Talk:Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Area

Oklahoma: Tulsa Mid‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Task-force Tulsa (assessed as Mid-importance).

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, one paragraph was a word for word paste. I have paraphrased it. Til Eulenspiegel 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger done Merger undone

I've merged Turkey Mountain inscriptions here, as the clear consensus at that article's afd was that it should not stay. Some people may object to the content here, so please discuss any major issues here or edit as you see fit. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merger turned out to be controversial and was reverted. However, mention of the petroglyphs predated the afd, so the merge was really about making these two articles consistent and then deleting Turkey Mountain inscriptions. The admin's decision was simply to delete Turkey Mountain inscriptions, but that decision has no bearing on this article. See section below Petroglyphs. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be difficult, but your rason for a merge was "merging with Turkey Mountain inscriptions - see that articles afd". And since the AfD closure did not agree to a merge, but just said Delete, then how can your merger hold? It looks like a premature attempt to enact something in an open AfD, and although I'm not saying you intended it, if we simply let this stand it would be a good way around an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't hold, it didn't stand. I thought, wrongly, a consensus had been reached. However, IRWolfie disagreed and reverted the merge. You say above you also saw it as a "premature attempt to enact something in an open AfD". But I respected that revert and didn't do anything else. I'm not arguing for my merger to hold, it didn't and I accept that. I'm simply pointing out the petroglyphs were mentioned on this article here before the afd. As far as I can see the deletion of Turkey Mountain inscriptions has nothing to do with what happens here, especially as any link between the articles has been broken by the deletion. A delete decision on one article does not mean it is open season on anywhere else that topic is mentioned. So can we forget about Turkey Mountain inscriptions and concentrate on this page? Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petroglyphs

Mention of petroglyphs on this page predates the afd for Turkey Mountain inscriptions. The decision was to delete rather than merge, but that decision only applies to that article. The only reason I was arguing for a merge was to preserve the discussions about the reliability etc. of the sources, otherwise I agree with the deletion. But those discussions are now water under the bridge so I think we need to start again to discuss this page if anyone wants to remove mention of the petroglyphs here. The admin who closed the afd argued that "No one supporting the merger of the article has countered ... [the argument that there are] no independent sources to establish notability". But no one was arguing for the article to stay, so that wasn't really the point. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "merge" was not really a marge, just some information from the other article was moved here, but the inscriptions was already mentioned. The question now is of mentioning the petroglyphs is undue weight, and I think it is not, although admittedly the article probably should be expanded concerning everything else in Turkey Mountain to "balance" it.

The next question then becomes if it is undue weight to mention the fringe theories about the theories. That may be strictly speaking WP:UNDUE but since this is not a BLP I think it doesn't really matter as long as the theories are clearly marked as being completely fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inscriptions were only mentioned here because they were copied over during the AfD. That is, the content is only here because of an improper NAC. The decision was delete, not merge. That means do not restore them here without firm consensus. And yes, it does matter if it's undue, we have a guideline dedicated to not having undue promotion of fringe theories: WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The inscriptions were only mentioned here because they were copied over during the AfD." - This is factually incorrect, which I mentioned above already. You are not reading my comments carefully enough before responding and reverting. The inscriptions has been mentioned in this article from the start in 2006. [1] This is how the article looked before the "merge": [2] Note that they were mentioned. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inscriptions were then forked into a separate article. That article was then deleted with the result being not merged. That does not mean that you boldly re-insert older versions of the article. Also note that you aren't restoring an older version of the article; you are inserting new text into the article that wasn't in it: without consensus that is edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The inscriptions were then forked into a separate article." - There was no "forking". A separate article was created. The inscriptions are not notable meaning they should not have a separate article; hence the separate article was deleted. The existence of a mention of the inscriptions in another article is a separate matter. You have been told this over and over by many editors. It's time you listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content was merged here: [3]. You have reverted that text in, not what was originally in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you removed the mention of the inscriptions, which originally were in the article. That the article on the inscriptions got deleted is not a reason to delete all mentions of them in this article, and this is the argument used. That argument doesn't hold up. Therefore, the deletion of the material was reverted. Now we need to discuss what it should say, ignoring the irrelevant AfD. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: what independent reliable sources do you have which give due weight to mention the fringe view. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Note that you did not remove the fringe view, you removed *all mention* of the inscriptions. I think we first need to establish if the inscriptions should be mentioned or not. IMO, since they are mentioned in much of the official material, they warrant a mention. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New source for petroglyphs

We now have a source that says "H. Barraclough Fell, an Australian linguist and historian of science formerly with the Peabody Museum at Harvard University". Barry Fell was English, not Australian, he was not a linguist although he dabbled in it, he was not a historian of science but a marine biologist, and he was not with the Peabody Museum. And it simply isn't true that he created "a tremendous academic stir when he came out with his findings," although it was a bit embarrassing for Harvard. Very few academics have ever commented on him. This is simply not an acceptable source. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I disagree. It is a reliable source not for statements about the inscriptions, as the source blatantly has done no research whatsoever, but just listened to one persons incorrect claims, but it is an acceptable source to show notability.

As such, we now have one Tulsa newspaper mentioning the inscriptions, one book published by an established publishing house, as well as the official website pointing the petroglyphs out on their map. The source is also acceptable for pointing out that some people believe the inscriptions are pre-columbian. I therefore changed the article to reflect this.

I don't feel we have many reliable sources to talk much about the inscriptions, except possibly that there are some lines that some think could be ogham, and that another inscription says PIA, but we can hardly even say that Fell think it's Iberic, because his subsequent interpretation is based on it *not* being Iberic... --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with the way it is now? It doesn't say Iberic. I don't think we should use a source that is so patently misrepresenting Fell (among other reasons), or that we even need it. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big problem, no. I think it's overstating the case, but I'm OK with it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller says "Very few academics have ever commented on him." (Barry Fell)... How many is "very few"? Oh wait, I see: out of the several hundreds of sources who have indeed commented on Barry Fell, very few of these may be called "academic" - only those few that meet the litmus test of totally trashing and blacklisting Fell are worthy of the term "academic". By this litmus test, Doug himself is certainly an "academic". His extensive public record of animosity to Barry Fell's works, and scoffing at anyone who even mentions Barry Fell's ideas, stretches way back in internet history, to long before there was ever a wikipedia or even a world wide web, back into the early 90s when the "net" was only a handful of message boards. I'm not accusing anyone of being opinionated or one-sided here, of course. 71.246.146.214 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, my own troll. How sweet. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet posts and messages on IRC from the early 90s are not reliable sources. Also you are putting up a strawman argument about what is deemed an academic. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove section on petroglyphs

This is covered at WP:Fringe, in particular WP:PROFRINGE: " A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position" and WP:ONEWAY "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Doug Weller talk 09:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]