Talk:Newton Stone

Copyright Problems

I see that the previous article about Newton Stone was deleted because Copyright Problems by MER-C in 2022. Since I am not a moderator, I cannot see deleted articles, and therefore I do not know what exactly caused the delition of the page. Also, because of that, I was afraid of inserting more images to the article, despite I think there should be more. I think we should include the real image of the stone, such as this, published by me in Wikimedia, taken from this page. Celtoi (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably ok. As an aside, we have no moderators, just Administrators like me. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, meant to thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you! I think then I should place the image into the article? Probably the "unknown script" part will be the best place. Celtoi (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an unpublished work by someone not qualified to comment

Or have I got this wrong? I see that "Michel-Gérald Boutet is a retired Art teacher and is an independant researcher in the fields of French Canadian, Algonquian and Celtic studies with interests in Rock Art, iconological and epigraphic studies. : University of Ottawa, B.A. in Visual Arts, 1976. University of Québec in Montreal, Teacher's Certificate, 1993; Graduate studies in Art History, 1994; " What I don't see is any evidence this was published rather than just uploaded. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the work was uploaded, not published, absolutely. I do not really know if this is critical or not, since I saw how other Wikipedia pages used similar types of works, which were only uploaded. From this perspective, if a researcher is independant, graduated studies in history and has a visible number of other topic-related articles, I think there is no problem with citing these works. Though, if our case is considered critical, we should really change paragraphs, though I chose Boutet because he had a detailed view on the ogham inscription, so if we want to delete Boutet from the article, I think we should find an alternative work and mention its view on the inscription. Fortunately, Kilpatrick mentioned about 17 other studies about Newton Stone's ogham script, so we have a big variety of choices. Celtoi (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you see others, please let me know. WP:RS starts with "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." Academic.edu itself is also considered an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Kirkpatrick enough? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should always mention at least two different kinds of view on such topic. Maybe we should mention Stokes or Sousthesk, since they had a bit different point of view on the inscription. There's also a view of Cyril Babaev which is mentioned on russian Wikipedia for some reason. Celtoi (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to a self-published website ,crowd-sourced like we are, thus snot a reliable source. I can't find his books or peer reviewed publications. 19th century sources are not what we want, we need late 20th or 21st c. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]