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. -- &oelig; &trade; 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)

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 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) Second source 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 . I can't find any evidence that he's a reliable source by our criteria.  Then there are  and better yet, . 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. 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)