Talk:Wedge of Aiud

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It might as well be fiction[edit] has done a pretty thorough job explaining how the Romanian "investigation" into this thing is totally unreliable. Apparently even the metallurgy tests were bungled since they show conflicting results. "No original reports of the alloy makeup are available, no mastodon bones are exhibited or associated with the artifact, no photos or scientific records of it's actual recovery are shown to exist. All tests could have been made up or done on scrap. The "non-standard alloy" wedge itself was found at or near the site of a metal foundry. The only "proof" is the item on a shelf in photographs." Leuders (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New user added google image search link as inline text[edit]

It's appropriately snarky, but it rubs me wrong as far as wiki styling goes. Anyone want to weigh in? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My wiki-fu is a bit rusty after being away, I patrolled that. Maybe we could turn it into a footnote? SolPyre (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's actually passable when used in this context. It says "here" and links out. Though, it should not be to, but clearly go straight to Google. I'll fix. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

/r/AlternativeHistory is triggered[edit]


I first read about it in 1992 or '93 in a Romanian newspaper.

It was also tested and proved to be un-natural Aluminum in 2003 i believe and there were a series of articles about it in the local press.

As for the asshats at rational wiki they pull that shit straight out of their asses, as this was found in the Mures river riverbed, no where near any kind of coal mines.

Romanian experts estimate, based on laboratory analysis, it's age at somewhere between 400 and 80000 years old, but most definitely not part of a fucking excavator.

by "thoroughly debunked" you mean there's an article on the rationalwiki (one of the absolute most crappiest pseudo-intellectual sites out there).

While experts at both the Laussane laboratories and romanian historians have determined it cannot be any younger then 400 years.

rationalwiki, a bunch of progressive **&%&%&&$

Would not trust them to tell me what planet I live on.

I can't go dig up articles from local Romanian press from 15 years ago. I'm something like 5000 miles away from home at the moment.

But it's even in the history books in Romania. It's not considered by anyone to be anything else other then an "out-of-place" artifact.

We're not a country of monkeys or idiots. The fact that the History Museum in Cluj, staffed by the professors at the University has labeled it as such is far, far more relevant for me then an article in rational wiki which simply says "lol, looks like X, then it must be X"

The people at the History Museum have studied the bloody thing for the past 40 years. They've been to the spot it's been dug it, analyzed that, send it to Laussane to get tested on purity and after all that have decided that it is not something made by modern technology.

But "rationalwiki" knows best .... why exactly ? Because it provides a contrarian "skeptic" with an easy out of a dilemma which serious scholars have thought about for a few decades

"Oh, those idiot Romanians , what do they know about history. Ha, "professors". NO, we are the true intellectuals"

We should probably get more citations for this article. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, the name of the subreddit is Alternative History. Of course they're going to reject any mundane explanations. Leuders (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
BTW what more citations need to be added to the article in order to remove the template? Leuders (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Trigger warning[edit]

Here, I attempt a reply to the above quotes:

On the first quote[edit]

On the second quote[edit]

  • It's quite obvious that nobody with an understanding of academic dating procedure has come near the Wedge. The claim that historians have dated it is ridiculous, as historians don't actually deal with material culture, but date things in the context of written history. Archaeologists can't have dated it either, as it's not assigned to any of their eras. Add to this the fact that — had the Wedge actually been presented in peer-reviewed archaeology papers — the archaeology community would have commented on it (instead of a Google search revealing nothing but us, ufology- and clickbait sites commenting on the Wedge). Furthermore, archaeologists would likely be the first to point out that it's clearly a form-molded excavator component.
  • Claims that Laussane laboratories have analyzed the Wedge seem dubious. Partially due to the fact that they're a doping lab, not a materials lab, nor do they deal with anything but doping and related biological testing, nor do they even operate any equipment useful in analyzing the Wedge, plus the fact that they publish everything they do that is of note. Finally, no lab would ever state as the conclusion of their analysis — with a shrug and media blackout — that a clearly molded metal device was made by technology more sophisticated than our modern technology (read: than human technology).

On the third quote[edit]

  • We're wrong per definition just because we're not euphoric Alt-righters, enlightened by our own intelligence. Gotcha.

On the fourth quote[edit]

Something, something, RationalWiki. Something, something, complete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, now you can start on these guys. Maybe integrate all of your analysis into the article when you get a chance. There's a good fellow. Leuders (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
My question is what "era" is Romanian archeology in? As Bruce Trigger pointed out in his History of Archaeological Thought not everybody is on the same page with regards to the theories or even methodology. If Romania archeology is in the historical particularism era (sometimes called Boazian archeology) then we wouldn't expect to see much interpretation of the data but it was (and still is) a treasure trove of raw data. Howard Carter's The Tomb of Tutankhamun is a prime example of what to expect from Boazian archeology.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


This article has been cited by The Occult Museum.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Also linked in this Reddit thread.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)