Talk:Out-of-place artifact/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal

I removed these items:

If we're going to include these, we need more information, and proper links. User:Ben Standeven as 70.242.141.72 05:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

The "Mortar and Pestle" entry is confusing, too. The link to "mortar and pestle" just describes the generic tool, not the OOPart item. The link to "Table Mountain" goes to the wrong mountain (South Africa instead of one of the two California Table Mountains. Could someone please fix this to point to the right mountain and hopefully to some additional information about this 50 million year old tool? Thanks. Phiwum 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

mortar and pestle — location: Table Mountain, Tuolumne County, California, USA ( as stated by http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/tuolomne.php ) — Haim Berman (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another article about the "Mortar and Pestle" is The Mysterious Origins of Man: The Mortar and Pestle, which is part of the Talk.Origin's archive section, NBC's "The Mysterious Origins of Man"Paul H. (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Source

Forbidden Archaeology has been refuted as a work overlooking many crucial pieces of evidence in the dating and interpretation of ancient artifacts. See: [1]. If this is the primary source for this article, the whole thing ought to be questioned, reviewed, and rewritten or deleted if necessary.--Rockero 05:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. Lets have some sources. I have yet to see a OOPART which has come through unscathed from serious investigation. --Dumbo1 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that all of these items have non-paranormal explanations, and that this article should be better written, we mustn't think that just mentioning them validates them as OOPart. If enough people have the mistaken idea that these are inexplicable, then that belief deserves mention. We don't want to lend support to erroneous ideas, but we can't ignore their existence either. ... All of which means, this article should exist and most or all of the current entries should remain, but we need to greatly improve the wording and context. - DavidWBrooks 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Microscopic objects near Narada river in Russia on the ridge of Ural, dating as far back as 300,000 years ago." This needs to be clarified. (UTC)

Jackpot! The Finnish and Russian wikipedia have articles on these objects. Here's the external links from the Finnish article:

Don't know that it's worth adding to the article without a name, though. The last link is a wiki with a whole category on OOPArts. Unfortunately they apparently don't believe in citing sources. Ben Standeven (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And all unreliable sources, so no reason to think they even exist. Probably another Pravda story, they love making stuff up like that (really).Doug Weller (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating article, and I personally would not mind if it were longer. The stories of the "explained" artifacts are just as interesting, if not more interesting, than those that are unexplained. Hi There 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Map of the Creator?

I appreciate the link to the Pravda article regarding the Map of the Creator. Does anyone know any other sources of information on this thing? The photos in that article aren't particularly illuminating (I can't see any characters, for instance), so it might be nice to see another (more skeptical) article.

Thanks.

Do not trust Pravda too much... --Jollyroger 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Explained

guys, lot of the Oopart here are well explained on scientific basis or are known hoaxes. (like the iron pillar, the crystal skulls, map of creator...) The article needs some work. If you want, check the it.wiki voice to know which ones are explained and hoe, and wich are not. --Jollyroger 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know Italian. I've deleted the map of the creator, since that page has been deleted. Ben Standeven 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Black Pagoda of Konarak in India

I looked at the WP page for the Black Pagoda and did not see anything there that would make suitable for inclusion in this article. Could someone please elaborate on the reasons for its being in here? Hi There 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I removed it; perhaps somebody can flesh out the Black Pagoda article, providing reasons why it should be here. - DavidWBrooks 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"In fiction section"

I'd remove it as an invite to flood the article with countless examples from fiction. Scoo 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I removed it, put in one sentence in the intro saying they are common plot devices in science fiction. - DavidWBrooks 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

List Order

One thing I find troubling is that this list, in precisely the same order, is found on many sites, including the same links or lack of links. For example, the "Chinese Galena Radio" has no link, nor can I find any reference to it anywhere on the web. Is this list created here on Wikipedia first, or just copied verbatim from one of the many other identical lists? -- SunSw0rd 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Coso Artifact

I removed this item from the list since it clearly is no longer viewed by anyone serious as an OOPART. We know it is a circa 1920's era Champion spark plug. SunSw0rd 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the Coso Artifact to the OOPARTs list because, despite being thoroughly discredited, there are still a number of Internet web pages, which discuss the Coso Artifact as if it is viewed as a serious OOPART. For example, the below web pages still talk about the Coso Artifact as if it is a serious OOPART, even if a conventional explanation of what it is has been demonstrated

The claim that it has been thoroughly discredited isn't quite accurate as there has never been confirmation that the artifact is a 1920s Champion spark plug even if it is. Until that confirmation occurs, then the claim is only a possible theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.20.115 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that. See [2] - it's a sparkplug. You shouldn't make edits without having done your research.Doug Weller (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The above web pages show that a number of people still allege the Coso Artifact to be a valid OOPART despite what has been written about it. Until various alternative archaeologists, Young Earth and Old Earth creationists, and Fortean researchers stop using it as an example of a valid OOPART, the Coso Artifact should be listed. The Coso Artifact is still a “Famous case of alleged OOPART” despite having been completely discredited. Yours, Paul H.

Perhaps the list should be updated to reflect those artificts which are in fact still OOPArts as well as those which should no longer be considered OOPArts. Because I think the wikipedia list itself lends credibility to artifacts as being valid OOPArts when they should no longer be so considered. SunSw0rd 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, the Fuente Magna is clearly a valid OOPArt. Others (such as the unfinished obelisk of Assuan in Egypt, or the Coso artifact, clearly are not.) Might be better to have 3 lists -- those which clearly are OOPArts, and those which are alleged to be so, and those which clearly are not. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? SunSw0rd 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by those that are OOPArts? Presumably the differentiation would be those that do, or do not, have explanations accepted by ... well, mainstream science, I guess. Almost everything is an OOPArt to somebody who doesn't believe the explanation (e.g., the geode above). So I'd avoid terminology like what is or isn't something - put them in categories according to whether they have certain types of explanations. - DavidWBrooks 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that traditionally an "out of place artifact" is simply that -- an artifact that doesn't fit the conventional scientific/archaeological classification for its environment. But the point is, the Coso artifact, while initially falling into that category, clearly no longer does fall under that category, since it DOES fit the conventional scientific/archaeological classification for its environment -- it is a spark plug. QED. Just because some fringe groups and web sites deliberately ignore that simple fact to sell snake oil to the credulous doesn't mean, I suggest, that wikipedia needs to keep it on the list. Either the list means "out of place artifact" or -- it doesn't. And the fact that the concept of OOPArt is hardly addressed on the page itself lends, I think, to the confusion. SunSw0rd 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(Starting over at the left, because too many indentations get unreadable) I agree with your interpretation of OOPart paranormal foolishness, and its use by looney-tunes and scam artists ... BUT ... I think this article should reflect the fact that "OOPArt" doesn't just mean stuff that's truly scientifically baffling, but also stuff that's widely regarded as being scientifically baffling even if it's not - and even if the people doing the regarding are folks whom we scorn. We shouldn't ignore that, but we shouldn't give it more credence than it deserves. Compare UFO, which describes some goofy ideas even though they are goofy, because they were important in the perception of the field, so to speak. Somehow we need to keep mention of widely discussed OOPArt ideas in the article, even if they're proven as not being truly anomalous. That'll require some rewriting/reorganizing so we don't imply that having them here means scientists are baffled. - DavidWBrooks 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Known hoaxes and the like...

Would it be useful to add a new section of the article, dedicated to listing stuff that used to be thought of as OOPArt but that have since been shown to be hoaxes? This would include things like that supposedly ancient spark plug that tuned out to be from the 1920s.... It would be useful to those looking for info on these objects who don't yet know that they are hoaxes. We could also have a section listing disputed artifacts, where some people claim they're genuine, and some claim they're not. Comments? ---Nomad Of Norad 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be broken up. Be careful with a "hoaxes" section, though - that implies (to me, at least) deliberately fooling people, rather than wishful thinking (which I think is usually the case). How about: Shown to be modern, Disputed, and Unsettled or something like that? - DavidWBrooks 11:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly peachy with me! :^D So which one of those does everyone think is the best? Or maybe split it up into different ones? One for Hoax, one for Disputed, one for No Proof, and so on? Perhaps even Discredited? I'm sure we can come up with a better one, or ones, though. ---Nomad Of Norad 04:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Discredited, Disputed, and Status unknown ... although I predict lots of struggles between true believers and the its-all-bollocks crowds - DavidWBrooks 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Discredited, Disputed, or Status unknown" as a single category. Many of the items on the list would go into this bucket. Some few others would not. SunSw0rd 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let's try again. We want terms for categories that cover these three circumstances:

Mainstream science has examined it and has no explanation, or at least none that is universally accepted (a "real" OOPArt) - are there any? The Iron Pillar of Delhi, maybe?
Mainstream science hasn't examined it - there's no real evidence one way or the other (OOPArt by default)
Debunked. (OOPArt only to the fringe crowd)- most of them

I'm darned if I can think of good terms for the first two categories. - DavidWBrooks 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 2 valid OOPArts.

The Fuente Magna, discovered in Bolivia. Ceramic bowl with writing in Sumerian cuneiform.
The Blue Hill 11th century Norse coin found in an American Indian shell midden.

The former is dated circa 3500 BC, the later is authentic 11th century. Both are out of place artifacts. However, the coin may have made its way from early Norse settlements in North America via trade between the Norse and the American Indians; the latter may have been held by a very early European settler to Bolivia. So there are prosaic explanations for both -- but both are valid OOPArts. SunSw0rd

The Fuente Magna claims are not accepted by Sumerian experts, for a start, so can't be seen as validated. The Norse coin -- we know the Norse visited North America, so what makes it out of place?--Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Validated OOPArts

Regarding the preceding discussion, rather than attempting to create a new set of classifications about questionable OOPArts, I created a new category for validated OOPArts. As far as I know, there is only one absolutely for sure validated OOPArt -- the Blue Hill Norse coin. As such, that is the only one I moved into that category. It is admittedly not a very exciting item for those who want to believe in aliens, extreme diffusionism, and so on. But it really is an out of place artifact, and it has good archeological provenance. So for now, it stands alone.

There are 4 there now. I don't see any of them are OOPARTs. Eg the Iron Pillar -- only if you assume that Indian metallurgy couldn't have made it, then it isn't an OOPART. There has been controversy about the Glozel stones, but why are they an OOPART?--Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You all might want to consider adding Gobekli Tepe as a "real" OOP artifact. A megalithic construction soundly dated to 10,000 years BP and built before agriculture was quite out of place and unexpected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.21.44 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Divided more

I have divided the "alleged Oopart" into two sections - those that make at least halfway reasonable claims that involve real peoples, usually traveling to places they shouldn't have (Romans in ancient Mexico); and those that are crazy (50 million year old stuff, aliens). But it's a tough distinction, and I couldn't think of good headers. Improvement would be most welcome. - DavidWBrooks 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also removed Antikythera mechanism which is no longer considered out-of-place. - DavidWBrooks 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this decision. Unlike the majority of alledged OOPArts, the Antikythera mechanism is no longer considered out-of-place, not because of having proven to be an hoax/misinterpretation, but because it was validated as being out-of-place according to what was believed, at the time it was discovered, to be within the capabilities of the culture that produced it, and historians / archeologists have since re-assessed what they believed was possible for aforesaid culture in compensation. Thus the Antikythera mechanism is a very rare example of former-OOPArt which was validated as being authentic and successful in causing a re-assessment of expert thinking as to the plausibility of its authenticity. So while it may no longer be considered an OOPArt, this is only because it was proven to be one.

On a side note, there are still many people who overstate the complexity of this artifact and who use it as "evidence" that the ancient Greeks were capable of building computers (used in the most literal possible sense of the word when describing the Antikythera mechanism and then used in a stricter sense relating it to modern appliances using silicon boards and microchips) every bit as complex as modern navigational computers (as if the thing were a GPS indicator). Thus I feel it should still be listed, if for no other reason than linking people to the page so they can discover for themselves that it isn't what they might think it is. --Þorstejnn (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is listed. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Digg story

This web "story" recently showed up in Digg.com. It includes an "Ancient Model Aircraft" that I didn't see in the article. If anyone a tad more familiar with this stuff can add it to the article, I'd appreciate it. --Otheus 10:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "ancient model airplane" in the article is The Saqqara_Bird. The "The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts" article you cite is, by the way, not very good and written by someone who is either highly credulous, or feigning such credulousness in order to write a more interesting article. Hi There 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Stone Balls of Costa Rica

[3] [4]

Added Stone balls of costa rica to the "Artifacts allegedly produced by unknown cultures or societies Section". Above are the 2 cited sources. Correct me if you find they are wrong. :) Ankithreya (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. We don't know precisely what culture produced them. We know about when they were produced, which is not more than 2000 years ago. We know where they were produced and how. I can't see what makes them out of place. The fact that some people claim they are? Do we need a section for Alleged OOPARTs now explained or something like that?--Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OOPARTs for which there is no evidence they ever existed

I'm thinking of the Dropa stones here. They belong somewhere here, but whereas some of the claims are for real things (some artefacts, some natural, some forgeries), these don't seem to exist.--Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As you may see from above conversations, this has been a tough debate for this article since it began - how to distinguish among various types of OOParts, or even how to decide what "types" exist and how they can be described. The current article setup is far from perfect, although I think it's better than any before it. The "alleged OOPart" idea was tried and discarded because it was very, very hard to pin down - in a certain sense, all OOParts are alleged because if we knew all about them, they wouldn't be OOPart, would they? Or would they? Jeez, even the basic definition of "out of place" is up for grabs ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple question

The Ivan T. Sanderson article doesn't mention the authorship of the 'Out-of-place artifact' expression. Why ? DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article glosses over his entire paranormal side of his career - probably out of embarrassment. His nature admirers aren't big fans of that other side of his interests. Feel free to expand it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the dark about Sanderson. I was just wondering if I can translate his article in French only because he's named in the French article OOPArt. Thanks anyway. DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of each object?

I think it might be helpful if we added photographs to each of the objects. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would swamp this article. Maybe one or two representative ones, but not all of them. If the items have articles, photos should go there. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that most of the artifacts are listed as ex-OOPArts, I would not know what pictures to include, although some pics would be nice to have here. --Againme (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Skulls

You guys need to acept that the crystal skulls are one of the biggest hoaxes, so dont try to put them back in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejillo (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of these are hoaxes or foolish. This list doesn't say they're true, it says they are widely considered OOPArt (by deluded folks, yes, but still widely considered). That's why it belongs here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But that is to fool people why dont we do another list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejillo (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Validated cases?

Isn't the classification of any example of OOPart as "validated" contradictory? How can a valid artifact be "out-of-place"?--Darknus823 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, that is just one of many problems with this article. I'm not sure how to address the multiple issues present here. ClovisPt (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, when one find an explanation for an oopart, it's no longer an oopart. So a list of "validated ooparts" is ... a bit odd. However, it seems usefull at least to mention cases of artifacts that were once considered as out of place, since ooparts are regularly used to challenge the supposed orthodoxy of mainstream historians and prehistorians. Kromsson (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since that whole category has been removed, this discussion is academic. Unless somebody thinks of a better way to describe "things that even mainstream science can't quite explain, but don't have ridiculous paranormal goofiness attached to it" like the Iron pillar of Dehli. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in List of cryptids we have "confirmed" "cryptids" listed... the same problem goes on here...

Anachronism?

How is this article any different from anachronism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.164.24 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Like chalk and cheese, as far as I can see. Not a lot of overlap. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just removed a link from the external links section - while I appreciate that a fair amount of effort went into scanning all that, I think the link has to go since it may be a copyright violation, and is kind of low quality in terms of access to information. ClovisPt (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The long lost 'in fiction' section

Perhaps mention of actual oopas in fiction, as opposed to fictional oopas, should've been allowed to remain - such as in Rant by Chuck Palahniuk. --NEMT (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Antikythera

Does the Antikythera Mechanism deserve to make this list, as something with an unknown culture of origin? Its guessed to be Greek due to instructions, but of Sicilian design, and neither culture was aware of the astronomy to make it relevant, as far as I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.116.3 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was here but has been removed, as not being OOP-ish enough; too well explained. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be here anyway, since when originally found it was in fact very much an out-of-place artefact. It would be an example of such an artefact actually changing the view of the past technical capability in the mainstream. Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.56.97.252 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Aaron ... Antikythera belongs here as a demonstration that some OOPArts take time and a lot of study to understand. (There was a time when 'any reasonable' person could be 'certain' that the ancients had no advanced technology ... and that apes are not our ancestors.) The whole time they were 'certain', the mechanism was in constant danger of decay or being tossed in the garbage.)
The lack of study, deliberate ignorance, does not falsify a claim. An 'explanation' for the 'inexplicable' may be reasonable, but turn out to have nothing to do with reality ... happens all the time! There is a roaring cascade of features of the universe that are mysterious and will never be explained ... yet tangibly exist.Whether some editors are uncomfortable about what people make of them is irrelevant. That they exist is NPOV. That existence demands a place in the scheme of things. Twang (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree it should be here. An object can be considered an "Out of Place" artifact until an explanation appears. Most certainly, items like the aforesaid mechanism or the Nebra sky disk used to be considered Out of Place artifacts, until we discovered that the cultures associated were, indeed, more than able to create them.

212.163.172.180 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Leirus212.163.172.180 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why are you certain that "There is a roaring cascade of features of the universe that are mysterious and will never be explained", that is an obscurantist notion... Againme (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not obscurantist at all - obscurantism is what kept Ptolemy and Aristotle in business impeding knowledge for centuries. Just a recognition of built-in limitations to systematic knowledge (e.g.: Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Uncertainty Principle), and the everyday observation that the search for answers raises more questions (a century ago there were three fundamental particles, and that was that; Hubble has created enough questions to keep generations of astronomers busy). So, while individual solutions will often be found, there'll never an end. New paradigms will erase old certainties. The more we 'know', the more 'The Answer' recedes. Twang (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Without delving into the possibilty of alien visitation, what dating methodology was used to determine the mechanism itself was created 50-100BC? I've yet to find any details on how exactly precisely it was concluded that the device dates from 50-100BC other than it being found amongst a bunch of old stuff from that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.48.151 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

removed Viking artifacts

The Viking presence in North America is well attested. While the authenticity of the removed alleged Viking artifacts is highly dubious, it is not for the reason of them being out of place. · Naive cynic · 05:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this removal, I am replacing the removed text. Reasons: (1) There is no other extant accepted evidence for Viking presence as far South as Maine, thus it qualifies as an OOPART (2) the only claim that the coin might be a hoax is from a very short (one paragraph) textual section from Spring 2005 edition of American Numismatic Society magazine and it provides no evidence that it is in fact a hoax, and (3) the well researched assessment of the validity of the find by Edmund Carpenter concluded "Not proven" (whether or not it is a hoax). Interestingly it is very well researched compared to most OOPARTs. SunSw0rd (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is because this one is plausible.--Againme (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Please only restore "Out of place" artifacts if you add WP:RS that they have been so called, preferably with a quote. Verbal chat 09:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article about the "artifact" contains RS, that is sufficient I think. (Items without articles were long ago banished from the list) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we need actual reliable sources that these were out of place artifacts and not hoaxes. The crystal skulls and the ica stones, for instance are well known to be total fabrications of modern provenance. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps we need an edit and/or new category for such items, because they are classic OOParts in the sense of items that are constantly cited. For us to just ignore them is to render this article pretty lame. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If the best examples available are crystal skulls known to have been crafted by a French con-artist or Ica Stones of equally false provenance than it's a pretty lame subject to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a difficulty with many paranormal articles - presenting information about beliefs that are widely known and accepted without either implying that they are true or merely saying "this is baloney but some people believe it", (we're not CSICOP!). We shouldn't just ignore something as well known as the crystal skull, although *how* to do is not always trivial. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing deleting the article on the crystal skulls. I'm just saying that they are categorically not out of place artifacts.Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

Indeed, and note that wikipedia isn't a WP:RS Verbal chat 18:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to the lack of reliable sources discussing the concept of "out-of-place artifacts", I think this article should be merged into pseudoarcheology. Fences&Windows 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Sounds like a very good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't Support -- Not all out of place artifacts are in fact pseudoarcheology. Cases in point -- the Coso Artifact for several years until it was determined to be a spark plug (at which point it ceased to be an OOPart and should not be listed as one today). Many OOParts may in fact be hoaxes. Most commonly I think others are examples of ancient artifacts that someone later moved, and then centuries later archaeologists find the item "out of place". For example, if the Fuenta Magna bowl is not a hoax, it is probably a Sumerian or proto-Sumerian libation bowl that was hauled along by an early colonist to Bolivia as a family keepsake. I suggest that OOParts fit three categories: (1) hoaxes, (2) someone hauled an Old World item along in their travels as a private possession and when it is discovered centuries later -- why it is "out of place"; and (3) authentic items that appear out of place but later are correctly identified and placed (like the Coso Artifact). Thus OOPart is a transitory category but a valid one. It is in fact the category of "what the heck is this doing here!" until the "this" can be correctly categorized. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't Support based on the above excellent argument: I think you are right that the column needs to be re-organized along the lines you say, so that we can mention some of these fakes. "Transitory category" is a wonderful way to express it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But do you actually have any reliable sources to support this as an independent subject? Sources that establish out-of-place artifacts as a notable topic? Fences&Windows 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have added a couple of Google book references - these are books about pseudoarchaeology that use "Oopart" as a standard term. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support clearly a subset, and that article has RS. We only have RS here that things aren't Oopa. Verbal chat 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest changing this to a list format, using the Google book refs found by DavidWBrooks for the "OOpart" term.I reverted before I saw this discussion btw and apologize for the hasty jump to a decision. -- œ ^™ 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't Support SunSw0rd makes a great point. While pseudoarchaeology can certainly establish itself on certain interpretations of OOPArts, the OOPArts themselves are not necessarily pseudoarchaeology. I would also note that the current article seems rather gutted regarding possible OOPArts and as it is now, is little more than a stub. For the sake of completeness, to me it seems a good idea to include any items claimed to be OOPArts, along with explanations of their ultimate identification (hoax, misinterpretation, etc.), or ongoing investigation. To completely remove all mention of items commonly identified as OOPArts seems counterproductive. YardsGreen (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Sorry but I don't agree with including "items commonly identified as OOPArts that are not" in the article. That is just fancruft and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think there is confusion among all of us over what this article is about. Is it about Objects That Truly Cannot Be Explained By Our Current Knowledge or is it about The Concept Of OOPART As Used By Various People, Whether Used Accurately Or Not As Long AS the Use Was Widespread And Can Be Well-Sourced. The first article would be shorter and easier to write and edit, but of relatively limited scope and use; the second article would be much more interesting, but very difficult to write/edit/keep in line. I prefer the second article, but grant that it could quickly become a pseudoscientific mess. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't Support. See my comments above (Antikythera). As with that immensely important artifact, there are OOPArts which have nothing to do with archeologists (who ignored it for decades), and may turn out (in the light of new understanding) to have important things to tell us. It won't do to hide away the inexplicable ... like Tiwanaku and the thousand-ton blocks at Baalbek. The existence of the inexplicable is only a threat to the insecure. As Will Durant noted: "Immense volumes have been written to expound our knowledge, and conceal our ignorance, of primitive man....". It's time to cut that out. Wikipedia does not have to be 'sanitized' of the unexplained to save the children. Twang (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment We have to watch out for false premises. Eg the Fuente Magna bowl - it could be a hoax, it could be Sumerian, or (and I think this is the case) it could be an ancient bowl with unknown marks on it not related to cuneiform. I hate the word 'inexplicable' by the way. Tiwanaku and the blocks are certainly not inexplicable. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's off-topic here, but I'd really appreciate, if you get a chance to, a cite to a proven (preferably modern) example of an 800-ton (Baalbek-size) block being moved several miles (with known tech of those times). Constantine II & Romans are said to have managed to move 400-ton obelisk to Circus Maximus ... and there it stands ... but I've also read that strained their resources. (And never seen anyone describe how they did it.) As for Tiwanaku, that's a whole book. (To me, explicable means physically replicated, not a theory.) Twang (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of sections

I´ve added a heading titled "Examples" to expand the list of classical -now debunked- OOPArts, wich I think we definitively have to include. On a separate paragraph, I mantained the Blue Hill Norse coin better explained, and I called it a "more serious example". Furthermore, I added another paragraph for "fully validated" ex-OOPArts that changed mainstream understanding of ancient technology, and included there the Antikythera mechanism. I hope this move can address some of the concerns expressed before. Regards. --Againme (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job of distinguishing among the various types/categories of OOPArt, something that has long challenged this article. -DavidWBrooks (talk)

Some of these are not even remotely out of place artifacts-- the Nazca lines for instance. Every object or place that ever made an appearance in an ancient astronaut book doesn't belong in this article. Aside from that, there are some other items under debunked/unconfirmed that are quite legitimate archaeological finds that may be considered by some to be OOPArts for one reason or another and perhaps there should be some separation between these and the hoaxed or at best highly dubious "discoveries" like the Ica stones. It may confuse some readers to see the stone spheres of Costa Rica or the Pacal's sarcophagus lid under "Debunked or unconfirmed. Perhaps a section for artifacts or structures with postulated alternative origins?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.73.237 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nazca lines are certainly Oopart-ish because there's no agreement about how they were made, and as a result folks have argued that they are signs of space aliens, lost technologies, etc. - classic Oopart guff. This listing doesn't say the designation is *correct* but it does acknowledge that the designation has been applied more than a few times, even if incorrectly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the kerfluffle, but who "fully validates" OOPArts? Is there an OOPARt committee or board that evaluates the status of objects? Maybe an accredited text that cites "more serious examples" from ones less serious? I think the "Categories" section is presumptuous for assuming these things can be categorized without attribution. We should describe who claims what objects are "OOPARts" rather than have an arbitrary list of things that seem to fit this fringe definition. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with LuckyLouie here. I fully understand that all of the editors here are working in extremely good faith to resolve the issues that this problematic topic acquires, but I think our (I've attempted it as well in the past) attempts at categorizing examples of so-called-Ooparts are essentially original research. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Validates" isn't, perhaps, a good word, but we need something to convey how in rare occasions - the Maine Penny and AntiSP? Mechanism - items that once seemed weird and out-of-place and strictly Oopart have, over time, received a scientific explanation. The current wording doesn't, IMHO, do that - it implies that they were always accepted by scientists; it misses the whole point of them being included. I much preferred them in the separate category, since they both have references that I think convey the history pretty well. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Categorize if you must, but please attribute. "According to so-and-so, the Maine Penny is an example of an OOPArt that has been validated by the mainstream." or similar language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I gave it another shot, did some relabeling, added a couple of references. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and explain it another way. It's not within our purview as editors to try to explain how items that once seemed weird and out-of-place have over time received a scientific explanation. It's not our job to categorize OOPArts and semi-OOPARts because they seem OOPArt-ish to us. We can however report the opinions of fringe researchers with regard to such items they have specifically termed "OOPARts", including the Maine Penny and the Antikythera Mechanism if applicable, while carefully making it clear within the article text who holds these opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not categorize them in a way similar to what this website does http://www.ooparts.us/ Objects Alleged To Come From Recognized Cultures, Recovered In Unexpected Places Objects Allegedly Produced By Unknown Cultures Objects Alleged To Predate Humanity It needs to be made clear that all OOPArts, because they are NOT accepted by mainstream archaeology/science are merely alleged OOPArts. Perhaps a sentence like "Most(or all?) of these objects have an accepted scientific/historical explanation" This article describes positions held by a fringe group(s), and should therefore list the items which those people consider OOPArts. Why not title this section "List of Objects which have been considered OOPArts" and then classify them according to their alleged origin rather than their debunking status? It's important to show historical ones such as the Antikythera Mechanism, because the reason someone is likely to come across this article is because they read some book(chariots of the gods, or whatever) that has listed it as an OOPArt. Wikipedia should not be in the business of censoring false ideas(which is what would happen if we removed items that were/are still considered OOPArt), rather than reporting them and giving enough verifiable information that they seem obviously false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragefur (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The text on that website is copied from an earlier version of this article, just so you know. ClovisPt (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Complete List

Why not a complete, chronological list of all Ooparts? there's a list in Appendix 3 of Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo. There it is listed in age order, in millions of years. Along with contemporary historical events.--Nate5713 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Because those "millions of years" are part of the OOPArt mythology. Besides, the list I compiled here is more or less complete -at least for classical OOPArts-, letting aside some claimed human skeletons in alleged pre-human strata. --Againme (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to derail the article, but I still find it rather confusing. The "fringe terminology" section describes OOPArts as a term not employed or recognized by the mainstream. But the "examples" section below definitively lists OOPARTs that supposedly have partial or full validation by the scientific mainstream. (e.g. maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in the citations given for Antikythera Mechanism or Maine Penny that refer to them as "OOPARts".) -- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lucky: Indeed, mainstream science does not use the term OOPArt, but what we are refering to here is validation in mainstream science of fringe authors theory, i.e.: mainstream science confirming that some object includes technology previously believed not to have existed in some ancient culture. The Antikythera Mechanism is the perfect example. --Againme (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still having a hard time finding an example of a reliable source that states that somethingorother is "validation from mainstream science of a fringe author's theory." - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

According to our list, some items have a current status in the eyes of the mainstream scientific community of "fully validated" OOPARt, and OOPArt "with some scientific validation". It still reads as if the mainstream recognizes OOPARt as a term and has approved some things as OOPArts.

I was thinking the better way to do this (rather than a list) would be a text section that attributes fringe opinion of each artifact being an OOPArt to a particular author or authors, and any mainstream opinion that later followed. Something like:

"In 1992, Mysterious Mysteries author Frank Fringe wrote that the Antikythera Mechanism was an out of place artifact that suggested the ancient Greeks were visited by an advanced extra terrestrial civilization. In 2006 Andrew C. Academic published a University of Oregon research team's findings in Nature that identified it as a rare example of an early mechanical astrolabe."

Such specific attribution is a lot more work than giving a list and saying "various authors" called them OOPArts, but I think it'd be more encyclopedic and avoid any WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, if you can do it without removing all the classical OOPArt examples from the article, as was done before... --Againme (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed one of the section titles from Debunked or Unconfirmed to just Unconfirmed until references to the debunking sources are provided...--Novus Orator 03:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet another contentious edit from you - jumping in and making a change without discussing it first. Read the articles. Dougweller (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, and you will see that I fixed my misstep with a better solution...--Novus Orator 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I seem to have undone everything you did, since the section title as you edited it had, IMHO, a bunch of unnecessary words =- we know it's OOPart, and we know it's a list; we don't need to include those words. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work, fellows! Thanks for making this article better and better. It is now clear as a window. If only I had this when I was growing up! --Againme (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Can the tone of this article be any more biased? I see a big difference between the distinctions "debunked" and "unconfirmed." I suppose that when the results of such controversial archaeological inquiries are pre-determined, however, it doesn't make much of a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.44.86 (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias on edits

Look at the example section it says "Probably debunked"... probably? Most of these anomalies have NOT been debunked at all who has written this?. Who keeps editing that bit? That needs to be taken down, most of the examples listed HAVE NOT been debunked, infact who has written most of the material on this page? Cleary an evolutionist with a bias against anomalies. Anomalies have not been debunked!

As Mr Cremo says and as pointed out in amazing documentary the myserious origins of man there clearly is a knowledge filter going on, the bias of this page even proves that. ANOMALIES do exist!, why do evolutionists think they know everything? Most anomalies which have been found have not been "probably debunked" A big lol at "probably". Our earth is a mysterious place. Anomalies and out of place artifacts most certainly not have been "probably debunked" quite the opposite actually, they leave us stunned and searching for answers. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Obscure categories

Hi! I'm having trouble understanding what "Unorthodox interpretations of artifacts" and "Formerly orthodox interpretations of artifacts" means... --Againme (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the OOPArt interpretation would be rejected by a mainstream archaeologist, but it is a legitimate ancient artifact (so not "debunked").Ben Standeven (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ohh..! I think we should make that clear in the article... --Againme (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrote "Unorthodox interpretations of real ancient artifacts". --Againme (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; that puts it clearly. Ben Standeven (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel the article remains unclear and confusing, due to well-meaning but misleading categorizations (such as "unconfirmed", "partially validated" and fully validated"). Such categories appear to support a case in favor of the legitimacy of OOPArt claims, e.g. "if the Antikythera Mechanism was validated by science, then items in the Unconfirmed category may one day be validated by science as well". I've tried to clarify things a bit, but I'm afraid the entire premise of the categorization scheme is flawed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "unconfirmed" isn't the right term for that section; it seems to be about things that don't have enough context or provenance to allow any meaningful conclusion. I don't see how further scientific research would help with that. Ben Standeven (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been an issue since day 1 in this article - how to describe the various types of objects that have been (or still are) the target of various types of beliefs within the OOPart continuum, and indicate how mainstream science reacts to those objects and/or beliefs - while not ridiculing the beliefs and not giving them more weight than they deserve. No wonder it's confusing.

Having said that, I preferred the categories before Ben Standeven tried to make them more precise: Fictional, Debunked or unconfirmed, With some scientific validation, Fully Validated. I thought walked a decent balance between too fine a filter and too coarse. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I preferred the previous categorisation scheme, but I created it so I'm not an imparcial voter... --Againme (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer a straight uncategorized listing to that. I think "debunked or unconfirmed" is too broad to be a useful category; especially since being "debunked" and being "unconfirmed" are presumably two different things. Ben Standeven (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ben, it was ambiguous precisely to stop the fringe crowd to try to take items out from the "debunked" category. --Againme (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure; but there's nothing stopping them from putting them in the "partially validated" category, on the grounds that some claims about the artifact have been validated. Ben Standeven (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine answer. :=) --Againme (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Flood proponents

I recommend we also mention that people who believe in a global flood as per Genesis often are interested in this (as well as the other groups of people mentioned). I have not yet added this to the article because I haven't yet been able to find any non-first party sources for this (and I'm also not sure how to word it), but wanted to bring it here for comment. Kansan (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A mention like that would really benefit from a source - not just an offhand comment (as we current have for, say, paranormal believers). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Metal objects (Out-of-place artifacts)

Those interested in the topic should also see this new article. Is it a fork that should be merged into this one? Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It needs perusal by the way. Some of the stuff mentioned has articles here but no links, it all seems presented from one pov, and we have sentences such as " There is of course no explanation as to what it was or how it got inside the block of coal millions of years ago". Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Obscure categories 2

Now I wonder what "Formerly orthodox interpretations of artifacts" means... Againme (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript

Is the Voynich manuscript an OOPA?{Halbared (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)}

I don't think so, since it's a coded/cyphered/gibberish document, not some inexplicable technology. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy in the Introduction

"In some cases, the uncertainty results from inaccurate descriptions. For example: the Wolfsegg Iron was said to be a perfect cube, but in fact it is not; the Klerksdorp spheres were said to be perfect spheres, but they are not; and the Iron pillar of Delhi was said to be stainless, but it has some rust near its base."

"..was said to be a.." Who have said those things or held these claims? There is nothing cited here.

The Iron pillar of Delhi does not need to be "stainless" to be OOPArt.

Also: Why does the Iron pillar not have any sources on orthodox interpretation, only the unorthodox is mentioned.

What is the mainstream view of how the pillar was built? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Aiden (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this edit that added "the crafting of the pillar still remains unknown". It's the kind of overly-dramatized statement of the obvious more suited to a cheesy 'ancient mysterious mystery' TV show than an ecyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it has a "wacko-ish" feel to say "still remains". Still, the page does not provide the information that to how the pillar was crafted is unknown, which - as the pillar's resistance to corrosion has attracted the attention of both archaeologists and metallurgists as it has withstood corrosion for over 1,600 years in the open air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar#cite_note-3) - is the sole reason for it to be considered oopart in the first place.

On another subject, what do you feel about the phrasing in the introduction: "In some cases, the uncertainty results from inaccurate descriptions. For example: the Wolfsegg Iron was said to be a perfect cube, but in fact it is not; the Klerksdorp spheres were said to be perfect spheres, but they are not; and the Iron pillar of Delhi was said to be stainless, but it has some rust near its base."

"Was said to be" - by whom? This is a classic straw man fallacy: "A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Aiden (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I myself wrote that paragraph, and it could use some referencing, but I think it even goes without saying: the "cube" was considered an OOPArt because it was said to be a cube in almost every "mystery" book that you could find back in the XX century (the type of Kolosimo, Jiménez del Oso, Von Däniken, etc.). The same for the "spheres": the mistery was that they were perfect spheres, and you just could not find that in nature, therefore they had to had been made by intelligent beings! But they are not... So I think this is not a case of the Straw Man Fallacy because this objects would not have been considered OOPArts if not for those purported and false characteristics. Regards. --Againme (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Iron Pillar of Delhi

"the Iron pillar of Delhi was said to be stainless, but it has some rust near its base" Not that I'm claiming this is some kind of an alien object, but stainless steel can rust, it is even pointed out in Wikipedia's own stainless steel article. It just basically has a very high resistance to rust, it isn't immune to the phenomenon.85.157.155.247 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, why is it here? Do we list things here that are not out of place just because some fringe writer made mistaken/false claims about it? Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good to give some items that have been relatively widely attributed to be OOPART-ish, but which are now well understood as intersting items, rather than merely debunked as a bunch of crap. It's interesting and reflects, at a least a bit, how real understanding is arrived at.

The Delhi pillar was (still is, alas) depicted as being weirdly miraculous - the claim isn't just by "some fringe writer" - so it serves the purpose, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Terminology - NPOV issue

I can't read 'fully validated' as meaning anything other than "fully validated as an out of place artefact" - but the two articles in that category aren't validated as ooparts. We need something that makes it clear that they are real artefacts but not ooparts even if some people call them that. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of a different term? As you'll see if you look at past discussion, there has been much wrestling over how to categorize these different items. It ain't easy. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I still have problems with these categories. I think they render the status of objects in too fine a shade of gray. "Unorthodox interpretations of real ancient artifacts" and "Debunked" are exactly the same thing. For example the ‪Stone spheres of Costa Rica‬ have been claimed to be perfect, or very near perfect in roundness, but that claim has been debunked. Confusing to readers looking for clarity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I was one of the main original creators of the current categorisation, but I have to say that when someone added "Unorthodox interpretations of real ancient artifacts" it took a lot of effort from me to understand what it meant... --Againme (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Off Earth objects?

Given Richard Hoagland's speculation, perhaps Cydonia (region of Mars) could be included, along with some others? I deliberately avoided the word "extraterrestrial" here, because while it's correct, ET tends to suggest intelligent/artificial creation.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, please no. Only alleged artefacts that can actually be handled/studied first hand, etc should be included here. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm alright with the handled business, but doesn't that exclude the ?? antenna under the sea? --MacRùsgail (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a photograph of a real sponge that has been handled. If were a sonar scan for instance, I'd definitely say no. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammar issue

Hi people, we need to decide whether we are using lower or upper case after the colon in each item in the list of examples, because right now it is mixed. I looked the MoS up and it did not help me to decide... Any thoughts? --Againme (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AP style has capital after a colon if the phrase is a complete sentence, lower-case otherwise. But I have capitalized all of them, since even the not-quite-sentences are almost sentences, and it's confusing otherwise. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. I knew you were going to answer... :=) --Againme (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

These odd categories

"Formerly orthodox interpretations of artifacts" groups one hoax with one unconfirmed... should we simplify it? --Againme (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing it. There are too many long-named categories in this list. Feel free to revert if you consider it inappropriate. --Againme (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's done. I think it went well. Now the category tree is more straightforwarded. Plus the "Baghdad batteries" are the most interesting in the unconfirmed category. --Againme (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! An improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Antikythera

The "examples" section defines itself as "examples of objects that have been argued by various fringe authors...". Was the Antikythera mechanism ever the subject of argument by fringe authors? I haven't dug too deep, but our article only mentions mainstream science being involved with its discovery and study. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The answer is yes, of course. I have an encyclopaedia directed by Fernando Jiménez del Oso that covers it. Of course you do not need to discover nor study it to claim anything you want about it... lol Please see the ref. in our article: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4184 --Againme (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so fringe writers claimed it as an "out of place artifact" i.e. "evidence that mainstream science is overlooking huge areas of knowledge" some time after it was acknowledged as an ancient analog computer. My pet peeve is that our article appears (at least structurally) to "Fully validate" this claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha! No, I think it must have been before, not after... No no, the article does not validate the claim of "mainstream science is overlooking huge areas of knowledge", that is why we carefully wrote the validation criterion... it says "Here, validation means...". Have you read the whole article? --Againme (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've read it. I was just ~~thinking that~~ observing that, in its present state, this article requires a couple of paragraphs of explanation of "validation criteria" in order to understand the various examples given in it, and wondering if there wasn't a simpler, clearer way to go about it. ~~Most people probably don't read it.~~ It could probably do a better job. No, I don't have a practical solution at this time, but I will think about it. : ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you are welcomed to do it. The article does have a paragraph explaining that. Bottomline is, I think this article is currently as skeptic as we can get without violating NPOV and inciting the fringe theorists into edit wars over the text... --Againme (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not concerned with getting the article more 'skeptic', just thinking in terms of optimizing the language/structure for uncomplicated clarity. Sincere thanks for the work you've done so far, great job. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it again, and remembered the many discussions about how to categorize these various somebody-thinks-its-weird objects, perhaps the problem is the word "validated", In the context of an article title OOPart, could easily be read as meaning they are validated as really being OOParts, rather than validated as being objects explainable by everyday science. I have a dim memory that "validated" was chosen after some previously confusing term, so I'm not sure what else to suggest, however. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point I'm not really sure whether I was the one who introduced the word "validated", we'll have to do some digging in the history tab. But I do see the problem with the term... --Againme (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Unrecognized Classical Transmissions

I have just prepared on my userpage an Antikythera like subject. Late medieval portolan maps that are according Swiss/German scientists from Roman time and suggest somewhat higher tech then. It may include some 16th century "pre discovery" maps of Antarctica or maps like this one.

I have presented some other more physics related stuff and did a deeper investigation in "Leonardo's Bicycle". I used scientific/ scholarly source in German that are less known in English. Unfortunately my pages will be MfD deleted in a few days. So anyone interested in the subject still has a chance to secure what he needed. -- Portolanero (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

antikythera mechanism: NOT an out of place artifact?

i would argue that the antikythera mechanism should no longer be considered an out of place artifact. we know a great deal about this artifact by now, and we have some idea of the culture and technology that produced it. apparently, "clockwork" technology was discovered and developed in ancient times. but this type of technology (among many others) was in decline by the late roman period. and it just so happens that the antikythera mechanism was the only example of this sophisticated technology that has come down to us. the art of creating precision mechanical devises would only be rediscovered in the late middle ages/early renaissance period. but "clockwork" technology was one of many ancient technologies that were rediscovered in later years. technological advance was not always a continuous process in europe, but that doesn't mean that the antikythera mechanism was "out of place." (if this mechanism is taken of the list of out of place artifacts, then there are NO fully validated objects that fall into this category. which is alright by me. as far as i am concerned, so-called out of place artifacts are merely misunderstood or misinterpreted artifacts, if not outright hoaxes.)76.127.231.118 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just reading the article for the first time, I had the same thought and came here to voice it. So - I agree. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Because its validation is explained in the article, I agree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Antikythera is often employed by fringe sites as an example of "why all claims of out of place artifacts should be taken seriously". Having the article call it a "validated" OOPart, no matter how well intentioned, was confusing and easily misunderstood. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a skeptic of almost all OOPArts, but I have to say that the Antikythera mechanism was one according to the definition I wrote and we have had for a long time in this article. --Againme (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agred - but its status has changed, and the 'Examples' section of this article lists artifacts whic "are categorised according to their current status in the eyes of the mainstream scientific community" (my emphasis) - so I also think this change was correct. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I think that that position is a little POV. I mean, if every confirmed OOPArt is going to stop being an ex-OOPart, then we would be effectively saying that no OOPart exist, as they are either fake, wrong, or if they are confirmed, they were not OOPArts after all... I understand it is no longer an OOPArt, but then we need something like a real ex-OOPArt (confirmed) category... --Againme (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the term "OOPart" or "out of place artifact" is not recognized in mainstream archeology or science, so there can be no "official" list of ex-OOPArts, confirmed OOPArts, former OOPArts, etc. I am not familiar with any mainstream scientific or academic source that refers to the antikythera mechanism as a former OOPArt or a confirmed OOPArt. The article really should make it clear that all those designations are sourced to fringe claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think this phrasing from the intro does that? "The term "out-of-place artifact" is rarely used by mainstream historians or scientists. Its use is largely confined to cryptozoologists, proponents of ancient astronaut theories, Young Earth creationists, and paranormal enthusiasts." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the lead does define an OOPArt as a fringe term to mean "an object of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest found in a very unusual or seemingly impossible context that could challenge conventional historical chronology." But then the article presents a list of objects categorized according to their status of being "validated as evidence of technological developments that were present in an ancient society and which were previously unknown to us." Both definitions are similar, and this vagueness plus the unintentionally misleading use of the word "validated" creates unnecessary confusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) What wording would you suggest? Wording has been, as you know, a heck of an issue with this article, since it's about a concept that sort of exists and sort of doesn't. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's a tough issue! I get that "validated" means it validly changed archeological understanding. I get that "debunked" means a fringe claim was debunked. But these mix n' match categories get confusing, fast. My approach would be to keep all the categories consistent with the topic of the article (OOPArts being defined as a fringe concept). The "list" would categorize each item in relation to the fringe claim and then add any mainstream understanding of it. Take a look at this sandbox draft. (Note that I couldn't find any sources referring to the "Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head" or the "African coins in Australia: dating from 900 AD" as OOPArts, or any fringe interpretations at all, so I deleted them. IMO, if no fringe source has declared something an OOPArt, it really shouldn't be WP:OR'd into the article.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I like your rewording under "Exaggerations". --Againme (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe a copyedit is sorely needed. The present wording is too easily misperceived and repeated by fringe sites such as this one where the antikythera mechanism is called a "validated OOPArt". - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh my! Is that my fault?! Snif, snif... :=) --Againme (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I like your rewording, too. I'd say go ahead and do a mass replace, see what reactions you get. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not your fault, David. Wikipedia has apparently been "validating" OOPArts since 2008 Yikes! - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that message was mine, I forgot to sign it. --Againme (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strawman (logical fallacy) in the introduction - clean it up please

,,In some cases, the uncertainty results from inaccurate descriptions. For example: the Wolfsegg Iron was said to be a perfect cube, but in fact it is not; the Klerksdorp spheres were said to be perfect spheres, but they are not; and the Iron pillar of Delhi was said to be stainless, but it has some rust near its base."

The Iron Pillar of Delhi does not need to be 100% stainless to be an out of place artifact. I sense a strawman: ,,A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.218.137 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. What proposition did this supposed 'strawman' attempt to refute? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It refuted the proposition that the cube and spheres are "perfect" by claiming: ,,but in fact it [the cube] is not" and "but they [the spheres] are not". The rebuttal of the straw man regarding the Pillar is claiming the Pillar is in fact not "stainless". This alleges that such claims (cube and spheres being "perfect" and the Pillar being "stainless") are made by "supporters" of Ooparts

Although the alleged Ooparts are not in fact perfect or stainless does not mean the "supporters" of Ooparts held such claims. The claim that they are "perfect" is an impossible or near impossible position depending on order of approximation and the definition of "perfect" in that case.

This is a classic form of a straw man, not suitable on a wikipedia page imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.218.137 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Checking through the claims made by OOPArt supporters, I see that they contend that the Pillar of Delhi is "rust proof", the Wolfsegg Iron is too "sharp" and "straight edged" to be natural, and the Klerksdorp spheres are "perfectly formed" spheres. So I think a few word changes in the paragraph in question might be called for rather than complete removal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

,,Checking through the claims made by OOPArt supporters". Cite the sources please or at least give them here on the talk page so I can verify this claim. Regarding the Pillar, claiming it is "rust proof" is a pretty adequate description, it has withstood corrosion for at least 1000 years, with only a speck of rust here and there: ,,The pillar has attracted the attention of archaeologists and metallurgists and has been called "a testament to the skill of ancient Indian blacksmiths" because of its high resistance to corrosion.[1]" Nails are sold as "rust free" or "rust proof" only lasting ten to twenty years. In any case "rust proof" is not "stainless".

These few words changes e.g. from the words you say supporters of ooparts have said to the wording in this article, these little changes from "rust proof" to "stainless" make it an effective straw man: "the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition" .

Also: Do you think these alleged claims by supporters of ooparts that you have "checked" describe the position of the ooparts supporters in general? Any one can claim to be a supporter of science and make a dubious claim, that does not make it suitable for an attack on the position of supporters of science in general. Do you catch my drift?

But before we can talk further regarding the article and settle this we [people here in the talk page, at least me] need the sources of these supporters of ooparts actually claiming these thing, can you at least link me to them here on the talk page? Just because some people are pseudoscientific, and some number of them claimed to belong in the group of supporters of ooparts, does not give us the right to ignore good methodology and science and instead use a logical fallacy to attack them. That is sloppy and harmful.---'31.209.218.137 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the lead section doesn't require citations if the material is cited in the body of the article and references section, which in this case it is. However it sounds like you're saying that you feel that claims made for OOPArts are supported by "good methodology and science" and you won't accept references that show the opposite because you feel they are either illegitimate or an exception? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the lead section doesn't require citations IF the material is cited in the body of the article. I am simply asking you to pin point the sources, in the body of the article, that show "supporters" of ooparts making claims you are claiming they are making, in order to verify it (not just taking your word for it).

However it sounds like you're saying that you feel that claims made for OOPArts are supported by "good methodology and science"
— LuckyLouie

This is not what I said, please calmly re-read what message I was conveying if this really was your impression. I am stating that we, as supporters of science and sound methodology I presume, can not sink to the level of logical fallacies or sloppy attacks just because those being attacked are nuts or use pseudoscience to verify their claims. We should still be professional.

and you won't accept references that show the opposite because you feel they are either illegitimate or an exception?
— LuckyLouie

I don't understand what you mean. But actually I will accept all references if you would simply pin point me to a source which shows supporters of ooparts to be making these claim you are claiming. All I now know is that we have second hand sources claiming what "supporters" of ooparts are claiming, and your word for checking it. Could you simply tell me what exactly you checked? I will accept all references regardless of their content, contrary to your assumptions.

Lastly, please refrain from personal attacks based on assumptions of how "[I] feel". We are more in agreement on the subject then you believe, I believe. Even if that were not the case, no reason to make more assumptions on what I am saying then fewer, even if only for the sake of a healty good ol' occam's razor attitude :) 31.209.218.137 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the Klerksdorp spheres being supposedly perfectly round, you may find material here that addresses these claims cited to Cremo and commented on by Heinrich. Similarly, you'll find the Wolfsegg Iron article addresses the claims made by Cremo and commented on by Sagan. The Iron Pillar of Delhi has been claimed by Cremo as being "rust proof" and the claim can also be found more directly here in the works of Hatcher Childress. I hope this satisfies your curiosity, and since you've only been editing Wikipedia for one day, you may want tone down the imperious attitude a bit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Popular Culture

It seems whenever I encounter the term "OOPart", it's related to Japanese popular culture: such as the album by a Japanese band linked at the top of the page, but also the Japanese manga Spriggan and the video game Mega Man Star Force 2. Is there any particular reason that Japanese popular culture seems to have latched onto this term or concept, and is it worth noting that OOParts are particularly prevalent in fiction produced in that country? 174.44.222.242 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan as a culture is a mixture of old and new culture, so blurring of the lines between past and future is very common in Japan. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy probably prevents this from being included, as it may be seen as "trivia".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 07:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dropa Stones

It's written "Dropa stones: Invented by David Gamon (as David Agamon) as part of his false document Sungods in Exile." in the page. But In "Sungods in Exile" page it's written "In 1995, British author David Gamon admitted in Fortean Times that he had written Sungods in Exile as a hoax under the Agamon pseudonym,[1] inspired by the popularity of Erich von Däniken and his books on ancient astronauts. The source material for the story was taken from a 1960s magazine article in Russian Digest, and a 1973 French science fiction novel Les disques de Biem-Kara, (The discs of Biem-Kara), by Daniel Piret" and in "Dropa Stones" page it's written "The earliest recorded reference to the Dropa and Dropa stones is found in the July 1962 edition of the German magazine Das vegetarische Universum." then David Gamon's book is mentioned. Has the earliest recorded reference proven to be false ? It seems David Gamon only admitted to the book being a hoax, not the stones story itself and first reference to the stones was well before the book. I think we have to make sure If Gamon really invented stones as hoax, what's written seems to suggest otherwise. Fotte (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear who invented them, but WP:RS say they are fictional (i.e. there is no actual "artifact", only anecdotes and stories) and it seems Gamon popularized them [5]. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That's right. I've been meaning to work on Dropa Stones and Sungods in Exile but haven't found the time. It actually seems to have surfaced before Das vegetarische in the Russian sources mentioned. This[6] seems pretty well researched, with even a scan of the German magazine. Then there's Jason Colavito's article[7] with a link to the FBI files. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be better to refer to the Dropa Stones as "Disputed" for now. Lightnik123 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How? They don't exist. They are clearly fictional. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to delete uncited content

Ok, first off, accusing me of vandalism is a failure of WP:AGF considering there was no discussion in talk. Secondly without inline citation there is no way to differentiate notable examples from random woo. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and so what I was doing was removing information that had been added indiscriminately. I'm not opposed to those things being in the article - as long as specific references, with inline citations note them as notable. Simonm223 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I said specifically "borderline vandalism", as I consider this article (a de facto list article) a typical case where citation fundamentalism is inappropriate and WP:IAR applies, since the list is useful to the reader and the sources are found in the relative articles. Deleting content that can be easily sourced from the linked articles is lazy, hurting the project and at the very least bad form. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How, exactly does an unvetted list of hoaxes of questionable notability help this project? I've been watching this page for ages and there's never been any effort to make it better cited or more in conformation with notability standards. I was hoping some dramatic action might be the kick necessary to get those people who can see a use for it as something other than a backdoor for pseudoanthropology to do something with it. Simonm223 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, the content is sourced in the articles that are link to this page. There is no need to post superfluous material on the Out-of-place artifact page that duplicates sources and discussion that can readily be found by using the links given for each alleged "artifact." Finally, I completely disagree that the specific items listed on this page lack notability. It does not matter they are either hoaxes, misidentified, or otherwise falsely / incorrectly claimed to be something that they are not. A person need only do a Internet search to see that the majority of items listed on this page are the subject of literally thousands of web pages, discussed in hundreds of books, and even the subject of numerous mainstreams, typically debunking, papers and articles. It does not matter if the claims about the typical Out-of-place artifact has been proven false. The enormous attention given them in popular articles and discussions makes them notable regardless of their validity. Paul H. (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war over this, this matter should be formally discussed. Before, any more drastic edits are done, the opinion of other editors should be obtained concerning the drastic differences of opinion that now exist. Paul H. (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon, Paul, who is anything but a supporter of pseudoarchaeolog, is right. I really appreciate your efforts usually, but not here. The existence of the articles alone is enough to show presumed notability. I'm a supporter of Wikipedia having articles about such subjects as these are examples of pseudoarchaeology and should be exposed as such. I don't see it as a backdoor for these subjects, I see it as shinging a light on them to expose them for what they are. You are right of course that it's a good idea to have citations, and I added one to the alleged Roman head - Florian, you edit missed the point. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I don't doubt that the article itself deserves to be on Wikipedia. My concern is that there's no mechanism for sorting the notable examples from those that are not so. That's why I was pushing for inline citations. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that valid sources can be found on the linked pages for each item, adding them should not be a problem, except it will take time as I and other editors have day jobs to attend to. and can only do so much at one time. So before people start deleting items, they need to give other editors the time needed to to follow through on Dougs' advice. Paul H. (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is fair, and I know WP:TIND but I'm still tagging the page regarding inline citations as I do feel it to be a relevant concern over page quality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I added sources to some of the Oooparts. Some of these sources are less than desirable. However, they are the best ones that I can find and will have to do, if only temporarily, until better sources can be found. Paul H. (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Runestone century?

The article puts the putative century of the Kensington Runestone as 15th, but the date carved onto it is 1362, so s/be 14th, yes? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the sentencing is confusing actually. Article states that Colony's decendents were of 15th century and does not state a speficic date for Kensington RuneStone itself. We need make more clear and correctly-referencing sentences for that line. Fotte (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript

I don't know if it would fit to this page entirely but there is this manuscript called Voynich ManuScript which is written in an unknown language and kind of like a encyclopedia . It has has descriptions and diagrams about plants, biology , astronomy etc. Though there are talks of fraud, being manufactured but there is no evidence proving so. I think it might be added here. Fotte (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think it is often if ever referred to as an out-of-place artifact, so I'd say no. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I've never heard of this described as an OOPART. Even if it is ever deciphered, it appears that it has origins in the 1500's and thus I doesn't appear that any of the science depicted in the pages would be out of place or ahead of its time. Ckruschke (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The VM is a document, of (possibly) Italian origin, of the first part of the 15th century and appears to have moved between (what we now call) Italy and Bohemia and back. It is a 'peculiar object' but it is not out of place object but 'a thing without a context' (which is a different thing). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :) Fotte (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)