Talk:Ica stones

Message of the Stones

I'm assuming the "Message of the Stones" referred to in this "source" refers to this book by Javier Cabrera. This lacks an ISBN and publisher, suggesting it is self-published, and therefore is not a reliable source even if a convenience link can be found for its contents (a link to a personal website, which is of course self-published and therefore unreliable). I've removed the section as undue weight on a fringe theory that raises red flags and so dramatically contradicts the mainstream opinion of the stones being a hoax, that it should not be kept on the page.

I also agree with Dougweller that this information is inappropriate - it is very clearly an original research synthesis that promotes an inappropriate opinion that there is some reality to the claim that the stones are ancient. This isn't clarity and balance, this is promotion of a fringe idea based on shoddy sources and should not be included in the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If the source is invalid, then you had better delete the entire first section of the "background", because it sources the same book. If we cannot use this book to state nformation, and therefore cannot state that inflrmation, the entire article should be rewritten as it *already* uses the book as a source.

It may be self-published, and that may actually be an issue was this opinion expressed as fact. However, keep in mind that this only says that he *claims* this. Even if the man is insane (it has yet to be shown whether the claim is accurate or not), it serves no purpose not to state that he has this claim, yet the evidence indicates against it. This has been edited to include this last statement, which should erase any issues with its inclusion. Yes, the man has stated this, yet the evidence still points against his claim. This is a balanced statement.

As for "dramatically contradicts the mainstream opinion of the stones being a hoax" ... the claim is either accurate or it is not. If it is, then it truly is evidence, like it or not. If it is not true, this could be clearly demonstrated.

Now, granted, if this opinion were something espoused by some 3rd party individual, there would be no relevance or reason to include it in the article. But it is Dr. Cabrera himself, and so it remains of interest. Keep in mind that his opinions of "Gliptolithis Man" are even more suspect than this, but they are still of interest because it relates to the man who originally "discovered" the stones.

I am beginning to reach a conclusion that some people here don't want the claim discussed just because they believe it is false, and may not even be happy by stating that they are likely correct. But he was the main focus of the stones' discovery, and he did state this claim. Therefore, the proper response is to mention it, but not to espouse it.MXVN (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim is a fringe theory. There is no evidence to support humans coexisting with dinosaurs (aside from certain birds), the last common ancestors are off by tens of millions of years (possibly hundreds of millions, I'd have to check). Claiming that the person who carved the Ica stone had any awareness of dinosaurs is a patent absurdity that shouldn't be entertained.

While I generally agree with you, there are a couple other odd points of interest such as parallel fossil tracks and the like. But either way, what you have said (and I may agree with) is opinion, as these stones, if in fact not a goax, would be evidence of just such a thing. We cannot say some evidence is invalid simply because it clashes with what we might consider to be more valid evidence.

Cabrera's book could be used to assert basic facts, but a better source is certainly a better choice. I'll see about replacing it.

A basic fact is that he **claims** there is ancient varnish on them. If this can be disproven, with an adequate source, this shoyuld also be mentioned.

It's about parity of sources and claims, and it can't be used for much beyond basic facts about the stones discovery and impact on popular audiences - certainly not about their purported history-changing impact. A self-published source should be used only with great caution and can't be used to verify any text that raises a redflag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reporting that tne man who discoverd something has a theory about them is either valid or not, and should apply to the entire spectrum. Also, the varnish was either there or not, and is therefore a debate on fact, and not theory.

Gliptolithis man doesn't even appear on wikipedia [1]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This was entirely my point. I don't know why Gliptolithi*c* man was ever included in the article, if these things are invalid. But even if they are, the varnish on the stones is not a theoretical debate; it's either there or it isn't.MXVN (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and relevance of potentially conflicting information

The book is available here: [2], not on Amazon. This page has been added to the source list, so that it could be ordered by anyone interested. Nowhere does Wikipedia state that a book must be available for purchase at Amazon on order to be valid. Furthermore, other publications here used for reference are not available on Amazon (scientific reports, etc), and double-standards do not make sense.

Also, my sentence does not state that the claims are correct, simply that they are CLAIMED. Many statements here are based on the claims of others, and surely it serves the interest of information to simply put forth that there is debate by some. Even if the claims are wrong, it is still of interest that Dr. Cabrera himself has this opinion. It doesn't accomplish anything to delete it.

Now granted, this book appears to be self-published. But again, the claim is not presented in the article as fact, but merely a claim by these two men, which is surely accurate even if the claims themselves are completely wrong. This has not been proven either way, and I'd be interested to see the result. If the claim was proven false, I would find that of interest as well. It should be noted that if the claim is in fact accurate, this is hard evidence, even if it is evidence to the contrary of popular opinion.

If a 3rd party indivudual had published this claim, yes, I would understand it as not being relevant. However, the claim is made by the man himself, who discovered the stones, and is therefore relevant and of interst. I have reworded the section as to be careful not to make it sound as if Wikipedia were promoting this view, and even stating this is a self-published claim.

Also, about the spinal ridges, there may or may not have been other depictions of theser things in cartoons or whatever, but the fact remains that the stones did show them long before they were shown to be accurate. It was simply an interesting note, which MAY or MAY NOT have significance to the ages of the stones. Again, there is no point in deleting it just because one does not find it as a proof of early engraving. Cabrera's theories of "Gliptolithic Man" also don't prove anything in particular, but are of interest and value to the subject. It isn't necessarily meant as a proof, and is relevant as information because of what it is. I have reworded it slightly so that it does not come across as potentially strongly as before, and phrases it more as a point of interest.

Note: I believe I may have given the impression that I supported the inclusion of the Gliptolithic Man stuff on this article. I merely used it as an example, as at the time it was included, that a double-standard seemed to be in place. As someone has removed that mention as well, I would no longer hold to this argument, as it seems balanced in that sense.MXVN (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A third point, in regard to "let's indicate this is a fraud, shall we?"

While the article does mention the claims of fraud, which are certainly valid, stating that they are "considered a hoax" sounds slightly biased, unless one can show a scientific consensus on the subject. So this sentence has been rephrased. More than likely the stones were hoaxed, unless a couple pieces of evidence were to be true. I would never say that these things were, but there is no need to exclude the fact thet there is any contention. We can certainly say that the evidence points toward the hoax theory, but still state that not everyone agrees with this. MXVN (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Added note:

It is ridiculous not to include a picture simply because one does not see a label indicating "sauropod" on it. Look at the image and find the sauropod. The image is valid, even without every type of dinosaur being labeled.MXVN (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that it is self-published and therefore not a reliable source or suitable as an external link. The issue is not whether it could be bought on Amazon, amazon just indicates that it's self-published and therefore not reliable. Google books also lacks it. If it's self-published, and only a tiny, absurd minority opinion, it can be discounted and should be removed.

The absurdity of the opinion is also an opinion, and it is the opinion oif the man who found the stones, not anything more.

Particularly since this source is used to verify a huge, widely discounted claim, it shouldn't be used here.

It was not used for any such thing, only to state that Cabrera had a claim about them.

Also note that three editors now show consensus that your edits are inappropriate and to continue to add the information is edit warring - you should stop it before you are blocked.

Fair enough point.

The Ica stones are a hoax and no serious scholars consider it otherwise.

Again, opinion. Just because 2 other editors share that opinion (I'm neutral on the subject; I believe they are hoaxed but won't state that I know for certain) doesn't mean that absolute consensus has been achieved. Well, it might, but it also might mean that dogma is interefeing. Until now, the reasons for reversals were not being clearly explained, and so it seemed very unreasonable to me not to arrange a compromised way of stating relevant facts without going "fringe".

Note: I think we're getting somewhere now, and I thank you all for your contributions.MXVN (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As a fringe claim that wildly contradicts the most basic of evolutionary theory, we don't need to source Science to consider it a hoax, Scepdic is sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is frustrating by now that you make it sound as if I was somehow trying to use a fringe text as factual evidence. I was not. I simply stated that **HE SAID IT**. Your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies is, in my opinion, biased. Granted, we do not want to use fringe theories as evidence without being able to source the actual scientific findings. But that does not mean we cannot say that the discoverer of the stones says something.

There are lots of self-published books available on Amazon, that doesn't mean we can use them. We can't.

This is done all the time, to say that a person has said something. All one has to do is source the person saying it. True, to report a scientific finding one would need to source those findings.

This is a fringe subject, see WP:REDFLAG. As for spiny creatures, we can't say what they are other than dinosaurs, we can't pin a label on them and then say 'look, no one knew they really looked like this before nnnn'. Labelling them is original research saying 'that really is a picture of a 'stegosaurus'.

Then say that they "appear" to be sauropods; don't ust delete the entire section. THe ica stones as a subjest is fringe-related, and is based entirely on what "appear" to be dinosaurs.

But thanks for this, it's encouraged me to find a new source, [3] - which deals with the varnish question as well. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that this article points to further evidence of human/dinosaur interaction, something which was previously stated ot to exist. However, yes, this does seem to address the varnish issue, albeit in a surprising way. I'd still like to see a chemical analysis of the supposed varnish, to see what it actually was. Either way, thanls for posting the site.MXVN (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have used "nyah-nyah" but otherwise my setiments are the same. Certainly the journal article's use is OR unless it specifically discusses the Ica stones in some way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read my link above? Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm not bothering to reply - MXVN, please review WP:TALK and WP:TPG - stop interspersing your comments as it makes the conversation hard to follow. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not the one who responded to you before. The "nyah nyah" and the "have you read..." were not posted by me. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused by interspersing my comments.MXVN (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on the use of talk pages also. Please see WP:REDACT - if you change your comment, add to it, etc after someone has replied, it will look as though they replied to your revised version.

We can't comment on what an image looks like, that's original research, see WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This brings us to an interesting problem. As the entire basis of the stones is what they appear to contain ... if we cannot source individually published materials such as those of Cabrera or Paris, we are left with little way of commenting on what they appear to contain. But it should be easy enough to maintain a general consensus without going into the specifics.MXVN (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't referring to any of us making comments on the photos. There were sourced articles in referfence to them; they were simply deemed invalid because they weren't science journals.MXVN (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Undent - actually we can, and do - Ica_stones#Description WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the current wording of the Description is fair.MXVN (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Vicente Paris's sourced page

This article is about as irrelevant as Cabrera's book as it also does not source the scientific findings, but merely the opinion of a man who studied them. The sourced page only quotes what Vicente Paris says about the stones and, is such, also cannot be acceptable. This section should be removed, as the article already states that the stones are considered to be fraudulous.

Personally, I would be all for the page explaining why the srtones are considered fraudulous, and what debate might remain on that assertion. However, if we cannot quote from Cabrera without a book being widely published, then this page, which only quotes Paris, and states at the bottom "copyright Vincent Paris" (not a scientific journal), must also be unacceptable. Yes, the page agrees with common thinking about the stones, but this man's findings are largely the sole basis (at leats, the sole basis presented on this page) for that supposed consensus. The original findings should be located and sourced.MXVN (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, Paris is demonstrating the mainstream opinion while Cabrera is asserting lunacy. It's appropriate parity of sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lunacy in your opinion. Mainstream opinion is that the stones could not have been genuine, not the individual reasons why they are a hoax. Parity of sources explains why Cabrera's work should not be used encyclopedically, but Paris's remains POV, despite being in line with accepted opinion.

However, I do not mean to argue this point with you, since the current wording (not written by me), is sufficient in my opinion.MXVN (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See my point below - what reliable sources see it as anything but an obvious hoax? What possible reason could there ever be to believe that humans ever shared the earth with dinosaurs? You realize dinosaurs went extinct 70 million years ago, and humans only reached the species of homo sapien within the last 100,000, right? Even assuming we existed as a species 100 times longer than what scientists now believe, we'd still be 60 million years short. Cabrera's opinion is both self-published and out of line with pretty much all science and social science for the past two centuries. Paris' supports the idea that they are a hoax, it's due weight on the approriate opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The 65-70 million year-old extinction time would be the point of contention, not the age of humans. Anyway, I still think the current wording is fair, which does fall in line with the view that they are a hoax, and nothing other. :)MXVN (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hoax"

The claims made are so bizarre and unsupported that we're not serving our readers by labelling it a "probable hoax". It's clearly a hoax - there are paleontological, evolutionary, historical, archeological, rational, psychological and even astronomical grounds for labelling it a flat hoax. Who believes that it's not? Ancient astronauters, Creationists, mythico-historians and one Peruvian doctor. Every one of these is a notable proponent of pseudoscience. WP:NPOV doesn't mean equal weight to all sides, and WP:UNDUE clearly states that we don't have to give tiny minority opinions any space. These stones are a hoax, there is absolultely zero reason to think they actually depict scenes witnessed by ancient Aztecs and Incans. Neutrality and telling both sides only applies when there's some reason to believe both sides have merit; does anyone here seriously think that somehow humans and human culture managed to survive 70 million years from dinosaurs until now to ride them? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a hoax in your opinion. The "grounds for labelling it a flat hoax" are indeed valid, but rational, psychological, and astronomical grounds are all fo opinion. It is irrational to you, and therefore would be psychologically dangerous. It clashes with evolution, which is again a theory - albeit the best one we currently have - and is thus seen as absurd. It may be, but this should be judged on the merit of the actual findings. Astronomically ... okay, on this one I'm not sure to what you are referring.

Listen, I agree that the stones are almost certainly a hoax. And whether minority opinions are given space or not, we must be careful not to state outright as fact, something which almost surely must be, but cannot be proven by demonstrated, sourcable evidence. We don't have any reports that demonstrate it was a hoax, and therefore it remains a probable one.

Now, maybe the word "probable" is still too wishy-washy for you. Fair enough; I'll continue trying to find a beter way to say "almost certain" in a way that works. But to say that it definitely *IS* one, in an encyclopedic article, simply because it makes the most sense, isn't the right way to do it either. I admit that this is a minor point, as the chance that they weren't hoaxed is ... let's just say extremely minor indeed. But if we're going to focus so strongly on demonstrab;le sourced evidence, then the hoax is, sure, all but proven, but still not proven. So maybe even "probable" leaves too much doubt in the phrasing. There must be something that works.

To address your final question, I don't think the debate is whether humans were around that long ago, but whether it's possible that dinosaurs were not completely extinct until much more recently than thought. I absolutely do believe this is possible, although I don't believe this at all because of the stones, however, which to me are rather easily disproved with simple logic.MXVN (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Let's try this: "Exposure and acceptance as a hoax". That should be direct enough, without leaving wiggle room but still remaining true to fact.MXVN (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A hoax isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of everyone except Cabrera. The reason we can be blunt is because it's a fringe theory that is obviously pseudoscientific, pseudohistoric and essentially nonsense - there is no reason to believe there is, or ever was, any truth to them being pictures drawn by historical people to represent actual events or even ideas. They are a hoax, and multiple people have admitted to fraudulently carving them and passing them off as real. It is a hoax. Are there any reliable sources you can find that accepts them as real? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My only point of contention here is how obvious the "obvious" is, that you state. I wouldn't say that anything counter to common thinking is inherently proven ti be false, simply because it is counter to common thinking. THis said, I still agree that it is pretty obvious that the stones are hoaxed. The article currently is pretty blunt, actually, yet does not claim to overstate beyond the level of possible knowledge. I think it's fair in that context, since the clinical studies are not available to source and review, yet the likelihood that the stones could be real is extremely minimal.MXVN (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent debate on the intro paragraph

While it cannot be absolutely PROVEN, and current accepted theory of the dinosaur extinction date is not a completely proven FACT either (there is some geologic evidence to question this, although current theory does not consider this most of the time as it is outside the accepted chronology), there is enough evidence to support the current wording of the article, which says the stones are *CONSIDERED A HOAX*. It does not say that they absolutely *ARE* a hoax. But to say anything less than that they are, indeed, considered a hoax, would be misleading. They truly are considered by most to be a hoax, and probably are. Yes, the number of stones is a good point of contention, as is the point that weathering would not efect them in the same way if the stones were in caves, but this must be weighed against all the other evidence at hand, such as the modern abrasives, and the fact that boiling them with animal by-products can (supposedly) add the appearance of an old varnish which should take a very long time to appear there naturally. The chances of them being legitimate are, overall, very low.

What is in question is if it is worth mentioning in that sentence that some still debate this. It does mantion it later in the argument (although perhaps not clearly enough; I'm not sure), and saying that they are considered a hoax implies that there still is some fringe debate. So perhaps the wording is sufficient as it is. Either way, I have added a note that "some groups still debate this", in hopes that (as it is also very true) this will allow the facts to be told ditrectly and with fair balance, without compromising them in order to appease "fringe groups".

The current debaters have added "although there is no confimation that they are a hoax" ... when in reality that is not true. There has been "confirmation", in the form of the farmers who explained that they hoaxed the stones. True, this is still not absolute proof, but it is considered confirmation as the story is plausible, and the evidence of legitimacy is not strong enough to dismiss the claim outright. MXVN (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's undue weight to include it in the lede. By far, this is considered a hoax, and should simply be mentioned as such. Those that consider these stones to be real are pretty far out on the fringe, and should be treated as such. A sentence or two in the main article would be, to me, appropriate. Some clean-up of the main section could also help, as several of the claims/retractions seem to be out of chronological order. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; this makes sense to me. MXVN (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking better. I'm still thinking about the removed mention (and cite) for describing them as "out-of-place artifacts". I think it's relevant here, and we've got a source describing them as such. I think what's missing is a blurb on why they're considered out of place. Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of place artifacts are defined in the wikipedia article as "objects of historical, archaeological or paleontological interest found in a very unusual or seemingly impossible context". What we have here is a number of objects claimed (on no grounds) to be of such interest, of unknown age, from an unknown location, with pictures on them of unknown meaning. No serious person could regard them even as particularly problematic. There's nothing "out of place" about them, as their source is unknown. It's not even justified to characterise them as a "hoax", since they could equally well be regarded as imaginative art-works (of any age). It's been pointed out in one of the references that the people shown "using telescopes" coudl equally well be playing tennis. Similar reinterpretations must be possible in other cases. I had to laugh at the allegation (given in the skeptics dictionary reference) that one of the pictures represented "an extinct fish", since in a carving on stone it would be quite a skilled job to distinguish a herring from a haddock, and only a complete loony would be willing to assert that an extinct fish was intended. The loonies will always find it possible to believe whatever they want to believe, but we on wikipedia should keep a sense of proportion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Points most excellently made - I completely withdraw my previous comment. I would still call them a hoax, just because there is some notability of people claiming they are real, then recanting. Ravensfire (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OOPA again

I recently removed the Out-of-place artifact link as irrelevant. The article about OOPA defines it as "an object of historical, archaeological or paleontological interest found in a very unusual or seemingly impossible context". Here we have a set of objects probably not of such interest, from a context which poses no problems at all, since the location where the stones where found is unknown, as is their age. (Both of these might be very different between one stone and another.) Therefore there is no justification for saying they come from "a very unusual or seemingly impossible context". Looking again at the OOPA article, it seems to me that it has been badly named. Mostly it should be called "perfectly ordinary things which nutters have had silly theories about". However, it mixes in reference to things like the Maine penny, which on the face of it is evidence of surprising (but not impossible, and perhaps very indirect) inter-cultural contact. I suppose my main problem is therefore with the confused nature of the OOPA aticle itself. I can't be bothered to edit-war in this case, anyway. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it´s like an extended meaning of the strictly defined term. Anyway, I cannot think of an OOPA without thinking about Ica stones. The same goes for the Acámbaro figures --Againme (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The text is verified with an appropriate source; there's no reason to remove it. OOPART is descriptive and accurate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert

This is not a "revert to better balance", it is a revert to a less balanced, more POV version.

• Placing "Some at least of the stones are modern, the rest of unknown date" gives too much weight to the idea that some of the stones are not modern. The stones are a fairly obvious fraud, with the fraudsters having admitted this. Actual investigations revealed they are modern frauds. The original archaeological context has never been uncovered, so no survey of their discovery can be undertaken. The stones have pictures of humans riding dinosaurs, when there are 60 million years separating the death of one and the evolution of the other. Paris' overall statement is that every test has shown them to be modern frauds; though he is reserving judgment of all stones being modern frauds and allowing for the possibility of some stones to be ancient in principle, his overall point is that there is no good reason to think they are anything but fakes. Portraying his opinion as "well, there could be some old ones" misrepresents the source. The statement that leads the article is "Fraud. That's the frustrating conclusion that I reached after a lengthy investigation that has lasted four years and shattered a myth that could be considered the largest archaeological fraud".
• The Fortean Times verifies that the stones have been called OOPARTs, and explains why (they contradict Peruvian history and evolution - the latter being a reason why creationists seized on the stones; when you've got creationists on your side, you've lost the battle). The statement was originally removed with an edit summary of "prune ideological baggage". That's not a reason, it appears to be essentially removing reliable text on the basis of taste. Again, we give due weight to the majority opinion, particularly when surprising claims are made about improbable things. This has been reverted twice now, once by myself and once by Aunt Entropy. The first time was with the question "what bit is alleged to be POV?" - the answer is, the parts that make it look like there is credibility to be found in the Ica stones. In fact, there are at least three editors that have included reference to OOPARTs [4].
• The statement "...the crispness of the shallow engravings when stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces, unless somehow preserved" particularly the part in bold, is problematic. Paris watched stones being made. He concluded they were a fraud, and from what I can tell, never made the statement that some of the stones could be well-preserved authentic ancient stones.

As a fringe theory we are not bound to give "equal treatment". We do not "tell both sides". We give the interpretation that is elaborated in the most reliable sources, giving credit to the mainstream opinion. There is no reason to suspect they are genuine artifacts, particularly given the original sources stating they are made them with a dentist's drill, saws, and modern paints. The Skeptic's Dictionary and Fortean Times, both sources expected to have expertise with fringe claims, both state they are simply modern frauds. There may have been a tiny number of authentic stones, but none of them contained anything controversial. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The main thing wrong with the article (and some of the discussion above) is a failure to distinguish between the stones themselves and what Cabrera has said about them. The next most important mistake is to speak of "the stones" as if they were necessarily all of the same status, whereas there seems to be good reason, supported by the references, that this is not so. For example "estimates run to 50,000 pieces" and "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century" (both from FT article). So it seems that Basilio Uschuya was pretty busy, even allowing for that fact that he was forging before he was born.

An engraved stone is just an engraved stone. It may have merit as a work of art, but it cannot have historical significance unless we know what sort of person made it, when, and what it signifies. We know none of these things. That is sufficient argument to undermine Cabrera's theorising. Even if some of the stones are "ancient", there is absolutely no evidence as to how ancient. Many of the interpretations of the stones seem to be imaginative (see my remarks about tennis and extinct fish above).

WLU's rhe remark above "when you've got creationists on your side, you've lost the battle" betrays in my view a very wrong approach to wikipedia. Firstly, although it is often tempting to appraise an idea by those who hold it, that policy if maintained is the antithesis of science. Ideas should be examined on their own merits alone. Furthermore, wikipedia articles are not meant to be a "battle". Wikipedia policy is to present attested facts, neutrally and accurately. It is not part of wikipedia's aim to make sure that its readers have the right opinions, and when articles attempt that (which unfortunately they sometimes do) the main effect is just to make WP itself look stupid and biassed.

The "ideological baggage" to which I referred is a set of "anti-fringe" articles, categories and noticeboards which by opposing one set of wrong ideas have often succeeded in becoming as bad as what they are criticising. Rather than two tendencies amongst WP editors on controversial topics, there are often three:

• the "true believers" as WLU called them in his edit summary
• the anti-fringe "skeptics", who seem always ready to make confident statements of exaggerated orthodoxy and allegations of dishonesty
• WP policy, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, which confines itself to the facts, without concern as to what interpretation people might put on those facts.

The first two of these tendencies seem to me to have much in common, namely a tendency to claim omniscience where there is ignorance, a policy of deliberately presenting and concealing facts so as come to the "right" conclusion, and an all too clear statement of what that conclusion should be. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the above belongs elsewhere, at least that which isn't characterising and insulting. The phrase 'Ica stones' should refer to a number of engrave stones which are claimed to have engravings of dinosaurs, etc., ie a subset of the engraved stones found over the centuries in the Ica region. I added the word 'engraved' to the bit about mid-15th century stones to help clarify that, but if you can do a better job please do. I'm not sure how we can express the argument that an engraved stone is just an engraved stone without OR, but again, if you can do that, please do. I'm not sure I agree that our policy is "to present attested facts, neutrally and accurately." 'Neutrally' to you may not mean what NPOV means to me, for instance. An article on evolution, for instance, isn't expected to be neutral, it is expected to be written from an NPOV standpoint. There are good reasons why we have guidelines on fringe material, and if they are followed, and most of us who consider ourselves skeptics (why the scare quotes?) try, I hope, to follow them. You are suggesting, or perhaps asserting, that skeptics don't follow our guidelines and are always ready to do evil deeds. What happened to WP:AGF? But I am wandering off into territory that should be discussed elsewhere, suffice it to say that I don't appreciate some of your confrontational comments. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My main objections are a) removing pertinent, sourced information with no good reason I can see, and b) adding information that is not justified. I was the editor who added the information about stones from before the 1960s, because a source contained that information and it was relevant. So if there is missing information, cite a reliable source and add it. If it's an extreme claim, like men riding dinosaurs or performing brain transplants, there better be a solid source to back it up if claiming it's depicting a real action - like an archaeology journal. For actual information about the archaeological context, for real stones that were dug up by professionals and not bought by a retired doctor, cite an actual journal. The page is primarily (really only) about the pseudoarcheological claims regarding false stones made by farmers, that are used to justify claims about dinosaurs riding with men, ancient civliizations, etc. - because that's what the sources are about. And those sources present them as a clear, unambiguous hoax. So if anyone wants more information, find more reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is a creationist source which "takes the position that these may or may NOT be genuine stones." So if it is also true that "when you've got creationists on your side, you've lost the battle", we can leave it to WLU to work out the logical consequences. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just base the article on the most reliable sources we have. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: I think most of us agree with most things you have said. The only exception I take is your problem with the wording "unless somehow preserved". This is relevant as the very reason why the stones would be expected to be ground down hinges on their being out in the open and not in a cave. If they were in a cave, this doesn't necessarily make them modern, but it *does* eliminate the expectation for them to be eroded. If the article is going to state that the stones should be eroded, it should at least have some qualifying statement. The new wording should now explain this clearly, without giving undue weight to an opposing viewpoint.

Now, when you say that we are not obligated to "tell both sides", I can agree there, but we *are* obligated not to overstate the evidence in favor of any particular opinion. We should tell the facts as they are, stating why scientists believe what they do, and I believe this article does that quite well.MXVN (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Convenience link

Note partial revert. The preference should always be for the original, official link but having a convenience link is appropriate (particularly since this is the author's own site). I didn't realize a) that Fortean Times required registration or b) that I had apparently registered for the site, my apologies for the earlier revert rather than inclusion into the reference template. That was totally my bad - I had thought the FT link was free (and thus the extra link redundant) since I never hit the register wall. My IP has apparently since wandered. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Flying machines

Google books is crapping out on the necessary Skeptic's Dictionary page, but Skepdic.com has info, as does the Fortean times link:

• "The stones allegedly depict open-heart surgery, brain transplants, telescopes, flying machines, etc." Skepdic
• "...Cabrera has arranged his collection into groups, including star maps, maps of unidentified lands, scenes of complex surgery, men using telescopes to observe stars and comets, and what seem to be humans in flying machines...the “flying machines” resemble birds more than high-tech craft" Fortean

That the stones were at least alleged to depict flying machines seems worth noting since that was one of the claims made by Cabrera. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Aztecs?

Th article mentions «Incan or Aztec men riding and attacking dinosaurs», my emphasis. Aztecs live 5000 km away from Ica. Is this a mistake, or another wacky claim to ancient technology? --Tuvalkin (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the first source [5]. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken to Spain?

I can find no evidence that any carved stones taken to Spain are part of the 'Ica stones' - the source is [6] and there's nothing there to back up this claim. I expect that carved stones were taken from Peru to Spain, but without any evidence they were related to the stones of this article it shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than discuss this, I see editors are restoring it, one editor claiming I am suppressing something ("this is sourced and relevant and there are no grounds for suppressing it").

Let's make one thing clear, when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." My concern is that by making a statement that engraved stones were taken to Spain without any evidence that these qualify as 'Ica Stones' we are misleading our readers. I'm also saying that we have problems with the sources for this claim. As another editor wrote recently at RSN, "Sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable simply because they are one type or another. What makes a source unreliable is how we use them."

I've tried to trace where the sources got this from to see if that provided any evidence that any stones that can legitimately be called 'Ica Stones' were found and taken to Spain. I found [7] which says "One student of prehistory, JR Jochmans, claims that a Jesuit missionary, Father Simon who accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast in 1525,". But Jochmans is not what we think of as a typical 'student of prehistory' but someone who among other things claims to have 'ghost co-authored' the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" by Rene Noorbergen and other strange stuff. [8] I can't find anything about this Father Simon. Other sources (eg [9]) use the claim (ie Father or Padre Simon found some engraved stones, Spanish explorers took them to Spain in 1562) but no one has any sources for this.

We have no reliable sources justifying our origins section. The fact that real engraved stones may exist/existed in the 16th century is not sufficent reason to suggest that they are the 'origins' of the Ica Stones or bear any relationship to them. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The key to our disagreement is the quite arbitrary demand that

when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing."

Who said so? "Ica Stones" means stones found in or near Ica. It is reasonable to focus on stones bearing some sort of decoration. Some of these stones are certainly modern. Probably some are old, possibly of pre-Columbian age. To suppress the existence of the latter is to distort the whole picture. I personally would be very interested to know what appears on the older stones, but I'm not aware of any source about this, and perhaps the older stones have never been studied properly. But if we allow the article to be only about the modern ones, we end up saying "This article is about the modern stones. The obviously modern stones are, obviously, modern. So there." which is what you seem to want.

There does not appear to be any very good source on this topic, so we have to make intelligent use of what we have, without straying, as your are perhaps doing, into WP:OR. The existence of older stones is sourced as well as the rest. One argument for being fairly sure that some are old is their sheer volume. Whereas it seems clear that some of the more spectacular stones were carved by Basilio Uschuya and his colleagues, it is hardly credible that they created all the tens of thousands that there are said to be. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, your last two sentences are clearly OR. But seriously, have you an academic source or even an historical text talking about stones around Ica being sent to Spain in 1562? I agree we need to make intelligent use of sources, which is why I'm saying that we shouldn't include this. I have raised it at WP:FTN as it is a fringe subject. It may belong at RSN or a similar venue. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And let me be a bit clearer. Not only am I arguing that "Ica Stones" refers to a specific set of stones, not just any carved stones found in the area, I'll note that Peru is not Ica. Nor do we have a reliable historical source for any engraved stones being sent to Spain in the 16th century. If this was an article about archaeology, the history of Peru, etc. surely you'll agree that we wouldn't use Skepdic as a reliable source for such a claim? So we don't have a reliable source for the historical claim, the earliest such claim comes from a very unreliable source who doesn't use any known historical texts for his claim, no one has claimed these stones are actually from Ica or have engravings that can't be explained by the available knowledge in the 16th century. Suppose we find a reliable source that proves there is a real 16th century document that says engraved stones were sent to Spain. Would we be justified in adding it to this article? No, because that would be original research. Fringe writers work that way, juxtapose things for which they can't actually prove a relationship because that often works, but we shouldn't be doing that. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller has taken this discussion to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ica Stones interesting issue about material sourced to Skepdic and then again to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ica Stones query about historical material sourced to Skepdic where original source is dubious and in any case challenging its inclusion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, forgot to post here. Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of descriptions of stones

I've had to revert an editor twice who has removed the descriptions, this time saying 'let's concentrate on the real stones'. But those are the 'real stones' - they are real, but the engravings are modern. The lead says "The Ica stones are a collection of andesite stones that bear a variety of diagrams, including depictions of dinosaurs and what is alleged to be advanced technology" so why remove the descriptions? Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaursandman.com

This is a creationist website run by Dennis Swift. It is clearly not a reliable source, and the fact that an editor went to a museum (the Regional Museum, which is still in the article) and saw some stones is irrelevant. That editor's edit summary said "I'm not sure about the others, but if what it said about that one is true, the others probably are too". We are getting too much of this 'probably' and " it is hardly credible" as reasons to include badly sourced material. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A PDF document "Rebuttal to Fortean Times" hosted on this fringe website cannot qualify as a WP:RS. The website seems chiefly to be promoting a book and fringe ideas of the author. Vsmith (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly concur; totally fails all tests of reliable sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing lots of assertions here, but no actual reasons to not trust use the source. Rrrr5 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)