Talk:Chiemsee Cauldron

unbiased facts
this article does not simply state unbiased facts. I miss the old Wikipedia 67.71.78.44 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @67.71.78.44 totally agree. Recommend for deletion and complete rewrite 67.71.78.153 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is extremely vague. What exactly is wrong with it? What would "unbiased" look like? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is in terrible shape as it stands. Much of it has evidently been written by someone who's completely convinced that it is a genuine Celtic artifact, but the only references given to support this are to "publications by Garrett Olmsted at academia.edu".    There's no discussion at all of the fact that experts at the Bavarian State Archaeological Collection determined that the soldering material and the manufacturing techniques were inconsistent with an ancient Celtic origin, or that a metallurgist at the University of Oxford's School of Archaeology, Peter Northover, found that the cauldron was made of electrolytically refined gold, which became available only in the 20th century.  Olmsted's views on the subject appear to be a fringe theory, deserving little or no discussion in the article.  Here, they are presented as facts!


 * The tone of the most of the article is also quite un-encyclopedic (see, e.g., such sentiments as that the Chiemsee cauldron "is like the pearl in Steinbeck’s famous novel", or that scenarios about a Nazi origin for the cauldron as "straight out of Indiana Jones"). I suggest removing most of the current article and replacing it with something shorter, similar to the current German-language version. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I stop reading when I got to The proponents of Nazi origin have concocted more-and-more-embellished stories and Yet this theory of Nazi production involves far more incredible scenarios (many of them straight out of Indiana Jones), this falls far below the expected standard of encyclopedic language. As a start I would suggest reverting to this 20 October 2022 version. Also parenthetical referencing is deprecated on Wikipedia, see WP:PAREN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The right decision, I think. We stop at 2012, but the German article says there was a sale in 2014, My German isn't up to updating it - anyone? Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In case any one is curious, the lawsuit over the 2014 sale was apparently dismissed in 2017 over jurisdictional issues . (can't find a non-primary source for this however). Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)