Talk:Phantom time hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phantom time hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

1 Older calenders
2 Illig Merger
3 Critism Critism
4 No original research
5 Merge proposal

[edit] Older calenders

If the phantom time hypothesis were true, wouldn't the much older Chinese and Hindu calendars pick it up?

Not necessarily. If you need to know more about these topics I would recommend you to read "the lost millennium" by Florin Diacu. i noticed that this article was appointed for deletion some time ago. I would like to state as a personal opinion that whoever proposed that should be ashamed of participating on this encyclopedia. Free knowledge means no inquisitions, and whoever thought that history is an exact science is dead wrong. Logic should come before temper, and any opinion on this matter should be allowed, even if the Wikipedia editors do not agree. What is most disappointing is that most of the editors never read the works they are giving opinions and providing information about. These are blind opinions. (Andres Guzman).

[edit] Illig Merger

This should probabley be merged with the data from the Heribert Illig entry, under this name. I think Illig's entry should be more about his life, ect. [unsigned]

I've merged in the relevant information from Heribert Illig. There's a lot of it. Factitious 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critism Critism

I don't understand how Dendrochronology can be used as a critism as you would need to know how old a tree was at a certain point in the past. I'm not suggesting the removal of this point, only an expansion of it to make it clearer. Also, the Gregorian Error bit is confusing. I think it could be improved with a rewrite, but I'm not sure how. KalevTait 00:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I expect the argument ties in to known periods of drouts and infertility: for instance, if the historical record argues there were drouts in 697, 706, 711, 727, and 756, and we see a tree with short rings at exactly those intervals, this is support for the autheniticity of the historical record. --Saforrest 23:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what Saforrest said, if you have a series of tree ring samples, you can look for the overlap between one set of tree rings in one sample, with a later or earlier set of tree rings in other samples. If you have enough contiguous samples you can form a whole timeline of tree rings, with each ring equalling one year. If, for example, a tree lives an average of 50 years in a particular region of the world, and you can get continuous samples that overlap 10 years or so on each side, then it could only take about 67 samples to get about 2,000 years of tree ring history. In reality it may take more or less samples if you can find some really old trees or not, and ideally you'd want more overlapping samples for stronger verification, but you get the point. This would allow you to get a pretty exact date. The dendrochronology section mentions that tree ring timelines like that are available dating back more than 10,000 years in some regions of the world. / As for deleting this article, I'd rather the criticisms not be lost, so I would recommend either keeping or merging this instead of deleting it. --70.20.161.132 06:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms in this article have already been merged -- the link to Heribert's article is at the top of this article's page. Banaticus 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

In the course of the AfD that I posted on this article, I've become more famliar with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states:

“

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. [Their emphasis, not mine.]

”

This article also referenced Wikipedia:No original research, which states:

“

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say. [Their emphasis, not mine.]

”

In other words, if the refutations are to stay, most of them need the {{fact}} template to insert ^{[citation needed]} as most of the refutations currently have no attributed source. Banaticus 01:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)