articles are enough. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia only has articles for a small fraction of the books that have been published. I only see one scholarly review, and it's negative. Put those together and we have good reason to delete. Maybe I should go for a formal AfD. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are the Wikipedia criteria of notability:

A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

Reviewing those five criteria I get:

1. Yes, including negative reviews
2. No
3. NA/No
4. No
5. No

By my reading of the notability guidelines, barely passing one criterion for notability doesn't cut it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The section on Academic books raises some further criteria that seem particularly relevant:

"[P]ossible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions."

This book fails all these criteria for academic publications. It is not published by an academic press (in fact it is self-published), it is not widely cited by academic publications, It was not reprinted or translated; it is not at all influential in its specialty area or related disciplines, and there is no evidence it has been taught in reputable educational institutions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I suggest taking it to AfD. BabelStone (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada's Stonehenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426085509/http://canadastonehenge.com/about-the-book/ to http://canadastonehenge.com/about-the-book/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Afd?

This is a well-written article, but it's orphaned and the notability of this book seems questionable. Thoughts? 162.208.171.22 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)