Talk:Gough Map

message: The Gough Map entry needs some revision. CharlburyNick has added a new section (4: Recent Research), and this draws attention to not only recent unpublished research but also to five peer reviewed articles in Imago Mundi (all since 2009). These articles arrive at different conclusions from each other, but all of them present a challenge to the current Wikipedia entry - which seems to be based on outdated literature.
- The dating is the most obvious problem. I'm not aware that anyone in the past 5 years has put such an early date (1366) on the map. From published works, Solopova (2012) says 1370/1400+;  Smallwood (2010) goes as far as 1420. The new unpublished research  (outlined at a recent Bodleian Library symposium) suggests several stages, between 1370 and mid-to end 15th century. 
- Perhaps the emphasis on 'route map' and 'road network' should be toned down a bit. The red distance lines are very far from being any sort of road network. I think it will be possible to modify the wording to be consistent with recent published work.
- There are a few dead links, and one link to a low quality press article. The new citations could do with hyperlinks, on the doi numbers, etc.
I intend to make a few changes to bring the entry into line at least with the latest published material, if not quite with current thinking. Hopefully I can account fairly for differing views.
Is there anything I need to know before I start? Any objections?
Kutya elet ez (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since its 2015 work in progress research and the final findings wont be published till 2017 it may be worth holding off making any changes until that final report. WatcherZero (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

text: What you propose is exactly what the article needs. I've fixed the issue with DOIs not being linked. Naturally, Wikipedia has to be on guard against hoaxes, and is very cautious about making statements about the future and that's why there needs to be a checkable reference for any statements of fact. Was there a blog post or other online summary of the symposium on a university or other scholarly site? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Good question! I'm not sure if there is a blog post. There should be. Anyway I need to find references for Section 4. There's the Bodleian page advertising the Symposium; a BBC news article about the various technologies being used on the map, with quotes from Bodley people (does that count as verifiable?); the websites of the tech providers have a bit about that too. I'll collect what I can. What we lack at the moment is a credible summary of the findings. If none are forthcoming, what do we do? Remove them? Couch everything in vaguer terms? Kutya elet ez (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  News articles from reputable "broadsheet" sources are fine: this includes the BBC, so that sounds like an ideal source. (There's a hierarchy of sources, so a peer-reviewed journal would be trusted more than a newspaper, a review of research more than a single research paper, and so on.) If you're using the Visual Editor, click the Cite button, then paste in the web address of the BBC article and it will automatically format a citation. Wikipedia policy says that if no source is available yet, then a summary should not be in the article, but, as you say, there is lots of already-published material to improve the article with. I know this can be frustrating - this is general problem when people with specialist knowledge contribute to Wikipedia, but the principle that all facts have to be checkable or "verifiable" is core to how the site works. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

text: We have a report on the web page of ISHMap (The International Society for the History of the Map), posted by a reputable person. I'll collect all the references together- good and less good - and perhaps you'd be kind enough to judge them for credibility. Thanks! Kutya elet ez (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. Using blog or web-page posts is generally frowned upon, but when it's verifiably by an expert, and they are explaining a mainstream view of their subject, then it's usually admissible. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research and published research 

message: I agree that 'late' seems a bit odd, but the wording needs to explain that Martin had died by this time. The original wording probably comes from Nick Millea's book, but in that book the author then goes on to explain the sequence of events. I'll post the important details here later, and perhaps come up with a new phrase. Thanks. Kutya elet ez (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to an academic journal article), I'm not sure it's a critical piece of info, but we could word it less clumsily (from the estate of? heirs of?). It doesn't help that the reference is a deadlink. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Do we really need that level of detail on the provenance? Surely the encyclopedia reader is more interested in the map than exactly how dead a dead person was when they finished owning it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

text: OK, sounds sensible. Needs some decent sourcing. Fascinated by this "not a road map" argument. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The late Tom Martin? 

message: I have multiple issues with this:
"Traditional conclusions about other aspects of the map were revised, including many transcriptions of place-names and the identification of some places represented on the map. The origin of the red lines that link certain places remains unclear, but it has been established, contrary to popular belief, that they neither represent roads nor do they amount to a coherent ‘national’ network. The function of the dense but unsystematic scatter of pinholes has not yet been discovered. On-going research extends the number of regional case studies already carried out (Northwest England, North Norfolk coast). New discoveries have also been made about the subsequent history of the map. Pending a substantial publication, all findings to date will be summarised in an article planned for a forthcoming issue of Imago Mundi (vol. 69, 2017).
First, it's way too definitive. "it has been established, contrary to popular belief, that they neither represent roads nor do they amount to a coherent ‘national’ network" should be toned down to "it has been argued". Similarly, the opening clause of the first sentence "were revised"
Secondly, the last sentence is a blatant advert.
Thirdly, the existence of pinholes hasn't previously been mentioned in the article.
Fourthly, what the heck does this mean "Traditional conclusions about other aspects of the map were revised, including many transcriptions of place-names"? What conclusions about transcriptions of place-names were revised?
--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been discussing this (above) with MartinPoulter. I'm collecting references for everything that can be referenced. The rest may have to be reworded or removed. Would it be wiser to remove it and then replace it when there's some agreement? Kutya elet ez (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. It can be worked in a sandbox. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imago Mundi section 

message: This section needs to take more views into account. It is true that the Coventry/Queenborough evidence has led some to place the map in a very narrow window (1355 -1366), but more recent palaeographic studies have put it rather later. One of those (Smallwood) tackles the Queenborough theory head on.
Firstly, I think 1355/66 needs to be removed from the introduction. It can more fairly be described as dating from the Late Middle Ages (an existing Wikipedia subject). Then the Date section can be changed to accommodate the different views. Kutya elet ez (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: I propose to remove the part about the 'road network', and create a new section called 'The Red Lines', for red lines is what they are. The different interpretations can then be aired. The distinctions between 'roads', 'road network', 'road map','route' and 'distance lines', and so on, are crucial to how the map is understood. And there's no shortage of peer reviewed opinions on the subject.
I would like to remove the bit about 'leagues'. It isn't referenced, and I have no idea where it could have come from. Kutya elet ez (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topography, road network and accuracy - split 

message: Is it an 18 Century hoax or publicity stunt? 2A00:23C7:91AB:BC01:6070:CDFF:7750:6B8F (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haven't seen anything to suggest that. --Auric talk 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gough Map. 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/20080510221010/http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/users/nnj/goughmap.htm to http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/users/nnj/goughmap.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417195420/http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2005-06/v18n2/08.shtml to http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2005-06/v18n2/08.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified