Talk:Baghdad Battery

Removing unreliably sourced content.
Hiya Wikipedians! I'm a member of the Copy Editors Guild and I stalk a lot of random pages in Wiki. I am doing a copy edit run through this article and noticed that a lot of the content is unreliably sourced.

Here is some info about what makes a source reliable:
 * Reliable_sources
 * WP:SOURCE
 * Verifiability

Two things I can tell you: 1) reliable sources don't have to be "archeological experts" and 2) they also can't be full of self-published, user-generated content, which is precisely what blogs are. Such sources can be sources on themselves, but not cited as reliable for actual content that is not verified by another, more reliable source. With respect to yes, there are self-published sources by experts who have already been published in peer review journals. Several of the sources I removed, such as the student blog, are not that.

Content removed due to all sources being blogs

1. === Bitumen as an insulator === A bitumen seal, being thermoplastic, would be extremely inconvenient for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use).

Please do not add back this content until you have found reliable sources to back up the claims being made. Blogs are not reliable sources. Curdigirl (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you know that's not always the case. I'd argue that we can use Badarchaeology. I'm multitasking right now and don't have time to dig, but if Skeptic world makes the same point we can use it. Also see WP:PARITY. Doug Weller  talk 19:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2. === Battery hypothesis === The artifacts do not form a useful battery for several reasons:


 * 1) Gas is evolved at an iron/copper/electrolyte junction. Bubbles form a partial insulation of the electrode. Thus the battery's functionality decreases the more it is used.
 * 2) Although several volts can be produced by connecting batteries in series, the voltage generated by iron/copper/electrolyte cell is below 1 volt.

Also the jar was sealed with asphalt, making it enormously difficult to refill the liquid electrolyte. The presumed “battery” also has no terminals. The iron rod projected outside of the asphalt plug, but the copper tube did not, making it impossible to connect wires to make a circuit.

Wordpress is user generated content. It is not a reliable source.

@DougWeller. Thanks for chiming in. Bad Archeology is a private, user generated content website operated by two dudes. This would indicate to me that there is therefore, no editorial oversite for the website. Also, of course, I did note that blogs could be sources on themselves, so I acknowledge that what you say is true concerning "it's not always the case" that blogs are an unreliable source. In general, however, they are not reliable. Thanks for finding common ground! :) Also, yes, I checked out Skeptic and that source has much more stance as a reliable source than any of the ones that were removed. It has a shop, contact information, and further, "The Skeptics Society is a non-profit, member-supported 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to promote science and reason." This is an organization with standing, making it much more reliable than a wordpress blog, a University students' blog, or a website/blog operated by two dudes. :) Definitely let's use the Skeptics Society website if it can support any claims in this article. Thanks for your collaboration toward improving the quality of this Wikipedia article.

Curdigirl (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Curdigirl (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Curdigirl (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not true that there is an absolute bar to blogs being used as sources. They often are not reliable, but that is not always true. Per WP:SPS blogs by recognised experts who have been previously published in the relevant field can be considered RS. I have not fully checked what you have removed, but just looking at the first source in your post, Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews has published papers on archeology in peer reviewed journals.  It seems to me that there has been no WP:BEFORE checks of that before you made those deletions, or else you were not even aware of that guideline.  I think you should self-revert your deletions until you have done a more thorough investigation. SpinningSpark 22:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Spinningspark! Thanks for pointing this policy, and also the nature of one of the source's status as an expert in their field. Let me own my own words - I never mentioned a total ban; those are your words. To be fair, the policy you note has to do with nominating articles for deletion, which I am not doing. I only removed what appears to be, content sourced only to self published sources, as I explained. I do not believe there is the same requirement to check for expert status when removing self-published sources from articles as a general rule; however I will do my do diligence and check with my Copy Editor's Guild, in addition to Wiki general policy. Thanks for sharing that!

Here's what the policy that you referred me to states:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[10]

Based on what you are saying, Keith Fitzpatrick Matthews' page may indeed be acceptable. I'll check it out and I'm happy to add back content that is properly sourced. My main concern is promoting quality Wikipedia articles. I'll circle back once I've completed the related tasks. Curdigirl (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to check out all the sources before deleting them. Please WP:AGF what other editors have previously done before going on the rampage through an article.  The second source is by Aaron Sakulich, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, also previously published (as an engineer).  Also, please keep your posts short and to the point; there was no need to quote the guideline in full, I already quoted the relevant part.  And learn to WP:INDENT properly. SpinningSpark 22:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth. :) And don't assume I'm not editing in good faith. I'm not assuming that of you. I'm assuming you have other things to do, and don't attribute any of the issues with this article to you. The article was already flagged both in the article itself and on the talk page as having problematic sourcing issues. To confirm, I added back the content with Keith Matthews info and combined the references (there were a couple of individual ones, this should make it easier to keep them neat.) I'll check this one you mention about Aaron Sakulich as well. Thanks. Curdigirl (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had already reverted the page before I saw your last edit, it did not look as if you were going to do that soon. But I still think that was the right thing to do.  The more sources I look at, the more it seems that most of them are RS, at least to some degree.  Lenny Frank, for instance, appears to be the author of Deception by Design and a number of other publications.  You need to check out properly any source you want to remove, not just the ones I point out to you.  On AGF, I did not mean I thought you were acting in bad faith.  I meant that many of these issues have been discussed to death on this talk page, and you should assume that it has been largely verified, until proved otherwise.  At least discuss the possible issues before deleting large tracts of the article. SpinningSpark 23:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok...obviously I started a discussion on the talk page (you responded to it.) If I hadn't done that, we wouldn't be having this exchange. I do this very frequently while editing. Most often, no one responds. Thank you, for at least responding.


 * For the record, your revert includes the return of at least one dead link, and a blog posted by University of Michigan students. Is that, or Daily Kos (a blog site) a reliable source? Anyway, even though I made a lot of good changes (for instance removing the dead links that you put back, and all of the legitimate CE that was done) in the interest of avoiding confusion, conflict, or edit warring, I'm going to leave it alone. I made a good faith effort (I was literally working to fix it while we were talking) to respond to your concerns and you undid all my work anyway. Ciao now, happy editing. Curdigirl (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you make large scale, bold edits, you simply have to be prepared to accept a bold revert. If you mix in general copyediting with more controversial changes, well sometimes there is collateral damage in a revert.  Sorry, but you need to not take it personally.  By the way, this discussion would most definitely have started, whether or not you posted first.  It is more than possible that some of the sources are problematic, and some of the text is OR, but I think it has been adequately demonstrated that much of your deletion was unjustified and we need to consider each item separately, and not start with a major purge.  A more common approach is to first tag problem areas and leave comments on the talk page giving other editors the opportunity to respond/fix problems first. SpinningSpark 00:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the University of Michigan blog is not RS, but it is only one of three sources cited for that text. Furhtermore, it cites its sources, some of which may be RS and could be cited directly.  The blog cite could probably be removed and still leave the passage fully verified. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 01:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As for Bad Archaeology, see p.135 of the book Key Concepts in Public Archaeology published by University College London Press which says "Websites such as Bad Archaeology and The Hall of Maat provide resources and information to contradict specific alternative archaeological narratives, often with painstaking detail and at considerable length." It's recommended in this published in the peer reviewed Southeastern Archaeology Journal. And in this book Also "Archaeology International - Page 10https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iccLAQAAMAAJ 2006 "The third research theme concerns management and conservation of sites and material culture. ... In collaboration with Keith Fitzpatrick- Matthews, James Doeser has set up a website entitled Bad Archaeology which aims to explore 'fringe'". Also Kevin Green's excellent Archaeology: An introduction  which uses a quote from the website. There are more here and I'm sure even more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have modified one line and removed another in the "Alternative hypothesis" section because the language being used was not at all supported by the sources. In fact the only place on the internet that I could find such language was from a student's blog posting their "English as a second language" essays.  Since that's not a RS, and I could find no others to support the tone of the claims, I changed it to more closely match the cited source. RBarryYoung (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

More sources
This University of Pennsylvania Press book has an article in it "Electricity Generation Or Magic? The Analysis Of An Unusual Group Of Finds From Mesopotamia"

"A review of the literature isolates twelve comparable finds from Parthian and Sassanian contexts to which a similar function has been occasionally ascribed. Four small unglazed earthenware jars sealed with bitumen were uncovered in 1930 by a University of Michigan excavation at the Seleucid trading post of Opis, on the Tigris. The vessels were about 15-20 cm high and of various shapes, two with handles. Three were found lying on their sides, each with up to four metal rods stuck in the ground around them. One of the rods with each find was iron; the rest were bronze, all about 20-25 cm long. Each toppled jar contained a bronze cylinder, just under 3 cm in diameter and 7.5 cm long, sealed at both ends. Tucked into these "containers" were compressed rolls of papyrus—presumably inscribed—in various stages of decomposition. The one jar still standing contained fragments of a glass bottle. The finds were dated to the late Sassanian period (5th-early 6th century AT).) by coins. The excavator gave no interpretation of the finds, merely emphasizing that they had been deposited irregularly around a (cult?) building and that they were not associated with a burial (Watermann 1931:60-62). At about the same time German archaeologists were carrying out excavations on the east bank of the Tigris at Ctesiphon (Fig. 2, plan). In the second season of excavation (1931/32), undertaken jointly by the Islamic Art Museum of the Staatliche Museum, Berlin, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, led by Ernst Ktlhnel (KQhnel 1932, 1933; see also Upton 1933), six sealed unglazcd earthenware jars were found, each containing little rolls of metal or metal nails (Fig. 2a-f):" - these were from late Sassanian layers.

"The artifact group which prompted this article (Fig. 1) was found three years later, in 1936, on the northern outskirts of Baghdad near Khuyut Rabbou’a, in a late Parthian layer (Damerji 1979). The vessel of unglazed earthenware, originally sealed, contained a copper cylinder closed at one end with a copper plate, and sealed at both ends with bitumen. Inserted into the copper cylinder was an iron spike held in place by the bitumen stopper. The thicker end of the heavily encrusted and corroded spike projected about a centimeter from the sealing. Traces of metal, presumed to be lead, were registered on the stopper. According to KOnig (1938:8-9; 1940:164-168), the cylinder consists of “fairly pure copper with traces of zinc, lead, and iron." An investigation of the spike was not carried out.

"A group working under Prof. W. Jansen (Oldenburg) independently came to similar conclusions (Jansen et al. 1985). The finds have only an apparent outward resemblance to a cell (or dry battery). Instead, they probably served for the performance of magical practices." This is followed by a discussion of magic at the time, including eg the role of nails.

"The group of objects found at Scleucia becomes more comprehensible. The content of the texts of papyrus, unfortunately no longer accessible to us, probably concerned foundation texts or protective spells. For magical protection they were put into sealed bronze rolls (as discussed below); for practical protection they were then deposited in earthenware jars. The finds were in each case 'nailed fast' with a set of iron and bronze rods. Given the circumstances of discovery it is reasonable to assume they were deposited around a cult building."

"We conclude that the earthenware jars found in Parthian and Sassanian contexts, sealed with bitumen and containing metal cases, occasionally associated with papyrus remains and metal rods, did noc represent any apparatus with a pracii cal use in the modem sense, e.g., the generation of electricity. Rather, they were, as Kuhnel (1932) described, containers fro “conjurations, blessings and the like, written perhaps 01 papyrus,” which had been deposited to exercise a protective defensive, or occasionally harmful magic spell."

Also see this Doug Weller talk 15:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Date and circumstances of excavation
Surely more information is available about when it was discovered, at least the year? VQuakr (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * see the last link in my above post. I also need to find time to work on using the source I quoted there. Do you read German because I have a German article by the same author. I've been told elsewhere that this article doesn't make it clear enough that more modern research disagrees with the battery idea and that the article is too neutral between possibilities. Doug Weller  talk 13:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * unfortunately no, my 2nd language is French and even it's too rusty to use for editing. The Elizabeth Stone quote does a good job of summarizing the academic consensus on this artifact. Maybe the quote should appear in the lead, too? Or does NPOV overrule WP:POVNAME in this case and the article should be moved away from a title that contains the word "battery"? VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

More sources
Doug Weller talk 11:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the article title: it is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME however the fact that it's not universally considered a battery could be better emphasized. Per the sources, something like The Baghdad Battery is the name given by some contemporary sources to a set of three artifacts which were found together: a ceramic pot, a tube of copper, and a rod of iron. etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Battery diagram
I have removed this recently added diagram because it appears to be an editor's own speculation, not based on any of the reliable sources proposing its purpose as a battery. The Keyser source, for instance, has a diagram of the proposed assembly which he got directly from Konig's paper. That diagram shows the end of the copper tube accessible through the bitumen. That, of course, makes much more sense than the diagram here which shows the copper entirely sealed in bitumen. Given that that feature has been raised here as evidence that the battery theory must be false, I think it's important not to give the impression that Konig and Keyser did not understand this issue. Clearly they did understand that access to the copper was essential to make their theory work. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the image in use on fr.wikipedia.org and translated the French captions. It attributes http://leradiofil.com/les_piles.htm as the source it was based on, which looks like a scan from a book, although it's not clear which of the ten sources on that page it would have come from.
 * If the diagram would be useful with some specific edits applied to it, let me know what those edits should be and I'll see what I can do. Comparing it to König's diagram, would it be enough to remove the brown "cap" from the bottom of the copper tube, making it clearly open at that end, and make the bitumen pad much thinner? --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't help. It is believed that the base actually was sealed.  Even if it wasn't, this diagram remains an unattributed (possibly unattributable) hypothesis of how it was assembled.  The actual artefact itself is not assembled so any assembly diagram is someone's speculation.  If we are going to have diagrams at all, they should be based on how Konig and Keyser thought it was assembled and/or how archeologists who disagree with them thought it was assembled.  And they should be definitely attributed. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm suggesting, making edits to this diagram so that it can be accurately captioned as a modern representation of König's diagram and used in the article. What would I need to change about the diagram to satisfy that? --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are going to call it Konig's reconstruction you have to look at Konig's diagram yourself and get the details from there. A version is in the Flank source. There is a somewhat better quality rendering in the Keyser source with English annotation instead of German, but you will need to open a JSTOR account to read it (for free). It's probably still in copyright so you can't scan it directly. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found a copy of it online and that was the basis of my "remove the cap, change the bitumen" suggestion. I'm asking you for your opinion of what needs to be changed, before I do the work. Would removing the "cap", drawing an orange line across the bottom of the tube (the same colour as the walls) to show that it is closed, and changing the bitumen pad into a much thinner stripe seem like an adequate representation of König's diagram? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. If you are going to call it the Konig diagram, you have to represent all the features that Konig did.  You have not addressed my comment that the top of the copper cylinder protrudes through the bitumen in Konigs representation.  The iron rod is not shown as a cylinder, it is more like a crudely formed nail.  That is an important feature in the Paszthory source concluding it had a magical purpose.  The lack of electrolytic corrosion narrowing the "neck" of the rod is an important feature in Paszthory's conclusion that the object did not have an electrical purpose.  Konig shows the copper held in place, not by a big slug of bitumen across the top (although it is sealed across the top), but by a thin circle of bitumen around the pot mouth.  Although I have not seen this discussed in sources, that would clearly make it easier (though still a mission) to remove the cylinder to refill, an argument used against the battery hypothesis.  Probably countless other features that I haven't thought of would be problematic to somebody's theory.  If you want a simplified diagram, you can't do the simplification yourself, you have to take that from a reliable source.  In short, I think this is a bad idea. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought there would be scope to say "König's theory was X Y and Z, here's an obviously modern representation of what that basically looks like", but the blunt negativity on display here is hard to engage with. I'll just take this article off my watchlist and leave you to it, apologies for trying to help. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, but I’m with User:SpinningSpark. Doug Weller  talk 19:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging might be unproductive and I don't know if you have unwatched already, but this isn't blunt negativity. It's a good faith effort at following the guidance at WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. I certainly appreciate your willingness to help, and I'm sure everyone else does here, too. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)