Talk:Fuente Magna

Pointless Redirect

This redirect currently links to a nonexistent section of an article which makes absolutely no mention of the Feunte Magna. Should the redirect be deleted? Silverhammermba (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it got removed. -- œ^™ 20:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Limitations

There is much about this item which is not in the article. Furthermore, it is not universally declared a fake. For example, see this article at University of California Riverside. It is perfectly possible that it is a legitimate Sumerian bowl, brought to Bolivia by an early settler. Which would make it an OOPArt, but not a fake. SunSw0rd (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't universally declared a fake. Fringe articles, such as the one above, consider it genuine. Please note what the page one up from that says -- "[For educational purposes only; do not review, quote or abstract]". Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. And I neither reviewed, nor quoted, nor abstracted. I did cite. Which is different. But to your point, I added 2 other citations.

As to it being fringe versus genuine -- I am not sure that is the primary issue. After all, it is quite possible that an early settler had it in their possession -- some early colonists to the New World, if they were wealthy, hauled over articles from ancient cultures as part of their wealth. If an authentic 1st century Greek bust was found buried on George Washington's property, would it suddenly be the case that the ancient Greeks must have been there? No. And this is quite possibly a similar situation.

But in any case, this is an encyclopedia article about it. We aren't doing independent research or taking "sides" (at least, I am not), just documenting what is known about it. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument for an earlier settler is for a 2500 BCE Sumerian settler. Looking at this, it seems impossible to find anything but minor fringe sources for it. Without anything better, I'm wondering if the article should exist at all. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think it should not.Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PROD

The article, fantasy or not, is sufficiently documented in published books to warrant an article. I have added two reliable sources, more can be found by a Google Books search. Consequently I have removed the deletion tag.

The original text of the PROD was References are to random websites. One claims reference to the location this bowl is held but the link is just to a tour guide listing confirming there is a museum by that name and does not mention the bowl. Last reference is to what appears to be a table of contents for the proceedings of the Epigraphic Society but provides no information other than the title of the article.—Ash (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I see virtually no reliable sources here. Icon is a Wikipedia mirror - [1]. The ucr.edu page is anonymous, not a reliable source. The Caper Jones book is not a reliable source for this - even the book it outside his field, but the bowl is just a mention using the world mysteries site as a source, so we shouldn't use it. I'm not clear why you've used an archive of the university site as that's just a duplicate. World-mysteries is not a reliable source. And how do I verify "Pontificio Istituto biblico, Pontificio Istituto biblico. Facoltà di studi dell'antico oriente (1987). Orientalia, Volume 56. University of Virginia"? What exactly does it say? Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Icon - agreed, I was unaware of this previous discussion - removed.
• ucr.edu - okay - removed duplicate ref.
• Jones - maybe, he does say the bowl may be a recent fabrication and he references the website only in relation to photographs of the object. This could be a source to show there is doubt about the authenticity.
• Orientalia - this says the object ("Magna Fountain") is in the Murillo museum and was made in Iraq in 2042BC. The text can be found in Google Books.—Ash (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

no sign of notability. If anyone thinks this is a true pre-Columbian artefact, and notable enough for a standalone article, let's see some quotable reference to the effect. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be notable enough as a dubious artefact, McCommons includes it in his book "The Foundings" ISBN 1587214857.—Ash (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making my point for me - that's a self-published novel by a virtually unknown writer. I can't see the text for Orientalia, we need a quote in context to make sure (and why is University of Virginia mentioned). 2042 BC is ridiculously accurate and contradicts another Bolivian site here discussing the museum which says "An object that stands out is the "Fuente Magna" which has between 3,000 and 3,500 years old" (presuming we are discussing the same artefact). Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Orientalia on google books and if that doesn't work for you the page snippet (from google books) is here. I'm not surprised the dates are conflicting as it is most likely not an ancient artefact, or at least not that old and of course these publications are probably mistaken. You seem to be purely arguing the case based artefact validity rather than considering inclusion for notability. Certainly there is little reason to doubt that the bowl exists, has been written about, speculated on, is sitting in the museum and some of the photos taken of it available on the internet are genuine. —Ash (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that an unremarkable bowl with markings that coincidentally happen to resemble cuineform happens to exist somewhere in Bolivia. I doubt it meets the guidelines for notability. A single line in a single book published by an organization which is not an anthropological organization (it appears to be a printing armature of the catholic church) isn't really what I'd call notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a better snippet than I got, but in any case, it's just a snippet out of context and can't be used. It may say 'examples of 'artefacts' thought to be hoaxes, or just about anything. Which is why we don't use snippets as sources. Also, I now see that the 2042 date has to do with another 'artefact'. And I suspect that it the source may be one of the other sources. I've been watching discussions about this for years, know (on-net) some of the people involved, and never have I seen a reliable source discussing this. Even the Bolivian site about the museum that I found doesn't call it Sumerian or cuneiform. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, it appears that somebody wrote an article in an obscure journal about "cuneiform writing" in a South American artefact back in 1985. That's, like, 24 years ago. It hasn't made any ripple in scholarship since. We don't do articles on individual journal articles. If the claim to notability is "pop culture", because the thing was featured in a novel called The Foundings, let's consdider if that book passes WP:BK, and if so, discuss the artefact in that article. --dab (𒁳) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Problem

As I see it, it doesn't matter if this is a fake. It doesn't matter if the bowl actually has cuneiform markings. The simple fact is, it is referred to in multiple sources and is considered an OOPart. So on what basis will it be deleted? People will regularly come along and recreate it anyway if it is deleted. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What matters is that it's a non-notable object, regardless. The multiple sources are not reliable. As for the risk it will be recreated that is addressed by WP:SALT. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing was discovered in the 1950s, and the article claiming "cuneiform" appeared 1985. Wikipedia has been going since 2001, and for eight years, it did not occur to anyone to create this article, and believe me, that is saying a lot about the bowl's notability even in the far out fringe, ancient astronauts and/or pre-Columbian contact scene. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, it is considered an OOPart. So if the article is deleted, then in the OOPart article, it will appear unreferenced. So it will be recreated within days every time it is deleted. While by itself it is not notable, the OOParts are collectively notable. There should be a brief article for every one of the OOParts. Either that or combine all the articles as sections under OOPart -- but then we have to have redirections for each article that go to an OOPart section. My recommendation is to retain it in its brief form, with as many citations as can be identified. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

See SunSw0rd the threat of the article being recreated really doesn't faze me one way or the other. Whether this article is in fact deleted (as I feel it should be) or merged (as Dbachmann would prefer) with another article there are a multitude of tools available specifically to prevent recreation of an inappropriate article. These include WP:SPEEDY and WP:SALT both of those would be available as options if the article is repeatedly recreated after deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other "valid" references other than the paper: Marini, Alberto, "A Sumerian Inscription of the Fuente Magna, La Paz, Bolivia," Epigraphic Society and Occasional Papers, (ESOP), 1986, pp. 117-118? Described as "Inscription on a large font or libation bowl, reported by a leading authority on Sumerian (bio. of author given)." In a paper for the The Epigraphic Society? SunSw0rd (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You put valid in quotation marks because you understand that the Epigraphic Society is a non-peer reviewed publication which has a 'they all came to America' pov, right? Winters thinks he deciphered the Indus script as well, he is definitely not an expert, and Marini seems to be a complete unknown. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller's description of the Epigraphic Society seems, based on my research to be entirely accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

we can safely assume that this is a topic of fringe or pseudo-scholarship. If we cannot merge the article, it is obviously going to be deleted for lack of notability. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my fault

See [2] and my edit summary " WP:UNDUE - no discussion of this in reliable sources, no evidence Marini is an expert in Sumerian, etc)" See this version of this article before I removed a couple of sources."WP:UNDUE - no discussion of this in reliable sources, no evidence Marini is an expert in Sumerian, etc)" The first source just gives a link (no discussion)[3] Second source[4] doesn't have an article name or author, and seems to be just quoting "Sumerian Inscription of the Fuente Magna. La Pa/, Bolivia: ESOP 13. no 311 (August 1985) 9-13. I fig.. 2 tables ffig. I: Cuneiform text inscribed " which is by Alberto Marini [5]. I can't find any evidence that he's a reliable source by our criteria. Then there are [6] and better yet, [7]. Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A new source

See this. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And while I'm here, another source by a different professional archaeologist.[8] He points out that all we know about where it was found is that it was found in Bolivia, so even if it isn't a hoax, which it certainly is, we'd just wonder how a Sumerian bowl ended up in Bolivia. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)