This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baghdad Battery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq Low‑importance This 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.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Low‑importance This 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.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This 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.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article contains several poor quality sources such as YouTube videos, blogs, fringe sources, etc. Some of these include: The Baghdad Battery? Archaeologist Reacts! on YouTube; Awful Archaeology Ep. 6: The Baghdad Battery; "The Baghdad Battery" on the Hidden History blog; "5 red flags why it was not a battery on the Archyfantasies Wordpress blog; and others.

These should be removed and replaced with peer-reviewed academic journal articles for any and all claims made in the article. Netherzone (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked that better sources than a YouTube video be found. Dr Brad Hafford of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Museum who made that first video has been part of an archaeological dig at Kalhu/Nimrud in Iraq during the last season and other sites in Iraq and elsewhere in previous years. His debunking in that video is well-informed, analytical, recent and educational.

The section title "Theories concerning operation" gives too much weight to the idea that the spell jar was "operated" as a battery. Perhaps replace that with: "Electric battery theory". The section title "Controversies over use" could perhaps be renamed to something like "Problems with the electrical interpretation".

The Fringe theory has unfortunately been associated with this jar since its discovery and deserves to be described (by Fringe theorists) in order to be debunked. Perhaps the Mythbusters section could be trimmed down to its essentials by someone who has watched it. The summary linked says that they only achieved 0.5 volts from one jar.

I am working on finding good sources for some of the parts that are not properly cited and perhaps clean them up.

Thanks for the input. (I don't think I have ever talked on Wikipedia before.) Ceropegius (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was concerning about the article, and the reason for my edits were the use of poor-quality, self-published sources such as YouTube, blogs like Hidden History Blog, Awful Archaeology Blog, Archaeology Fantasies website, Monster Talk Podcast, and the like.

These are fine for social media postings, but not acceptable for WP. High quality sources such as books by reliable publishers, peer-reviewed academic journals, or science periodicals are more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

The use of YouTube as references on the encyclopedia is problematic for a couple reasons. Firstly there are copyright issues to consider, but more importantly, Wikipedia's Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources guidance considers YouTube to be "Generally unreliable", meaning Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. and that it normally should not be used. The guidance on YouTube WP:RSPYT states that YT videos are self-published (not-peer reviewed) and are the opinions of the person making the video. As a self-published and unverifiable source, it should not be used as a reference. The content itself is of little concern to me, the problem is with the unacceptable sources. Hope that helps, and good luck in your search for strong reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I saw that "Astounding Science Fiction" and "Galaxy Science Fiction" were being used as sources. These are not reliable scientific sources for an encyclopedia, nor are they peer-reviewed academic journals. That paragraph has been removed. Netherzone (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in "Astounding Science-Fiction" and "Galaxy Science Fiction" are sources for the only references to Willard Gray doing his experiment, often referred to elsewhere without any citations. The author had been contacted by Gray about the reconstruction. If we don't have the silly use of copper (II) sulphate highlighted here and that it only worked for a short time, people will think it was a reasonable experiment when they find vague references elsewhere. Surely the attribution in text to "Astounding Science-Fiction" clarifies the nature of the source?

The BBC News article only has hearsay about the Eggebrecht experiment, are you going to remove that, too? Because the only record of that experiment anywhere is hearsay. The fact that the details were totally wrong here before I corrected them shows that the few facts known about it should be preserved somewhere. (silver not gold, surface not statue, etc.)

Why leave the Jansen experiment which is basically - "I can make a battery with acetic acid and benzoquinone, perhaps the Sassanians collected Bombardier beetles or Juliformia millipedes."

I was about to go through all the references by Brad Hafford to add supplementary references for the factual parts. The opinions of Brad Hafford as an archaeologist on the alternative hypothesis are surely reasonably represented by his YouTube video on that subject? Also supporting the statement of opinion "This interpretation is rejected by archeologists and scientists." Flag the citation as self-published perhaps but otherwise I can see no reasonable presentations of that hypothesis that are peer-reviewed because nobody wants to bother addressing the crazy in proper journals.

You left in the blog from Bad Archaeology for the hypothesis of "storage vessels for sacred scrolls". How is a videoblog by a prominent archaeologist (who has worked in Iraq and has looked into the subject closely) any different? Ceropegius (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying we can't use the person who is probably the foremost academic expert on pseudoarcheology because his interview is on YouTube is wrong and have brought it up at RSN> Doug Weller talk 15:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller, et al. I've restored the article to the version before my attempts at cleaning up unreliable sources, blogs and such. I'll leave it to the archaeologists to figure this out. Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll mention it at the Wikiproject. And look at it myself, I'm probably the resident expert on pseudoarcheology. But tomorrow, not today, it's dinner time here. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said tomorrow! Please give me a little time to polish and add supplementary references before deleting any more.

Please also note what I said below:

As with many of the citations on this page, I would argue that the poor quality references need to be included because they are used by the fringe theorists. The true details, links and origins of those misunderstandings need to be preserved here to allow correct interpretation of their reliability and actual content. Ceropegius (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished. Dinner sounds like a good idea.

Have fun! Ceropegius (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Doug, enjoy your dinner, and take your time. And you have a good dinner too @Ceropegius, I am about to start cooking mine as well. I'll leave this discussion in the hands of the experts and anthropologists, and forgive me if my edits caused drama. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs by experts can be used, but need attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with experts can be used regardless of if it's video, blog, etc, but it should be clear that it's from an interview and not a study by the expert.★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the relevant episode of Mythbusters in order to add more detail to that section and clarify and streamline the writing. I was half-way through when the paragraph disappeared and then it came back.

The "prank" or dangerous workplace bullying by electrocuting someone against their will with a commercial 10,000 volt cattle fence rather than the expected 4 volt "ancient" battery had nothing to do with this article's subject and should be left to their HR department and gossip mongers.

As with many of the citations on this page, I would argue that the poor quality references need to be included because they are used by the fringe theorists. The true details and origins need to be preserved here to allow correct interpretation of their reliability and actual content. Ceropegius (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please get agreement here about poor quality sources. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

The pieces in "Astounding Science-Fiction" and "Galaxy Science Fiction" (Refs 17 & 18) are both also referenced by the third reference I give in that paragraph, the Skeptical Inquirer (Ref 1) which is at least not self-published and not mainly fiction. Both SF magazines are referenced and the content glancingly referred to by Keyser in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, which is a peer-reviewed journal (Ref 5). I thought their relevance as original sources often referred to by later reviews merited their inclusion.

The Jansen thing is referenced by several reviews including peer-reviewed publications. Despite that it should be cut, I think. The whole bombardier beetles and millipedes aspect is silly until a cache of crushed millipedes is found in an archaeological context.

Thanks Ceropegius (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can find the original German paper for this information, it would be helpful to find out what Jansen actually said. The reasoning for including a substance without any archaeological backing would be nice.

Jansen, W., H. Fickenfrceichs, R. Peper, and B. Flintjer. 1993. Die Batterie der Parther und das Vergolden der Bagdader Goldschmiede. Part 3. Part 3. Chemie in Labor und Biotechnik 44(3): 128-133. Ceropegius (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library doesn't have it, so ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on a getting a copy of Jansen et al. (1993). I will comment on what I find. Paul H. (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceropegius and Doug Weller, It took some effort, but I found a copy of the original German paper Paul H. (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Ceropegius (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody objecting to changing the section titles as I suggested above?

The section title "Theories concerning operation" gives too much weight to the idea that the spell jar was "operated" as a battery. Perhaps replace that with: "Electric battery theory". The section title "Controversies over use" could perhaps be renamed to something like "Problems with the electrical interpretation".

Stop me if I am being over-eager. Ceropegius (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Physical description and dating section.

"The copper cylinder is not watertight, so if the jar were filled with a liquid, this would surround the iron rod as well. The artifact had been exposed to the weather and had suffered corrosion."

There was no ref for this.

Most archaeological finds are not in very good condition after 1800 years. Saying the copper cylinder is not watertight does not mean the copper cylinder was not watertight when first made. Especially as it was sealed with bitumen. I have not seen any mention of evidence of weathering, implying damage above ground. Corrosion is usual and expected in copper and iron objects even in arid archaeological sites.

"Albert Al-Haik noted original reports from the 1936 dig led by Sherif Yousif and Jawad al-Saffar at Khuyut Rabbou'a, giving the location as an area northeast of Baghdad, "some two miles off the Baghdad eastern bund."[6] W. B. Hafford gives context to the discovery of the artifacts in his reaction video to Milo Rossi's video on the subject.[4][7]"

None of this is relevant to "Physical description and dating" and everything apart from the names of the dig directors is properly referenced in the introduction to the article. I can't find Al Haik's article online. Hafford shows part of the first page during his video, at 3 minutes 10 seconds. Would it be OK to use that photo of the page as proof that Al Haik names the dig directors and put that in the introduction? And that it is north-east of Baghdad, whereas Ctesiphon is south-east?

It was discovered during a dig directed by Sherif Yousif and Jawad al-Saffar of the Iraq Antiquities Department in present-day Khujut Rabu, Iraq in 1936.[Al-Haik, Albert][Paszthory, Emmerich] Northeast of Baghdad, itself just northwest of the ancient city of Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthian (150 BC – 223 AD) and Sasanian (224–650 AD) empires, the jar is believed to date from one of these periods.[3]

Alternative hypothesis section

"The artifacts are similar to other objects believed to be storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris.[24]"

There has been discussion of the use of the Bad Archaeology blog as a source before. However, I think this can now be removed simply because this statement is superfluous. They give no refs for their assertions. They are clearly referring to the same Seleucid jars as described in the previous paragraph, which is fully referenced.

Their original statement is that "Similar objects from Seleucia were used for storing sacred papyri". That sounds like the jars were in a library rather than people burying magic talismans with paper spells in them. Changing the wording to "storage vessels for sacred scrolls" as it is in the Wikipedia article makes it sound like a terribly posh temple library.

Removing this paragraph leaves just one Bad Archaeology entry, giving his opinion as an archaeologist rejecting the electric battery interpretation. Ceropegius (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone was trying to follow up a reference in one of the papers actually written by Willard FM Gray, it is elusive.

Gray, W. F. M. 1963. A shocking discovery. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 110(9): 210C-211C.

It is not in the online archives of the Journal of the Electrochemical Society. I have just been informed by the Electrochemical Society that some "articles identifiable as 'special' by their odd page numbering have been excluded." from their digitisation. My local University library does have it but they are not open again until September 14th. Ceropegius (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know where you can get a copy of it. Drop me a line if you still want it. Paul H. (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]