The result was DELETE ALL, due to an early discovery of WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 15:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Series of articles promoting the editor's ( User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), WP:FRINGE claims about 'early discovery' of various islands. Other articles are:
All are cited solely to Jonge & Wakefield's publications in what appear to be unreliable sources (I can find no evidence of the publisher of most of them, "Medical Communications & Services", outside the context of these books). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Dear moderators: The claim has been mainly based on decipherment of the two mentioned groups of petroglyphs. The only text which could be added to the articles is the following: "Both groups of petroglyphs are prooven to be megalithic (Ref.1). Both the passage grave of Cairn T at Loughcrew, and the petroglyphs in it, date from the time of the construction of Stonehenge I in South England, c.3200 BC (Refs.1-5). The eleven petroglyphs of Dissignac were made one after the other, spread in time from before the construction of the passage grave, c.4500 BC, to c.2500 BC, after which the monument was closed (Refs.6-9). As far is known, the interpretations of both groups of petroglyphs are not disputed in the literature."
Dear moderators: The core of the articles dates from the publication of the SunGod book in 2002. This is 9 years ago. Our book was well received, and the conclusions are not disputed in the literature. It is that simple. For that reason I cannot give "secondary sourcing". - If the archaeological community does not react in this case, it is their responsibility, not mine.-- Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The Dutch book was well received in the archaeological community in the Netherlands (my co-author is/was a professor in archaeology in Amsterdam), but, as far as I know, it was never scientifically commented (which is not my responsibility). The SunGod book of 2002 was well received in the USA (where it was published and printed), by Ancient American Magazine, by MES (Midwestern Epigraphic Society) in Columbus, Ohio, and by NEARA (New England Antiquity Research Association), by AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society) in Michigan, by Ancient Waterways Society, etc. The same holds for the third mentioned book Rocks & Rows. - "Is your theory based on some earlier work described in these references?" The answer is: No. "Or is there any later reference that comments on your work?" The answer is: As far as I know: No. - "well received"? "Where in the literature were its conclusions mentioned without dispute? This is the independent commentary that is needed here." Well, what we need is a scientific comment from the archaeological community, worldwide. As far as I know this is lacking, but I immediately add that this is not my responsibility! They had the opportunity to react for more than nine years!- - I would like to add, that the exact dates are based on the two groups of petroglyphs, but the same approximate dates are confirmed by many other monuments and petroglyphs in Europe.-- Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
On the other hand, the official archaeological community, in North America in particular, is very conservative with its conclusions. It is not so long ago, that they refused to think about somethimg else then the discovery of America by Columbus, in 1492. They now admit an earlier discovery by the Norse (or Vikings) in Newfoundland, in c.1000 AD. However, there are literaly thousands(!) of books which prove without a shadow of a doubt, that America was discovered before that date. This is not a wise attitude, and it undermines their credibility. I am talking about the Smithonian Institute in particular.-- Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE ALL, due to an early discovery of WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 15:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Series of articles promoting the editor's ( User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), WP:FRINGE claims about 'early discovery' of various islands. Other articles are:
All are cited solely to Jonge & Wakefield's publications in what appear to be unreliable sources (I can find no evidence of the publisher of most of them, "Medical Communications & Services", outside the context of these books). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Dear moderators: The claim has been mainly based on decipherment of the two mentioned groups of petroglyphs. The only text which could be added to the articles is the following: "Both groups of petroglyphs are prooven to be megalithic (Ref.1). Both the passage grave of Cairn T at Loughcrew, and the petroglyphs in it, date from the time of the construction of Stonehenge I in South England, c.3200 BC (Refs.1-5). The eleven petroglyphs of Dissignac were made one after the other, spread in time from before the construction of the passage grave, c.4500 BC, to c.2500 BC, after which the monument was closed (Refs.6-9). As far is known, the interpretations of both groups of petroglyphs are not disputed in the literature."
Dear moderators: The core of the articles dates from the publication of the SunGod book in 2002. This is 9 years ago. Our book was well received, and the conclusions are not disputed in the literature. It is that simple. For that reason I cannot give "secondary sourcing". - If the archaeological community does not react in this case, it is their responsibility, not mine.-- Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The Dutch book was well received in the archaeological community in the Netherlands (my co-author is/was a professor in archaeology in Amsterdam), but, as far as I know, it was never scientifically commented (which is not my responsibility). The SunGod book of 2002 was well received in the USA (where it was published and printed), by Ancient American Magazine, by MES (Midwestern Epigraphic Society) in Columbus, Ohio, and by NEARA (New England Antiquity Research Association), by AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society) in Michigan, by Ancient Waterways Society, etc. The same holds for the third mentioned book Rocks & Rows. - "Is your theory based on some earlier work described in these references?" The answer is: No. "Or is there any later reference that comments on your work?" The answer is: As far as I know: No. - "well received"? "Where in the literature were its conclusions mentioned without dispute? This is the independent commentary that is needed here." Well, what we need is a scientific comment from the archaeological community, worldwide. As far as I know this is lacking, but I immediately add that this is not my responsibility! They had the opportunity to react for more than nine years!- - I would like to add, that the exact dates are based on the two groups of petroglyphs, but the same approximate dates are confirmed by many other monuments and petroglyphs in Europe.-- Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
On the other hand, the official archaeological community, in North America in particular, is very conservative with its conclusions. It is not so long ago, that they refused to think about somethimg else then the discovery of America by Columbus, in 1492. They now admit an earlier discovery by the Norse (or Vikings) in Newfoundland, in c.1000 AD. However, there are literaly thousands(!) of books which prove without a shadow of a doubt, that America was discovered before that date. This is not a wise attitude, and it undermines their credibility. I am talking about the Smithonian Institute in particular.-- Dr. R.M. de Jonge ( talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply