Talk:Wolfsegg Iron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
 

That's A pulley...[edit]

Rope sits in the grove and you set it with a convex side down on some hard stone or the like, the bulk of it helps keep the thing from moving about while the rope is holding a weight, probably used in medieval mining, maybe before, if its not been dated that would seem a clear start to understanding its origins.

sovos

Merge?[edit]

It doesn't have a lot of details but should Block of metal in coal be merged with this entry? As far as I can tell they are the same thing. (Emperor 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

Agreed JD79 01:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed .... there was some discussion on the Block of metal in coal page, see that articles talk page (Byron Farrow 03:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Geometry[edit]

A Cube??? According to that picture, if that's a cube... then pigs fly! SOMEone needs to study geometry again, or at least familiarise themselves with basic shapes. Of course, if this is a bad picture, then it should be replaced. NCartmell 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The dimensions given are 67 by 67 by 45 ... if not cube then at least square in cross-section.

Byron Farrow 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and also: HOLY CRAP THEY CAN MAKE CUBES OF METAL. That makes a civilisation very much more advanced than our own. Communisthamster 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More info on the web about this (but no Reliable Sources)[edit]

See [1] for a more up-to-date account than the one we provide here. Since multiple web sites have the same wording for the story, it all must have come from somewhere, but I can't locate the original source. The two museums involved (one in Vöcklabruck, one in Linz) seem to have no web sites, so we can't check that they have this object (or a cast of it) in their collections. Nothing that I found yet qualifies as a reliable source. The object is referred to elsewhere as the Salzburg Cube. Gero Kurat is a real person, and he is on the staff of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, so a search of his publications might find something. EdJohnston 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

User:Conny has added a Prod tag to this article. Having checked for sources myself, and noticing that the contents of this article don't match up with what many web sites are asserting, I'm willing to support the deletion. By keeping this around in such a weak state we are supplying misinformation to the world. The alternatives would be (a) chop it down to what is reliably known (very little), (b) do extensive library work to find something reliable. The article seems to suggest this is some kind of out-of-time object, but many web sites think it is a cast iron weight used in mining. On balance, since this is not a terribly notable topic, deleting it seems the best course. EdJohnston 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with the deletion, the article is fairly neutral and makes clear that this is weak evidence, especially with the photo of what looks to me like a small bit of meteoric iron. If we delete things like this we only feed the conspiracy theories, much better to quote their "evidence" and balance with a skeptics view.Jonathan Cardy 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
The problem is, if we only use reliable sources, there will almost nothing left. There are stories circulating on various web sites, but no place to confirm them! A real scientist at U of Vienna studied the object, it is said, but we have no reference for his work. EdJohnston 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- this looks like an obvious meteorite. The "thumbprints"/"Scoopmarks" are the giveaway.

209.124.55.236 (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OOPART is basically myth and conspiracy. As per standard procedure, you report what the myth says, frame it clearly as being a myth, and then add any desenting options and debunking to it. Simply as that. Fact, fiction or hoax, it' all the same: you tell it like it's told then tell it like it is. - perfectblue 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Heyho EdJohnston,
you checked the sources - please give me deeplink on the page Heimathaus Vöcklabruck to something relevant to proof the content of being not fiction. Greetings, Conny 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
Hello Conny, do you read German? I'm not the one who added the Heimathaus as an external link, and I am somewhat baffled that anyone thinks it could be helpful. Here is the German from their page:

Die Sammlungen bieten einen Querschnitt durch das bäuerliche und bürgerliche Leben und Wohnen: Bauernstube mit Nebenräumen im Erdgeschoss, Renaissance-, Barock- und Biedermeierzimmer im 1. Stock; dazu die umfangreichste Sammlung von Resten der Pfahlbauten aus dem Atterseegebiet, Waffen vom Ende des Mittelalters bis in das 19. Jahrhunder, zahlreiche und besonders schöne Zunft- und Hauszeichen sowie Zunfttruhen, Gebrauchskeramik aus Vöcklabruckund Gmunden. Anton Bruckner und seinem ersten Biographen Max Auer, die beide mit Vöcklabruck eng verbunden waren, ist ein eigener Gedenkraum gewidmet.

This sounds like a 'house museum', showing the furniture and household objects of the people who lived in a previous time period. Not too likely they would have the Wolfsegg Iron, or whatever it would be called in German. EdJohnston 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Text that has no supporting references should be removed, per WP:V[edit]

None of the following text has any inline citations, so it is not clear if the items in the reference list actually verify any of this. Has anyone here actually seen the Nature article from 1886? We should not keep references around unless at least one person has seen them. Due to lack of references, I suggest that the entire following section should be removed, per WP:V:

Based on the depth that the cube was found, it was estimated to be 20 million years old, and said to be evidence that advanced civilizations existed on Earth long before is accepted by mainstream science. However, in 1966, it was scrutinized by Dr. Kurat of the Vienna Natural History Museum and Dr. R. Grill of the Geologische Bundesanstalt in Vienna. Dr. Grill concluded that the cube fell within accepted historical parameters, and that it most likely came to be buried underground after having being used as ballast during more recent efforts to mine the region.

Presently, there is a plaster cast of the object on display in the the Oberosterreichisches Landesmuseum in Linz. The location of the original artifact remains unclear.

Note that the Linz museum has no web site, and nothing can be found on the web to verify that the cast of the object is still there. It is rumored at various web sites that Dr. Kurat examined the object, and was not a meteorite, but no citation of his work can be found, and it's starting to seem like an urban legend. EdJohnston 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There were four sources cites (one since removed), please see them for individual details. As this is a short entry, there is no real need to cite every individual sentence (which would be dumb). There is also nothing redflag here. Some people dug up a block of metal and said that its depth meant that "it must be old", somebody else took a look at it and said "it was only deep because somebody buried it". End of story.
This item is properly framed as being OOPART. This immediately distinguished it from proven scientific fact and tells the reader all that they need to know about the context of information about it. As per the recent arb com, this is in line with best practice (it is the way that things should be done).
"it's starting to seem like an urban legend" Urban legends are perfectly acceptable content for Wikipedia so long as they are properly framed. As above, this entry is clearly framed as OOPART, which is the correct context for it. Besides, the hypothesis that the cube was used as ballast isn't redflag.
"It is rumored at various web sites" hence, it is part of the lore surrounding this object.
"no citation of his work can be found". Do you mean "no citations can be found on google", or that you can't find English language citations about events that occurred in Germany 100 years ago? - perfectblue 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is there is no source for the very recent (post 1960) work of Drs. Kurat and Grill. Also no source that the object resides at any museum in Austria. There are other web sites that say it resides at Salisbury in the UK. I don't feel that any of these web sites are reliable sources, so that means that if the story is pruned down to its reliable core, all we have is some assertions in some very old books. Is that what you have in mind? EdJohnston 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph still has no sources. I would like to remove it[edit]

Thanks to whoever added the two books to the reference list. If you have them, can you state whether they can serve as a reference for anything in the second paragraph? As discussed in the above section on Talk, I propose to remove the second paragraph if no sources can be found. Since I have searched myself, I know that it is very difficult. EdJohnston 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The creator of this article, Editor Bob, seems to have left Wikipedia[edit]

Hello editors. I'm trying to find out why the article states that the Wolfsegg Iron is kept at the Heimathaus Vöcklabruck, for which an external link is provided. The web site of the Heimathaus says nothing about the Wolfsegg Iron, and the Heimathaus sounds like a domestic museum showing the interiors of houses in a former historical period. It turns out that the claim that the Wolfsegg Iron resides there was added by Editor Bob, who has not made any edits to Wikipedia since 1 April, 2007, so we can't ask him for the source of his information. How about we delete the statement that the Wolfsegg Iron resides there, and remove the link to the Heimathaus museum? Please let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal?[edit]

How exactly is this a "paranormal" item? Why is it considered an out-of-place artifact? And why is the infobox so ridiculously huge? This article seems more related to archaeology than to paranormal studies. Fuzzform 17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is so little information in this article that it's impossible to tell why it's considered an "out-of-place artifact". Just looks like an irregularly shaped chunk of iron to me. — Gwalla | Talk 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This page still has some defenders, though I don't see that it has much useful content. I supported the proposed deletion back in August, but User:Perfectblue97 contested the prod, wanting this report to be properly debunked as a myth. In my view there is so little sourcing of any kind that we are in a poor position to debunk anything. So we are left with a fragmentary article that's not good for much. I would support another motion for deletion. EdJohnston 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Vöcklabruck[edit]

Hey folks, I am from Vöcklabruck, where this item is kept and I must admit, that I never heard of it. I'm very interested in what should be special about it. What is abnormal or even paranormal about this item? If you have any requests for further details, I could go to the small museum at Heimathaus and talk to the director. --El bes (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes please! It is doubtful whether this object is really located at Vöcklabruck, though there is a web rumor about it. Perhaps the museum director has heard of the rumor and can provide more information. The claim is that this is an 'out of time' object that is too advanced to have been found where it was found. Not everyone agrees, but if we can put any facts at all into the article it would be an improvement. (The object presumably exists, or did at one time, though it may not be evidence of any kind of unusual stuff). EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Its dimpled and pitted surface and apparent evidence of violent action on the object make me think it's a meteor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.79 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Original article in the journal Nature[edit]

Here is the original text of the "Note" as published in Nature in 1886:

At a recent meeting of the Niederrheinische Gesellschaft für Natur- und Heilkunde at Bonn, Dr. Gurlt described a fossil meteorite found in a block of Tertiary coal, and now in the Salzburg Museum. He said it belonged to the group of meteoric irons, and was taken from a block of coal about to be used in a manufactory in Lower Austria. It was examined by various specialists, who assigned different origins to it. Some believed it to be a meteorite; others, an artificial production; others, again, thought it was a meteorite modified by the hand of man. Dr. Gurlt, however, came to the conclusion, after a careful examination, that there is no ground for believing in the intervention of any human agency. In form, the mass is almost a cube, two opposite faces being rounded, and the four others bring made smaller by these roundings. A deep incision runs all round the cube. The faces and the incision bear such characteristic traces of meteoric iron as to exclude the notion of the mass being the work of man. The iron is covered with a thin layer of oxide; it is 67 mm. high, 67 mm. broad, and 47 mm. at the thickest part. It weighs 785 grammes, and its specific gravity is 7.75; it is as hard as steel, and it contains, as is generally the case, besides carbon, a small quantity of nickel. A quantitative analysis has not yet been made. This meteorite resembles the celebrated meteoric masses of Saint Catherine in Brazil and Braunau in Bohemia, discovered in 1847, but it is much older, and belongs to the Tertiary epoch.

--Very trivial (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)