Talk:Kingoodie hammer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kingoodie hammer (via WP:PROD on 2008-01-09) Kept
 |
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. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
Kingoodie hammer is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Questionable sources
The sources for the article are a bit dubious. They are anti-evolution websites. Communisthamster 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and have added a {{dubious}} tag to the article page. That the 'nail' is (a) a nail, and (b) 400 million years old is taken as fact within the article. — BillC talk 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the word "nail" to "object" or "iron object", where appropriate. Until there is sufficient reason to recognize the object as a carpentry fixing, then it should not be labelled as a "nail", it's as simply as that. Having said that, the existence of this object is fascinating.I have read Forbidden Archaeology and it is a thought-provoking and seemingly exhaustive work, but I have many reservations about it.
Proof Reader 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hammer?
Why is it called the Kingoodie Hammer if it's a nail? Totnesmartin 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect it is because if there is a nail, then something must have been used to put it in the rock, hence a hammer. So the name probably refers to this implied hammer. Just a guess though. Kelvingreen (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creataceous
The Creteaceous began 110 mya and ended 65 mya, yet later on it claims the rocks were 400 million years old. If this basic level of disagreement cannot be fixed, I think we just need to get rid of the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- There may be something in that. Of the two references given, one is to the work of Robert Charroux, who is described as a forerunner of Erich von Däniken, and very far from being a WP:RS. The other is well over a century and a half old, and likely to be a cribbed reference, i.e. was not actually read by the person who placed it. Perhaps a {{prod}} is in order here? — BillC talk 08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now done. I prodded the article due to internal contradictions, unreliability of sources and unsuitable external links. — BillC talk 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to fix some of that, but I'm not sure how (or if) the problem of era's can be resolved. Meanwhile, I added a commentary from http://badarchaeology.net./data/ooparts/kingoodie.php for balance. I'll try contacting them for sources. Aaronwinborn (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PROD vs. PROD historical note
Aaron ... I am re-adding the note at the top of the page about the PROD. This is a note that the article was PROD'd and subsequently kept. The reason it is there is to help forestall future re-PROD of the article. Once PROD'd, an article should not be re-PROD'd, but people usually don't take the time to sort through the history of an article to see whether or not it has previously gone through a PROD-dePROD cycle. Thus, the note. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, didn't realize that. Aaronwinborn (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
