Talk:Sunstone (medieval)

Deprod

I agree with the recent change that removed the proposed deletion template for this article. It seems well-sourced and notable. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See discussion here JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference Citation formats

The article's references should be rewritten to use these formats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Examples . See this edit as an example. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some additional reference materiel can be found here: http://www.raunvis.hi.is/~thv/t_t.html JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I added the ref as an external link, and will now remove the ref and the citation. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm? No it shouldn't—or should I say it needn't necessarily be—per WP:CITE guideline see here and here. –Whitehorse1 14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That said, I am tempted to implement list defined refs (these) here, so the body text will only have <ref name='somebook'/> in it making it less cluttered. It can be useful when dealing with longer refs, such as those with multiple editors and translators or those that use quotes, while maintaining the primary author citation style for the most part. Personally I can work with just about any cite format; I know some editors inc. FA writers do hate the templates though, finding them constraining and prefer to write their refs manually. Ultimately, so long as what's output is consistent it's all gravy. –Whitehorse1 14:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence. Regarding the ref. citation, given there is some question (as noted in the proposed deletion discussion) regarding WP:OR, I thought having more complete citations, ideally (but not necessarily) with an included URL, and/or an English-language extract of the key text as a quote, would help alleviate those concerns. In simple terms, how would I, a random reader of this article, go find these references for myself and confirm that they substantiate the text? JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Metadata such as page numbers/ranges and publisher, sometimes convenience links, as well as ISSN/ISBNs are a helpful aid to verifying content. Some sources like peer reviewed journals can be subscription access, although the resources mentioned at WP:SOURCEACCESS can help there sometimes. One simple improvement is wikilinking sources used to their respective articles; unfortunately systemic bias in our coverage often means reputable journals, publishers, or authors haven't had an article written on them here yet though. –Whitehorse1 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe. Just wanted to say a few words about how a reader could find the references and confirm they substantiate the text. Things like inter-library loans aside, I've since added several convenience links readers can make use of, like .doi links to a free online version of the paper or links to the piece on the publisher sites, plus Google Book previews can sometimes be helpful (or even Amazon's 'LookInside' previews occasionally). Hopefully that should help out a bit. –Whitehorse1 00:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference sources

A concern noted on the proposed deletion page, is that "7 (of the currently 24) references are to papers written by "Einarsson, Árni.", or various other abbreviations thereof. The articles main author is "ArniEin". ". Is this an issue to be concerned about? Are there references that can be used that provide equivalent sourcing from other authors (assuming the editor in question is the same as the author)? JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that the article's main author and the referenced author are one and the same person. He refers to three of his own contributions to the nature of the medieval sunstone texts, all written in peer reviewed scholarly journals on medieval literature. ArniEin (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Rather than referring to your own article (which I think could be considered a Conflict of Interest, but I defer to others on this), can you instead reference the sources you referenced in those articles? I think that would resolve the concern about Original Research.

To give an example, imagine that a famous scientist (Stephen Hawking) wrote a series of peer reviewed, scholarly articles on some subject not previously contained in Wikipedia. If Stephen Hawking then wrote a Wikipedia article on that subject, I believe it would be considered Original Research, no matter how well accepted the topic, and his articles on the subject, were accepted by his peers. Although this may seem non-sensical, it is, as I understand it, the policy. So, if WP editor Stephen Hawking wanted his new WP article to stay, he'd either have to reference other sources that made the same point (which perhaps might not be possible, if the point being made had not been made before), or he'd have to allow someone else to author that article in WP, based on his sources. If I'm wrong about this, I invite someone to correct me. In the case of this article, assuming the points made in your references are also made by someone else in equally reliable sources, then you should be able to fairly easily refer to those sources written by someone other than yourself. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read Wikipedia's Original Research again and if I understand it right the term ORi refers to unsupported statements, i.e. "research" not published in a reliable source.ArniEin (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. --Whitehorse1 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with those references, then. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Per the guidelines on External Links, "Most external links should present different details from citations". As Time and Travel in Old Norse Society is already cited in the body of the article (at this time, it is reference number 7, shown in this link), I deleted it as an external link with this edit. A subsequent edit restored that link, along with undoing some other small changes I made. I think that change was inadvertent, so removed the link again in a subsequent edit. Please note here if there is a reason to restore that external link. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

I see that this article has been nominated for the Did you know section of the Main Page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Sunstones in navigation

It would be helpful if the article explained (or linked to an explanation) of how a polarising stone would help find the sun on a cloudy day. I can't do this myself, as I don't know (that's why I came to this article). Presumably the concept isn't too tough, as it can't be much more than holding a rock up and looking at a light beam, but I'd be interested to know exactly how it works. 144.32.128.14 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Some way towards the answer at sunstone.

In the section on ′Possibility of sunstones for orientation and navigation′ its is stated ′The angle of the top face now gives the direction of the sun′. Could the someone please explain how a 2-dimensional plane (the top face) can give a direction? Is the direction perhaps at right-angles to the face? Surely not, as the text suggests that the ′top′ face is parallel to the ground so a line at right-angles would point vertically upwards. I am puzzled. Exbrum (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic section

The section "Sunstones for orientation and navigation?" reads as very unencyclopedic, almost like it was cut and pasted from somewhere else. "Every boy scout is taught how to do this, so I will not insult the reader's intelligence by quoting a reference." What is a sentence like that doing in an encyclopedia?--184.20.192.198 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following text from the article. While it is very interesting, and raises points worthy of consideration, it is written in an unencyclopedic style and consists mostly of unsourced speculation. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, strives for a dry, formal tone and avoids using the second person ("you") or addressing the reader directly. An encyclopedia is not an instruction manual. More importantly, Wikipedia does not speculate. We may report on speculations by others, but when we do that we say whose speculations they are, and we provide a reference to the source.--Srleffler (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed material:

Of course, if you can identify the solar azimuth, and you have some means to judge the time of day, it becomes easy to determine the direction of north to a fair degree of accuracy. Every boy scout is taught how to do this, so I will not insult the reader's intelligence by quoting a reference. Imagine a clock-face laid flat and oriented so that the solar azimuth passes through the twelve o'clock position, and suppose furthermore that the time is estimated to be three o'clock; then (in the northern hemisphere) the direction exactly halfway between twelve o'clock and three o'clock represents due south. We can only speculate whether the Vikings were familiar with this concept; but it would have been easy enough to estimate the time of day at sea: a simple water-clock or a graduated candle would have met their needs. The reader will readily understand that any bearing, at any time of day, can be easily extrapolated from these data. By "time of day" we would mean the exact proportion of the daylight hours which had elapsed since sunrise. If today's daylight span had consumed exactly four fillings of the water-clock, then tomorrow, after two fillings had been consumed, we could safely assume that the time was exactly mid-day, the sun was due south; and any other bearing could be extrapolated from that.

The next question is, how does one maintain the ship on heading, without taking a fresh sunstone bearing every five minutes? Well, perhaps some of the more cautious Vikings did just that, we don't know! But it seems unnecessary. To make best use of the wind, the set of sails must be trimmed very precisely. If it becomes obvious that the ship is no longer sailing efficiently, either the wind has changed, or the ship has wandered off course. Statistically, the latter is the more likely case. A wise commander would steady the ship and order the navigator to check the sunstone. For additional confirmation, a pennant (or other form of weathercock) could be worn at the masthead. Since a ship never travels as fast as the wind which is blowing it, the pennant will show the ship's bearing relative to wind direction very clearly.

It is understandable that the sunstone would have persisted into medieval ages as a backup navigational system; this would have nothing to do with the stage of development of compasses: it simply reflects the fact that, in any locality where magnetic variation has not yet been quantified (which meant nearly everywhere, at that time), the sunstone will provide more accurate bearings than can be achieved with a compass.

I added a verification request for the statement "While other scholars argue that a polarizing mineral only gives the horizontal angle of the sun (azimuth), which is only of marginal value when navigating the open sea." Could someone with access to the (German) source cited for this statement verify that this is actually what the source says? It seems like a strange claim, particularly given the argument above. If there are other sources that contradict this claim, it might be good to discuss the disagreement in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BBC News

This article has more good stuff about a recent find 'Viking sunstone' found in shipwreck. 219.78.213.224 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Animals?

I find it hard to accept that many animals use a stone to determine the "azimuth of the sun in a partly overcast sky or when the sun is just below the horizon"! Surely that is a mistake.203.184.41.226 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is cited. Do you feel the source is being misrepresented or is not reliable? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The article says they use the "principle", not an actual stone.--Auric talk 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)