Talk:Baghdad Battery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Iraq (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Iran (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

POV prevalence in this entry[edit]

Would be good to have a fresh, properly referenced version of this article, which appears to have been targeted by skeptic trolls. Robma (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Besides me the main recent editor of this article is User:Spinningspark, are you referring to us as trolls? Doug Weller talk 18:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You've been called worse, Doug! Drmies (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That Vanderbilt experiment[edit]

Nick-Stannum, I agree with that removal, if only because the only ground for inclusion is the "inspiration"--which turns out to be limited to "simple design". In other words, there is nothing inherently Baghdadi about the Vandy battery. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Drmies please read the original paper before concluding. The baghdad battery had iron and copper electrodes. Just like stanford scientists reinvented the Ni-Fe (Edison's battery), the reinvention of the Baghdad battery having iron oxide (steel) and copper oxide (brass) electrodes were achieved in the paper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-Stannum (talkcontribs)

You see, that's part of the problem. We don't know if these artefacts were batteries I also agree with the removal. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller Isn't it interesting enough to note that these artifacts could be reinvented to function as batteries. The content was in Media section and not in uses or speculation section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-Stannum (talkcontribs)

There is no dispute that a battery can be made from iron-copper-acid. Such an experiment does not help in the slightest to determine whether this artefact was a battery—even if it had been reproduced accurately, unlike the junkyard battery which was significantly different. SpinningSpark 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baghdad Battery. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 15:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible source[edit]

See this. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a self-published source and I would say the usability hinges on whether we consider Brian Dunning (author) to be "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per WP:SPS. He has no archeological qualifications as far as I know, ruling him out as an expert (I believe you advanced a similar criticism of König in the past – you can't change the rules depending on whether you agree with the source). His previous publications are largely self-published through Skeptoid Media. The only half-relevant item from an independent publisher listed on his page is Conspiracies Declassified. This book does not discuss anything archeological as far as I can see, let alone the Baghdad Battery. SpinningSpark 10:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
If I thought it would be a reliable source without any doubt I would have used it. I just found it today and thought I'd mention it here. But there is one point where I think this might be of use, and that's what he says about von Daniken. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You mean that this was lost in obscurity until von Däniken brought it to attention? As an author on fringe theories commenting on a fringe author, that passes muster in my book. SpinningSpark 11:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be good time to evaluate all of the sources used in the article as well as the body of published work, to ensure that we're consistently applying the reliability criteria. If we are to only use experts with archaeological qualifications, then MythBusters and Willard Gray will need to be removed. –dlthewave 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait a minute. It depends what we are using those sources for. It is obvious that many people have tried to validate the battery theory by experiment. That is a matter of fact. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to cover that so long as it is balanced with the modern expert view on the value of such experiments. SpinningSpark 08:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with that. I wouldn't say "This really was a battery" sourced to Mythbusters. But I might say something like "Mythbusters tried this and here is the result" along with everything else. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
So we can include Mythbusters' attributed statements but not Skeptoid's? –dlthewave 01:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Skeptoid so I can't say. The general consensus has been that Mythbusters is ok for the kind of use we're discussing here, although it's not unanimous. See for example Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 85#MythBusters. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Why no photographs of this?[edit]

I understand its museum was ransacked in or after 2003, but didn't anyone take a picture of it before then?

Because its purpose is particularly difficult to ascertain, I would like to see a whole GALLERY of photos on this, and as many as possible in the article. Misty MH (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Misty MH: In a word, copyright. If you can find freely licensed or public domain images we would be delighted to put them in the article. SpinningSpark 11:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)