Talk:Ica stones

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Fair enough; this makes sense to me. MXVN (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Recent debate on the intro paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OOPA again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:CONV|Convenience link]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flying machines 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's in the first source . Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aztecs? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of descriptions of stones 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Well, the editor in question is currently blocked for edit-warring.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal, not a reliable source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaursandman.com 

message: has been confirmed as socking and blocked for two weeks,-  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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrrr5]]{ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Responding to the personal attack by SamueltheGhost 

message: Just reminding people of this as we are still getting socks from 98... addresses. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrrr5/Archive]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://livingdinos.com/ Cryptozoology Research Team] Web Site is Not an Acceptable Wikipedia Source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Ica Y el Peru Pre Colombino" and Engraved Stones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alteration of Ica Stones 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evolutionist/atheist/secularist interpretations only allowed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question?

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified