Talk:Hidden character stone

References and general reliability

Is reference [1] (s8int) a reliable source? To me, that website seems like a questionable source. The page also captions the text differently than the article does. Has the writing itself been dated as out-of-place/time, or has only the surrounding rock itself just been dated? I cannot speak toward the authenticity of other references as I do not read Chinese.

Also, are there any conflicting viewpoints or theories by reputable sources? Have there been any foreign investigation allowed of the artifact?

For some reason, the article seems to present the artifact in an optimistic light (perhaps that is all the information available), but it is strange that there is not more extensive interest apparent in the object if it claimed to seem so authentic. 4.244.147.22 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really difficult with all of the references being in chinese. We seem to have the testimony of one geologist saying that the words date from before the stone broke in half...when all logic says that it had to have been graffiti added after it broke. That's an extraordinary claim and demands extraordinary evidence. We need to see how he tested the rock - what information lead to this exceedingly surprising claim. Did anyone else try to duplicate his results? Can we trust a geologist? He's an expert on how to identify rocks and to understand how they formed and such - but dating a historical artifact is the job of archeologists - not geologists. Without that testimony, this is a ridiculous claim that Wikipedia should not bolster - especially on the basis of references that hardly any of our editors can check. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in Pingtang County with other sources. It might better be called "Hidden Words Stone", that gives better search results. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a Hoax template, if only so that future readers of this page understand that this article is not as it should (that is, don't take everything at face value). To me the huge problem is that it sounds like this stone is a message from the gods to show the world the Chinese Communist Party is the way to go (then again, there's also the "6 characters version" subcategory... which only makes the matter more complex than it is). If we only trust the article, it says the stone is 120 million years old (which is likely) but that no humans have touched it. That is, the six intricate characters appeared out of nowhere. This is near impossible, I'd have better chances at winning the lottery every time I played. Now, I'm not saying it's not right to vouch for the CCP, but we do need more info and we need to remove all bias. Before we remove the hoax template, I'd like it if we had this: - a more accurate article (correct the broken English, and make sure the message is clear. Possibly use more categories?) - more independent sources of renown. Also, please integrate them as is in the article (as the first commenter wrote, there's a - also, keep in mind this article is listed under "Debunked: Modern day creations" in the "Out of place artifacts" page. The way I see it, even if it's a hoax, we should keep it. That's what Wikipedia is for. It just needs cleaning up. (User:Anon), 24 September 2012

Can't be a hoax, sorry if you can't read Chinese, but there might be some evidence, and it might be qualified for an Unusual article TheChampionMan1234 04:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A google search doesn't prove anything. See WP:RS in any case. I don't see any sources there that claim it's authentic. A 270 million year old stone with writing on it is clearly a hoax. And it wouldn't qualify for the list of Unusual articles, which says "We should take special care to meet the highest standards of an encyclopedia with these articles lest they make Wikipedia appear idiosyncratic". Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What about this, [1] I don't think its a hoax in any case, as I found a source that mught prove evidence. The unusual article are quite hard to believe, but you wouldn't call them "hoaxes" anyway? --TheChampionMan1234 05:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Other articles aren't really relevant. What makes your source meet WP:RS and how does it show this isn't a hoax? Again, there can be no 270 million year old writing. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Many of the articles references are in reliable chinese news websites, Sohu and Sina.com, they all have articles, I don't see anyting wrong with that. --TheChampionMan1234 04:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sohu and Sina are news portals, not archaeological/geological research source. The notability of this entire article is based on the assumption that this is an archaeological/natural formation, so one time news item without the vouching of expert is no better than a hoax. Unless there is an impartial (meaning not Communist or dissent interest group controlled) expert can establish the that this is an actual archaeological/natural formation, this article should be stubbified to the simple fact that this is a popular Communist shrine, nothing more. Jim101 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this page is a badly written superstitious load of nonsense. I think that the page should remain on Wikipedia, as the carving obviously exists, but it's written in a tone that's way too credulous of something that seems to be an obvious politically motivated hoax. As such I've flagged it with several issues - factual accuracy, balance and needing an expert. I plan to eventually do some research and update the article, but for now having it flagged may bring it to the attention of people who are already knowledgeable about the subject. Markhoney (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting none of the sources meet our criteria, but the travel sites certainly don't and I've removed them. I've raised some of the others at WP:RSN, and there's one that doesn't work at all. And I repeat, there is no 270 million year old writing. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly is nobody mentioning in the article that "simplified" characters also existed in the pre-Communist era? They were not exclusively used but many, many simplified characters were no new inventions but had been used for easier writing in more or less official documents for centuries. Some "simplified" characters were already used in the oldest bamboo strips we have. Saciel(talk) 16:15, 11 August 2014 (GMT+1)

Copyvio links?

[2] is an article from the People's Daily hosted on Sohu.com. Unless we can find something that explicitly says that this is copyright free it will have to be deleted. Ditto the entertainment portal Sina.com which also hosts a People's Daily article. Is there something on the People's Daily site that says its articles can be copied? Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Unclear, although copy-paste articles among Chinese news channels seems to be common practice. Given that the copied article is from People's Daily, the most logical explanation is that the CCP media watch dog ordered those news portal to carry this article as part of media monitoring, as per background readings provided by China Digital Times. Jim101 (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Is there some reason not to have a photograph of the thing on this page? 71.235.31.212 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia only accepts images that are in the public domain or available under a free license (see Wikipedia:Image use policy), and no suitably-licensed photographs of the stone are available. BabelStone (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we claiming that the text alone is sufficient in describing this object, the visual appearance of which is the subject of so many incredible claims? Or that every image any editor has been able to find is only as good as a free version that we do not have? Are we saying that because a Wikipedia editor could go snap a photograph of this supposed object, that there is a hypothetical but not yet existent, free equivalent?

The fact that no one is volunteering a photo would seem to indicate that there is some factor preventing someone walking up and snapping a photo.

I've never been an expert on our policy here and am honestly confused. 71.235.31.212 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of a photo simply means no one with interest in it has been close enough to photograph it, not that something mysterious is preventing them. I don't really understand the rest of what you've said. BabelStone is correct. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation?

Should it appear as Hidden Character Stone in the title and throughout - as it is 'a specific object' rather than a category? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say so. It's hard to find English reliable sources on this, but you are right, it's all a proper name. The best English analysis of this I've found found is here. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hidden character stone. 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/20120118023221/http://gzczs.guiyangbus.com/gzczs/002.html to http://gzczs.guiyangbus.com/gzczs/002.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

[3], [4], [5], [6], Doug Weller talk 10:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)