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)

is the "varnish" comment a reference to "desert varnish" which accumulates over millennia on the exposed surfaces of rocks? all around the world there are petroglyphs carved into rocks that are coated with this glaze so that the drawn forms are traced in the lighter colours exposed beneath the sun glazed surface of rocks. These stones all have that patina, that's why the carvings show up in the first place 2A00:23C7:E50E:7900:F92C:5045:40AC:C364 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2021 (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)

Since the only consequence of Dougweller's forum-shopping was to get the rest of the discussion rapidly archived, I've copied it back here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I originally brought this up at FTN, partially because I wasn't sure if this was mainly fringe, RS or NPOV, but in the course of the discussion, or at least my thoughts on the matter, I decided it is really an issue about sources and how they are used, so I'm copying it here and will put a note at FTN asking people to move here

The issue is a sentence that says "In the past, a number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations, and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century." It's sourced to Skepdic.

On the talk page, I've written:

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 [10] 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. [11] I can't find anything about this Father Simon. Other sources (eg [12]) 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.

I've had a response, focussing on my statement 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." - the argument is that Ica Stones should refer to any stones "found in or near Ica." and that the sheer volume of stones speaks for them being old. I'm not sure if this is an RS or NPOV question, but it's certainly a fringe one and I strongly disagree that the phrase Ica Stones refers to anything else than these stones decorated with dinosaurs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all very odd. There are only two respectable sources here, Carrolland Coppens. The point at issue is simply this: were there any engraved stones known from before 1966, when Javier Cabrera Darquea started his theorising? and if so, should the article mention them?

Coppens says "Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father – Bolivia Cabrera, a Spanish aristocrat – gathered from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930s." Later on he relates "The Soldis’ interest began in 1961 when, according to Herman Buse, the Ica River flooded and “uncovered in the Ocucaje region a large number of engraved stones which ever since have been an object of commerce for the huaqueros who found them” ". Similarly we have "Santiago Agurto Calvo, then rector of the Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, who bought many and, in 1966, began excavating pre-Inca tombs around Ocucaje. In an article that year, he described the designs as “Unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings [..] in elaborate and fantastic compositions.” "

Coppens goes on to say "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century". As to what the older stones showed, he says "While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine” stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones."

Coppens sums up "It is quite possible for the engraved stones, if authentic, to have a simple anthropological origin." and "It seems increasingly likely that the Ica stones have been fabricated, but it is difficult to believe that they are all – estimates run to 50,000 pieces – made by one poor, uneducated farmer. No independent study has been made, if only to separate any possibly authentic artifacts from the fakes."

Carroll adopts a similar tone, ending with "Are the stones authentic? If by authentic one means that they were engraved by pre-Columbians, then the answer has to be an unqualified 'not all of them.' Some engraved stones are said to have been brought back to Spain in the 16th century. It is possible that some of the stones are truly examples of pre-Columbian art."

All I'm saying is that the article should admit the existence of old stones and appraise them in the same way as the sources. I am at a loss to understand Dougweller's motivation in trying to exclude such content. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

references

I thought you'd decided on my motivation, your edit summary talks about suppression of information. I don't think you've addressed my concerns. One is whether by 'Ica Stones' is meant 'any engraved stones from Ica', or the actual subject of the various fringe publications on what they call 'Ica Stones', ie stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. I'm arguing that a badly sourced comment on some engraved stones which may have been sent to Spain is irrelevant and misleading to our readers. I'm also arguing that we have no reliable source for the statement - no mainstream historian, no historical texts we can somehow check, nothing but Carroll and Coppen repeating what a fringe writer said a long time ago. Do you really believe there could possibly be such '15th century' records? Before Columbus? Maybe that's just carelessness on the part of Philip Coppens (who by the way is not Philip Coppens but a fringe writer, eg [13]. He's simply not an acceptable source for an historical claim like that.

I also note that an editor has replaced the passage without discussion on the talk page. Not only that, he replaced other material I removed which concerned a statement that there were collections of these stones at two museums although my edit summary said "This is from the author's personal website, not a reliable source (not just because it's a personal site but also because he isn't a reliable source for this". The reason for replacing the material was "there's nothing unreliable about the report. When I went to the regional museum of Ica, they were there. I'm not sure about the others, but if what it said about that one is true, the others probably are too." which is clearly irrelevant to our policy on sources. Then he removed the descriptions which are key to the article, saying they were obviously fakes. That's a bit confusing - what I gather from that is that he agrees that the dinosaur etc engraved stones are fakes, which I agree with, but then what's the point of the article?

So I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists and do not have dinosaurs, etc., to back up your claim that 'Ica Stones' as a phrase is not specific to such fringe claims. I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source for the claim about 16th or 15th century stones being found and sent to Spain. What I think is necessary to make a claim that similar stones were found in by Spanish explorers is a clearly reliable source from an archaeologist or historian about such stones describing them as having dinosaurs, heart transplants, star maps, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dougweller says "I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists ...". I am asking Dougweller not to indulge in such silly rhetoric. As he must well know, I am not aware of any proper published study of Ica Stones at all by mainstream archaeologists, and if I knew of such I would certainly cite it. As for "I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source ...", they are certainly imperfect sources, but the best we seem to have. If they're not good enough, Dougweller should be listing this article at wp:afd and have done with it. But if we're accepting Carroll and Coppens, which I think reasonable in the context, Dougweller has no justification in his attempt to cherrypick their testimony as he clearly is trying to do.
• One can often see discussions of collections of artistic or historically significant objects where fakes may occur amongst the genuine things. Normally the approach is to try and concentrate on the genuine ones, and ignore the fakes. This is I think the first time I've seen someone say "let's ignore the genuine and concentrate solely on the fakes". If I were to go to Ica, find an andesite stone and scratch a picture of a dinosaur on it, apparently according to Dougweller this will be an "Ica Stone", but if I find one in an ancient tomb, it won't. Weird!
• Dougweller asks rhetorically, above, "what's the point of the article?". My answer to that question is that it should be a description of inscribed andesite stones found at or near Ica, with as good as possible an analysis of their probable origin and significance. It would really be illuminating if Dougweller could give us his answer to the question, particularly as he raised it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I note above, I've moved it here. And I repeat, the phrase 'Ica Stones' is clearly specific to a large set of stones inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. It is not used by archaeologists to describe 'inscribed andesite stones near Ica'. My question was about another editor removing descriptions of stones on the grounds they were fake, but the point of the article is that it is about a set of stones that fringe sources claim are inscribed with images showing dinosaurs and men together, heart operations, etc, and that mainstream sources say are hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So if a stone isn't "inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc." it isn't an "Ica Stone" at all? and they aren't Ica Stones if there are "fringe sources" which don't "claim (they) prove either a YEC perspective or something similar"? I think we need a little attention to our basic logic. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand the last part of your statement/question, but yes, I'm arguing that the reason we have an article called 'Ica Stones' is that there are a body of stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc with that name. Ah, perhaps the reason I can't understand what you've written is something went wrong with what I wrote and some words got deleted. I've rewritten it leaving out the YEC bit as I can't recall exactly what I wrote (although I do know that one of the fringe writers takes a YEC position on this). And there are no reliable sources saying that such stones were taken to Spain. And even though we can verify that a source, Coppens, claims that there are text saying they were taken to Spain in the 15th century, we also shouldn't use that just because we can verify he said it (in case anyone misses the point, I'm sure Coppens meant 16th century but that's not what he wrote). Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to force you into a ridiculous position, but you seem to have gone there quite voluntarily. You're saying that a stone is only an "Ica Stone" if it has "dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc" on it. Otherwise we are to deny or ignore its existence. Cabrera's collection has thousands of stones. Only a few have dinosaurs or high tech stuff on them, so we are not to take any notice of the rest. We are to assume that the reader has no interest in the possible anthropological or historical significance of the many stones which are probably ancient. We are, according to you, to be focussed solely on the "set of stones that fringe sources claim" support the strange theories held by a tiny minority. What you are asking for amounts to gross POV-pushing. It lacks common sense or a sense of proportion and is insulting to the intelligence of our readers. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, so all you have to do to show I'm pov-pushing is find some archaeological sources that use the phrase "Ica Stones" but don't use them to describe this fringe view but as a label for a set of stones of general archaeological interest. And maybe you could drop the personal attacks? Find a peer reviewed analysis of these stones, discussion in some books on the archaeology of the area, that sort of thing. Do the work that's needed to back your views. I've looked and couldn't find use of the phrase outside of discussion of this fringe view. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see my criticism of your position as a personal attack. Perhaps I can remind you that on a previous occasion you were kind enough to describe my request for a source as "repugnant" while also lecturing me on the need to use WP:COMMONSENSE. Now you're demanding I find sources which I would indeed dearly wish to find, but ignoring my suggestions, based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as to what this article should say in the mean time. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so others don't have to bother, what I said was "The suggestion that calling Holocaust denial pseudohistory contentious (and doubting that there is a source saying so) is to me repugnant." I stand by that. Are you really arguing that Skepdic is a good source for such a vague claim about Spanish texts? Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since discussing things with you is neither productive nor pleasant, I shall stop. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:11, 17 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)

Agreed. I'm wondering if any of three institutes listed in the edit have information about their collection online? If there's something else, a possible compromise would be to note that X, Y and Z have collections of stones they claim are Ica Stones. That's got to have a different source than the ref discussed here though. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the editor in question is currently blocked for edit-warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Support removal, not a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrrr5{

Rrrr5 (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as socking and blocked for two weeks,- Treweeke Mall (talk · contribs) is confirmed, blocked indefinitely and it is clear that two 208. IPs who have edited this article are the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

The sources are from the web page of the creationist Dennis Swift [14] which is clearly an unreliable source - this has been discussed before. You can't take sources from an unreliable source and use them in an article. "The Cabrera Rocks, Info Journal, No. 17 (May, 1976), p. 10, R. Drum" is not a reliable source either - it's the journal of the International Fortean Organization[15] and can't be used for an assertion of fact, and can't be used at all if it's significance can't be shown by discussion in clearly reliable sources. I don't know what Charroux's book says and it requires a page number in any case. If we can find out what it says we might be able to attribute it to him. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:REDFLAG. I've reverted these edits, which also restored the descriptions of some - men co-existing with dinosaurs, other long extinct animals, advanced technology, etc, that is important for the reader to know to understand why these are considered to be a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

The objection concerns my use of Don Patton, who has been flagged up a as inappropriate source - since it is alleged that he has a "fake PhD".

Is it not my intention to vandalise or compromise the objective integrity of Wikipedia. The article on the Ica stones is already biased inasmuch as it witholds evidence of the antiquity of the stones.

Please could you supply details of why you think Don Patton has a fake PhD? Patton obtained a Ph.D. in Education in 1993 from the Pacific School of Graduate Studies. A letter from the Australian Board of Information confirms that the Pacific School held the right to grant doctorates in education at that time: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/Pacific-College-of-Graduate-Studies-Melbourne-Australia-David-Chambers-Jan-Williamson-Clifford-Wilson.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he is simply not a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS and WP:SPS. You can challenge this at WP:RSN. The fact that letter can't be used as evidence on Wikipedia is irrelevant. I also have no reason to think that you have read the sources that you have added, they seem to come directly from Patton's self-published webpage. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia page about Pacific International University, another name for Pacific School of Graduate Studies. The Pacific College of Graduate Studies (Pacific School of Graduate Studies / Pacific International University) is also discussed in A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials by Glen J. Kuban (1989) and Some Questionable Creationist Credentials by Brett Vickers (1988) on the Talk.Origins Archive Web Site.Paul H. (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not much of an article on the Wikipedia page. It devotes most of the text to stating that the university had no accreditation, whereas the letter from the Australian Board of Education clearly states that Pacific School of Graduate Studies in Melbourne had accreditation at the time when Patton was awarded his PhD. Talk Origins? There's a nice unbiased website to appeal to (I don't think). The only thing Talk Origins has to offer on the matter is hearsay from Glen Kuban regarding Patton's credentials - Kuban being a staunch opponent of Patton's views 92.238.107.151 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now the objection has changed from the original assertion about Don Patton's PhD. I haven't added *any* sources from Patton's self-published web page. However, I've removed references to Patton's personal discoveries of Ica stones, even though he provides photographs from the relevant expeditions he was involved in. 92.238.107.151 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::The basis thing about the PhD is that it's irrelevant. It's in education. How does Patton meet our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. And the sources you added come from Patton's webpage at [16]. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you can hardly introduce an objection about a researcher's PhD, then defend your objection and not expect people to respond. I haven't taken any sources from Patton's web page. Your link above refers to www.dinosaursandman.com. When I looked just now, a statement on the website read: "This web site is the result of over twenty years of research in various parts of the world by Dr. Dennis Swift and others." I don't see any reference to Patton. The sources which appear on the pdf that you link to, exist independently of that article anyway. 92.238.107.151 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies, it is indeed Dennis Swift - I've confused the two Creationists. It still isn't a reliable source for the reasons I've given, and has been removed before as a source for those reasons. Patton's PhD still, even if legit, is worth no more than the work taken to get it and the teaching experience he had to get it. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. I've never put in a link to Dennis Swift's website. I added a link to Patton's video on Youtube, which gave accounts and photos of his expeditions to the area where he found some Ica stones. I thought this a fair inclusion, because whatever one thinks of his creationist views, he made the effort to go there and collect evidence that he could then present. He has years of experience in geological and archaeological fieldwork. However, the video is self-published, so I supposed it does violate Wiki's rules on a technical point. I see that you're still casting doubt over Patton's PhD, although you said it was an irrelevant point. I have a doctorate and they are hard to get. You have no right to imply that Patton got his on the cheap if you cannot prove it. 92.238.107.151 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll drop it. But as I said, it appears that you got your sources from Swift and that's not on. Cabrera has been discussed on the article talk page, and Charroux - did you read his book? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What evidence would you like to see that I have read the sources? For example, I own a copy of Ica y el Peru Precolombino (first edition) - what do you want to see?

The current article contains heavily biased statements which would only lead the reader into a unobjective consideration of the facts. An example occurs where the articles states that modern day forgers create copies of the original forgeries. This would lead people into thinking that all the Ica stones are forgeries. The fact that Ica stones were being uncovered in archaeological digs led by archaeologist Alejandro Pezzia Asseretor;" class="autosigned">— Preceding strongly refutes this. <span style="font-size: smalleunsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the only use of the phrase "Ica stones" is to refer to these forged stones. Unless of course Assereto refers to them as "Ica stones". This is not the same as "engraved stones from the Ica area". I'm not sure if you are arguing that there are no forged stones, that the stones showing dinosaurs are genuine, etc (given particularly that you removed their description and seem to be taking Creationist views seriously) or that these are forgeries but there are genuine engraved stones with non-controversial engravings. If there is a way of making it clear (and if its the case) that there are academically accepted non-forged stones, and that these don't lend credence to the forgeries, then we can consider it. I found [17] which you can perhaps read in the original, but it doesn't seem to be a RS either and gives no detail about what Asserto says. This all really should be on the article talk page, should I copy it over so it is clear? Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't know that the stones are forgeries. The idea that they are forged is a truth claim made in the Wikipedia article, on the basis of one man recanting his original statement that he found the Ica stones. However, his "confession" is unreliable since the media attention meant he risked prosecution for selling antiquities. And even he apparently stated that he did not make all the stones. So your premise that the stones are forged is unproven. Moreover, if the purported forger did not make all of the 11,000 stones, you cannot rightly say that: "the only use of the phrase 'Ica stones' is to refer to these forged stones". Because even if some of the 11,000 stones are forged, most may not be. There is no indication given that sceptics have subjected any Ica stones to microscopic analysis, which is the acid test to know if they were made in recent times. So by insisting that any academically accepted non-forged stones "must not lend credence to the forgeries", you are insisting that any empirical evidence cannot conflict with your own unproven assertions. This clearly sacrifices intellectual integrity and objectivity to satisfy your own biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.107.151 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that any stones showing dinosaurs are modern. Man and dinosaurs did not coexist. By any scientific standards that's an objective statement. I'm copying all this to the Ica talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...we shouldn't be supporting fringe claims like dinosaurs and men co-existing. If the claim is that the forged, dinosaur-sporting stones are based on genuine stones carved by pre-Incan people, we need a reliable source. It's quite possible there are forged stones and genuine ones, but a source is needed to distinguish them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to the personal attack by SamueltheGhost

I note the edit summary that claims that I have an "obsessive denial that any of the stones are ancient". I have repeatedly that that the phrase Ica Stones is used in the media to refer to a group of hoax stones as decribed in the lead, in other words a subset of all possible stones from the Ica area. There may well be genuine inscribed stones from Ic, but this article is not about those stones. I don't see how I can make this any clearer. If anyone wants to accuse me of saying that none of the stones showing dinosaurs or advanced technology are genuine I'll hold my hand up to that, but I've never claimed that there are no genuine stones from the Ica area. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All I've ever suggested is that the article itself should make that last point clear, which in turn would make the reference to Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas relevant. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources would you use for that (IMHO they would have to be archaeological sources, and obviously not fringe). Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Carroll and Coppens both admit the probable existence of old stones. That's all I'm asking the article to say. Of course archaeological sources would be needed for any extended account of the nature and significance of the old stones, but I don't know of any such. Carroll and Coppens are sufficient source for saying that presumably old stones exist. Those sources contain quite a lot of discussion about the difficulty of distinguishing modern carvings from ancient ones, which is a meaningless question if the latter don't exist. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue for me is that the link gives the mistaken impression that the stones are actually Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas. The article should reflect the reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The probable, possible or presumed existence of older stones is not enough. The link would be justified if reliable scholarly sources described "Ica stones" of whatever provenance as a generic form of indigenous art, notable in their own right. That doesn't seem the case. Haploidavey (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And, as I've said, to establish the existence of authentic stones we would need reliable sources, and for this, they'd have to be mainstream archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

new evidence? in edit summary

This edit summary includes the words "the Peruvian goverment currently does not regard them to be national treasures after investigating them." If this is so, it needs to be sourced and put in the article. An edit summary is not an adequate place for new evidence. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume then that you didn't mean to revert another editor and re-insert the material back into the article without a reference? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The material was outright synthesis; it drew unjustifiable, uncited conclusions from otherwise disconnected but citable facts. Of course Peruvian law forbids forgery and the unlicensed export of ancient Peruvian artifacts. Peruvian government and Peruvian museums might even hold official directories of "national treasures", which SamuelTheGhost can track down. What we're discussing specifically here is not "Ica Stones" in general - whatever they are or might be - but the good Doctor's collection, or particular stones within his collection. If any of those are included in any official list, we should have no problem... Haploidavey (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And we have no policies or guidelines in place saying that edit summaries need sourcing. Content needs sourcing, and the IP's edit was obviously not sourced, so it's a bit confusing that SamuelTheGhost is replacing unsourced content. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're all implicitly admitting that "the Peruvian government currently does not regard them to be national treasures" is bullshit? SamuelTheGhost (talk)

?? We don't know if it's true or not. It's not sourced and that's enough to stop things at this stage (there is no point going into other arguments about whether it's true or not, or WP:SYNTH when we don't even have a source, per WP:BEANS). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with IRWolfie. Content which isn't yet realiably sourced does not need to be discussed at all, just removed from the article until sources to support it are found. And, in response to SamuelTheGhost's last question, I wonder how he would respond if asked whether he's stopped beating his wife yet. I think even he should be able to acknowledge that such questions phrased in that way are of no particular use in trying to construct an encyclopedia article. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this revert, the stones are generally considered a hoax, I've never seen a reference to the stones being a national treasure. The closest point I've ever seen is that in general the government punishes the inappropriate recovery and sale of antiquities, not that it considers these stone antiquities. They're considered a hoax. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the statement "Though many are considered to be modern forgeries created by Peruvian locals, the Peruvian government considers them historic artifacts and punishes forgery of them with jail time." because there were no sources provided that support either the claim that the "Peruvian government considers them historic artifacts" or the claim that the Peruvian government "punishes forgery of them with jail time". In addition, both statements are badly flawed and unjustifiable conclusions based entirely on outright synthesis using disconnected facts presented in the article. There needs be a source or sources that specifically documents each claim before they can be accepted as part of this article Paul H. (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote "goverment currently does not regard them to be national treasures after investigating them." because in personal communications with some archaeologists I have been told about an official report prepared by the Peruvian government regarding their investigations of the Ica Stones, which concluded specifically that they were modern forgeries. Since I have not been able yet to obtain a copy of this report, this statement unfortunately falls into the realm of unsourced and unverified personal research and synthesis, which I should not have used in my Wikipedia comments. I apologize for my mistake in doing so. Paul H. (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I had intended to cease any further comment on this article in view of the tone of the discussion which had developed, but I must say that I very much welcome, and accept, Paul H's explanation above. It would help this article enormously if we could have access to the view of the Peruvian government or its agencies. In view of what Paul says I withdraw my description of his edit summary, and apologise to him for its offensive nature. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrrr5/Archive

Just reminding people of this as we are still getting socks from 98... addresses. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cryptozoology Research Team Web Site is Not an Acceptable Wikipedia Source

In [Revision as of 18:59, 4 August 2013] and [Revision as of 01:43, 5 August 2013], Cryptozoology Research Team web site is cited as source for text included the Ica Stone. It is not acceptable source of information because it is self-published web site of dubious reliability that has not been vetted for its validity. The Cryptozoology Research Team web site clearly deals in fringe theories as in case of the reprint of an article by “Dr.” Dennis Swift, a well-known Young Earth creationist, about the Ica Stones. The article is an unreliable source because Swift’s primary interest in promoting the Ica Stones is to use fringe theories to discredit evolution and create Christian apologetics supporting his personal version of Evangelical Christianity. The fringe and religious nature of Swift’s writings can be seen on Man-Made Dinosaur Images on the www.creationism.org web site. For example, that web page clearly states "Dr. Dennis Swift is an active creation science researcher." Paul H. (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ica Y el Peru Pre Colombino" and Engraved Stones

The [Revision as of 18:59, 4 August 2013] and [Revision as of 01:43, 5 August 2013], mention the discovery of prehistoric engraved andesitic stones from Pre-Columbian tombs in the Ica Valley. However, the discoveries of authentic engraved stones are useless as evidence for the authenticity of the Ica Stones and largely irrelevant to the discussion about them being either authentic Pre-Columbian artifacts or modern forgeries. In his 1968 monograph "Ica Y el Peru Pre Colombino" Alejandro Pezzia Asserto noted the discovery of engrave stones in different tombs. First, he noted the discovery of a large cobble engraved with a starry geometric design that might be an ordinary flower inside a Paracas (900 BP – 200 AD) tomb. Second, he reported the discovery of an andesite pebble engraved with an ordinary fish in a Middle Horizon (600 – 1000 AD) tomb. Finally, he reported the discovery of an andesite pebble engraved with an ordinary llama in a Tiwanaku-related (200 – 1000 AD) tomb. According to "Ica Y el Peru Pre Colombino," engraved stones have been found associated with different Peruvian cultures potentially covering a span of several hundred years. Thus, engraved stones are neither diagnostic nor unique to a specific prehistoric culture in Peru. As a result, they cannot be used to precisely discern the cultural affiliations of engraved stones, which lack a documented archaeological provenience.

Because authetic Pre-Columbian artifacts very often have served as either the template or inspiration for modern forgeries, the documented existence of authentic Pre-Columbian engraved stones cannot be used to argue that other engraved stones, which lack a documented archaeological provenience, are also authentic prehistroic artifacts. Similar Pre-Columbian engraved stones could simply have been the inspiration for modern forgers to create the Ica Stones in some cases with very imaginative elaborations. If anything, the existence of prehistoric engraved stones provides a ready explanation as from where modern forgers conceived of making their own modern engraved stones for their own purposes. There is nothing in "Ica Y el Peru Pre Colombino" that ties the reported authentic engraved stones with the Ica Stones. Paul H. (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional Note: Since Spanish is not my native language, there might be errors in the above information that were incurred during my laborious translation of text. However, I have tried my best to to be as accurate as possible and apologize in advance for any errors that might have crept into the above material during translation. Paul H. (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alteration of Ica Stones

According to Pezzia Assereto (1968), the source that cited in the Wikipedia article, the feldspar alteration, change in hardness, and formation of patina, which are known to geologists as a "weathering rind," are the result of weathering. My translation of the specific text discussing it on page 96 of Pezzia Assereto (1968) is:

"Later, Agurto Architect conducted research in the School of Mines of National University of Engineering, the result established that the andesites were heavily blackened stones, these layers came for the Mesozoic volcanic flows and typical of the area, he action of weathering has affected the rock surfaces, transforming the feldspars into clays causing an outer layer of lower hardness ranging in grade 3 and grade 4 nucleus to the Mohs scale,…"

The above statement is completely consistent with what is known about the formation of such weathering rinds on andesite cobbles as discussed by Colman (1982). I would suspect that the cobbles that were found on the surface also had some desert varnish added to the patina on their exposed surfaces.

References cited:

Colman, S. M. (1982) Chemical weathering of basalts and andesites; evidence from weathering rinds. Professional Paper no. 1246. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 51 pp.

Pezzia Assereto, A (1968) Ica y el Perú Precolombino. Tomo I. Arqueología de la provincia de Ica. Empresa Editora Liberia, Ojeda, Venezuela. 295 pp. Paul H. (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionist/atheist/secularist interpretations only allowed

I have tried to edit this page to stop the allegations that the stones are proven hoaxes and that there is no evidence of age - this is far from the truth, but whenever I cite books and texts that support the stones being known about for centuries and proving to be ancient I am attacked by the Wiki mafia for citing 'an unreliable Creationist source'. Well just because you hold a different world view doesn't mean that you are reliable and Creationists are not - especially when its the Creationist who don't believe in lying! The website I cited quotes studies that were irrefutably carried out. Just because it clashes with you world-view doesn't mean you should engage in an edit war. I have noticed that any evidence for Creation and the Bible is always edited in favour of atheism/secularism, and always with references to atheist/secularist websites - talk about biased! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.128.179 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually ..... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia requires that changes be backed up by reliable sources and the overall tone of the article be neutral, meaning that views are represented in relative weight to how they are portrayed in reliable sources, especially the highest quality sources. This can be challenging in WP:FRINGE articles such as this one. Here, the scientific view is overwhelming that these are fakes so we describe them as such. The sources you used in your articles don't appear to meet our reliable source standards. Please review those standards by clicking on the link I included. Ravensfire (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If one believes the Bible to be true, and their mortal (and so flawed and imperfect) personal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with known science, then it is their interpretation that wrong, not other possibilities. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In any case, a lot of religious scholars, in fact certainly the majority, are not Creationists. Doug Weller (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The other problem here is that many of those sources are equivocating. There ARE genuine stones found in situ at burial sites in Peru, and they HAVE been found for many centuries. What has not been demonstrated, however, is "dinosaur stones" discovered in situ at such a burial site. In fact, not a single documented in situ stone has had such carvings. If Creationists don't believe in lying, perhaps they should point this out. --BRPierce (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Questioning the validity of baseless claims

Simply saying something is a hoax does not prove the theory of it being a hoax. Stating it is a hoax and "serious scholars" would consider it one is a scare tactic and not at all educational or helpful. Likewise the addition of saying it is a hoax on the Wikipedia Article page is unsupported. Article states Basilio Uschuya baked these in dung yet that is also unsupported and doing a search turns up no credible evidence. The overarching issue here seems to be the conflicting theories of evolutionists and creationists (these are both fringe theories however). Page should be edited to reflect the very open endedness of this until substantial evidence can be added and verified -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55.154.178.56 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Evolution isn't fringe, it's mainstream science. If you are going to edit from the viewpoint that it's fringe you won't be happy here. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting considering so many broken links in the research that is available. One would consider the ability to be open mindedness to be mainstream while those who grasp to their theories as fringe. This is applicable to all fields by the way. Dinosaurs are aged based on where they are found, yet C14 dating is haunting the field because it's showing numbers of less than 30,000 years. While you will instantly declare C14 not applicable. I'm going to ask why? Why do dinosaurs have radioactive carbon dioxide to even test, if the half life is so small in comparison with the age of the Dinosaurs? It seems you and various others are grasping to the notion of a catastrophic event rather than just following the facts. Also attempting to scare someone off with how happy they will be somewhere is not a good way to get rid of them. It usually just affirms that more digging is necessary. -JD

This article is not about dinosaurs, it's about the Ica stones. Here is a copy of the article describing how Uschuya produced them. The description of them as a hoax is supported by multiple reliable sources which are cited in the article. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the dinosaurs on the Ica stones. Notice the article doesn't present the Ica stones that display nudity and pornographic imagery. The absence of information would point any common person to deduce the stones themselves are not the subject, but rather the Dinosaurs which are etched into the stones. I'll look at the website cited later. Thank you for the conversation -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55.154.178.56 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have taken a moment to read the article that YOU linked Joe. Did you read it in its entirety? In the tenth paragraph it contradicts your very statement. It explains (paraphrasing) that he admitted to creating them for profit, under duress. It goes on to explain that he spoke to a German journalist and retracted his previous claims explaining he was attempting to (successfully) avoid prison while in custody and that they were indeed genuine. The point is NOT to prove one way or the other. The point of rewriting this page is to reflect honesty and not opinion. The article that you posted brings us back to square 1, meaning NO ONE knows. Intellectual honesty is needed here, so far all I've seen is a bias publication that these are hoaxes, with the underlying reasoning being "Cause evolution is millions of years old", well that doesn't cut it. You post all information as relevant until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, that is not the case here, and that my friend is not archaeology, it's simply defending your known universe. I assume you'll conjure up another article, from someone else's personal website? -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98B:4101:11CB:742C:B8C4:7533:E0D4 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe, when someone starts with the premise that evolution is fringe, rational discussion isn't possible. JD, go edit the article on them at Conservapedia which is Creationist and doesn't see them as hoaxes. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug, you failed to read that I actually wrote that BOTH Evolution and Creationism is fringe. I think you lost your objectivity and have zero credibility to weigh in here, any further. Thanks for your "civil" discourse though. -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55.154.178.56 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If you open by saying that 2+2=3, also saying that you put shoes on in the morning does not really diminish the impact and make it all right. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Spare us the straw man argument please. How about you attack the facts. As it stands right now you're at square one, the problem is the Ica stones are neither fake nor verified. Instead of trying to denigrate someone (which is really just humiliating the three of you at this point), attack the stones themselves. I have already attacked both religious and the secular stance. Joe at least refuted my claim with a source, he just failed to read his own source, or misrepresented it (which is worse), either way it negated his entire premise, that he claims they were a hoax. Doug has proven himself to simply look at one side, without analyzing the information at hand (i.e. I'm not taking a religious stance but rather a factual one). Lastly, here you are Gamall, creating straw man arguments of the 2+2 kind. I didn't open by saying that, I opened by simply stating "a hoax is a hoax", does not make it so, evidence and facts must support the claim. The scare tactic of saying serious scholars agree one way or another, does not make it true. Various scholars come to thousands of conclusions, over thousands of topic areas. Gamall, and Doug are just poorly trained cyber bullies. You attempt to attack the person by disparaging someone based on their faith. News flash: I never stated my faith, or if I have one at all. Joe I hope you put forth more sources, I would hope that you can find a peer reviewed article that points to factual evidence on rather these are hoaxes or not. As it stands right now, the article is false and needs to be edited to reflect either ALL the information, or what has been verified. The idea that it is a hoax is definitely not verified, when considering the sources you have put forth, at least not at this point. Thanks again. -JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55.154.178.56 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read it, thank you. It does say Uschuya recanted his confession. It also says that after that he produced one of them, on film, for some visiting BBC journalists. All of this is already covered in our article. It also cites multiple academic sources that describe these as hoaxes. Note that on Wikipedia we strive for editorial balance by presenting all significant viewpoints within a neutral point of view, not automatically giving "both sides" equal weight. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I know you said both are fringe, so I guess yes, I was wrong in saying you'd be happier at Conservapedia and I apologise. But since you think evolution is fringe, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that accepts evolution as both a fact and the best theory to explain the changes in life since it started here, I can't see how you'd be happy here or how we can have a scientific discussion. I didn't actually call you a name, by the way, although you've clearly called me a bully. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology and I happily accept it in hopes that any future contact is better. You're right you didn't call me a name, not that being called a name would impact me anyways. What you did was try to denigrate someone (me) by implying their belief (which you believe they believe, or I in this case) clouts their view on a particular topic, then you redirect to another website in a manner that would make others think that I am one way or the other. To be clear, I called you a cyber bully, and it was an accurate statement. A personal reflection of your attitude on this topic would likely result in the same conclusion. You brought nothing to the subject, you only added inflammatory content to a sensitive topic that you weren't even trying to disprove, only to humiliate those who disagrees with your view, you actively continue this in your last comment asking how we could even hold a scientific discussion-as if I haven't taken the basic sciences to be able to approach a topic and question it with intelligence. Is this an accurate reflection of what you did? To those who claim evolution is not fringe I say this: The belief in a God was not fringe until about 50 years ago, in many circles it is not fringe still to this day. Yet you assert that it is inaccurate no? Does the amount of people who believe in a particular topic make it fringe or mainstream? Science is not built on the popular belief, it is built on models which actively predict things. You cannot actively predict the past without having a plethora of variables that give you at least a base to work from. To conclude that this is wrong because "Evolution and stuff" does not cut it. That means you are blindly following a faith and not actively seeking out the evidence to support your claim. Like many who claim to have degrees on this particular website, I also have a degree. I have a Bachelors in History and am about to enter into a Masters program. I'm not new to proving a case, nor am I new to recognizing when a case isn't proven. In the future I'd recommend you'd treat someone with the respect you'd like to also enjoy. I haven't come here to troll anyone, I have brought a case to your attention. I didn't even edit that it could be a hoax, I edited the page to reflect a more accurate view; that it could be hoax or valid and that one no one knows right now. The verdict is out so to speak. As it stands this page misrepresents the truth. -JD

One of the key points that you are missing about how Wikipedia works is that we rely on verifiable reliable sources and base our articles on the information in those articles. That is what this article represents. We're not going to update the article based on your arguments just because you say so. Some thing with everyone else here - we go with what those reliable sources say. This is a fringe topic and the reasons why have been discussed multiple times on this page (and it's archives). Yes, when you're bringing fringe views you are likely to see them dismissed as Wikipedia doesn't exist to support those views. Our NPOV policy means that we cover subjects neutrally based on how they are covered by those reliable sources. Before we'd add something to the article, you need to bring those reliable sources to this discussion. Please read the page on identifying reliable sources first though - self-published sources which include blogs, personal / fringe group websites or self-published/vanity books don't cut it. The question here really is how to secondary sources describe these stones, and the answer is "hoax". Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In several Universities Wikipedia is not able to be utilized because of the fact that no one is putting their name on the line, and there is so much misinformation. I wholeheartedly agree with all of your efforts to try and correct that. Unfortunately you are failing miserably right now. You are not approaching the topic with an open view but rather stating off the bat that it is a hoax without the proper evidence to back up your claim. You assert that I am bringing a fringe view to the topic but yet you still don't grasp the facts are the facts, and they cannot be fringe. Any good researcher knows that you should supply all the facts and let the reader take of it what they will. Here you are not doing that, you are supporting a particular narrative. One that will eventually backfire. Continue to misconstrue the evidence and you will cycle through this every so often, with a furtherance of evidence possibly supporting the opposing side. Thus making Wikipedia no better than the very sites you make fun of (Conservapedia and so on). -JD

**Explanations?**

Hello, My name is Horatia. I've been trying to soften some of the bias on this page and have tried citing sources but my edits have been repeatedly removed with very little explanation. I am wondering where to search for reliable sources. I believe that there are some facts missing from this article which I have attempted to insert (with no luck so far:( in as un-biased a manner as possible. Mainly, in the first paragraph the article mentions a farmer selling the stones and then saying they were frauds. There is no mention of the fact that he was given the choice between saying what he did or life in prison. I don't think I'd have a very hard time choosing in his place! I don't want to be confrontational AT ALL! I'm just trying to add to some un-represented angles of this article. Thank you :) Horatia HoratiaNelson (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are pieces written by people with a reasonable claim to expertise on the topic in question (e.g. scientists, journalists), and published by organisations with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial integrity (e.g. university presses, well-known newspapers). So far your additions have only been cited to this article, written by someone with no apparent expertise in archaeology or palaeontology, and self-published on the website of a creationist organisation that gives no indication that it carries out editorial review. It is therefore very far from a reliable source on this topic.

The claim that he only said they were hoaxes to avoid prison actually is mentioned in the article, in the #Popularization by Cabrera section. – Joe (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Question?

If Wikipedia is a quote on quote "un-biased" source of information then why is the Christian view point not available to read as well as the Evolutionary? And why, on this page don't you call Christianity by it's name? Instead of calling it "religious" or "his personal views of Evangelical Christianity? I may very well be wrong but what I have seen of this page is rather bias. I'd love to have any clarification and don't want to step on people's toes:) Thank you, HoratiaHoratiaNelson (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't automatically present every point of view on a topic, and it doesn't automatically present them equally. We try to represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. What you are describing as the Christian view (i.e. a creationist view that believes the Ica Stones to be genuine antiquities) is the opinion of a small minority of people and has no credibility amongst experts on archaeology or palaeontology, who universally accept evolution and the antiquity of the earth. In other words it is what we call a fringe viewpoint and, regardless of the what editors personally believe to be true, Wikipedia's policies require us not to present fringe views with equal weight alongside mainstream views, or give the false impression that they are legitimate alternative theories. We can only reflect what established scholarship has to say about a topic. – Joe (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ica stones. 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/20080827173630/http://forteantimes.com/features/articles/259/jurassic_library_the_ica_stones.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/259/jurassic_library_the_ica_stones.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20111202175320/http://members.cox.net/icastones/02a-book-chapter-1.htm to http://members.cox.net/icastones/02a-book-chapter-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)