Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that there is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material to support the article. There also is consensus that the material is original research.Jreferee t/c 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kolbrin Bible

Kolbrin Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per WP:FRINGE. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article Kolbrin was deleted through ProD previously. Fram (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Defense: this is no theory, but a classical text book which is an essential part of the christian heritage. Fringe theory of people talking about this book should not be confused with the book itself. The text indeed is widely discussed these days in publications of several fringe science interest groups. The text itself though is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entries (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression calling old debatable texts 'theory' rpba (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source that could serve as evidence that it is a) a classical text (and not a recent fraud) and b) recognised and discussed as such by something even barely reliable? Compare this article to Gospel of Judas, for which we have adequate sources and discussion... Fram (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer:The Ph.D. Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University, and lecturer and writer of more studies on King Arthur, archeology, Egyptology, Anthropology and Quantum Physics, has surfaced this book quite recently in his research. He is the most prominent authority in the field concerning this book. The documents were written during the intertestamental period, Kimball explained, and its final form was intact by the beginning of the second century A.D. This is the outcome of his research. I consider it valid. The Knights Templar eventually took possession of these documents (to protect them from the likes of King Edward I of England) and redacted The Kolbrin to reflect their point of view, Kimball noted. A typical example of an expert scientist involved with the book is James Mc Canney, who as an astrofysicist left mainstream science because of his opinions on the electomagnetic nature of celestial mechanics. The book is part of the discussion on the possible existence of a planet X also called Nibiru that would return once in a three thousand years or so. It is a paradigmatic discussion these days, and this book is relevant to this discussion because it seems to deliver historical proof for the case. rpba (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is Glenn Kimball, the Ph.D. in Communications?[1] Not really a relevant Ph.D. for this kind of studies (or for astrophysics, for that matter). It is unclear whether he really is a Ph.D. and a lecturer[2]. Have you any evidence of him ever contributing anything to some scholarly journal about these subjects (ancient manuscripts)? As far as I can see, I have no reason to consider his "research" as valid at all...

(edit conflicted) And Mc Canney is about as fringe as they come (as is Nibiru). So a communcations expert and an astrophysicist have concluded that these books are indeed over 3,000 years old... Fram (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: it is a subject of discussion, and the scientists involved are who they are. It is not to me to judge the quality of this or that scientist or translation. Of relevance is whether there is a discussion among scientists. Not the issue is whether it is an immediate success in the sense of being published in this or that prominent magazine. To me the fact of these discussions is enough proof that the book is authentic. Why else would it be mentioned at the religious texts page? It wasn't debated there. Now you have a dead link there again if you deny information about that indeed possibly theologically dubious text. It is not the duty of scientists to judge this or that scientist themself, but to agree about resources and facts. And there is no doubt cast by anyone on the authenticity and historical truth of this book. So I give it the advantage of doubt. Also gnostics discuss about the validity of translations of the Nag Hammadi. That doesn't disqualify the book itself. To my opinion it would be socially destructive repression to deny the existence of this historical book. There is enough proof for the historical reality and actual relevance of the book in my opinion. That justifies this entry. Also looking at the content of the book itself leaves me no doubt. You don't have to agree with something to tolerate something. Mein Kampf by mr A. Hitler is also discussed in the Wikipedia, even though that content is far more dangerous and dubious than the Kolbrin text! The question is, has your doubt been resolved Fram?rpba (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. They aren't recognised scientists in this field of study, so their opinion of these books is rather irrelevant. The fact that they both are known fringe scientists makes it of course even worse. There is not one good indication that these are truly old books, that they have attracted any serious interest, and that they are not the prefect examples of what WP:FRINGE describes. The contents of the books are quite irrelevant to all this. Fram (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article as it stands now is quite confusing. The article (improbably) asserts the antiquity of these manuscripts, while including it among modern pseudepigraphia. A factual article on the history, the claims made by these texts, and who promotes them, may well pass muster; the article I read doesn't seem to have this information ready. No opinion yet on whether this fringe theory has sufficient circulation to be notable, whether on the Mormon level, the Scientology level, or even on the Oahspe level. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is welcome to improve on this stub of course. I again insist that deleting this page and denying the historical reality of this book does harm to the interest of the public, more than the possible fringe theory about it. I close my argument with this reminding you of the fact that it is not logical to link this book e.g. up under Modern pseudepigrapha and not didplay it here. But do as you like. Your argument is valid in as far as you deleting this are not a scientist yourself apparently. At least you have no respect in that sense. The page is also submitted to the Game of Order Wiki. I'll attach the label, 'repressed' to it as you like, including a copy of this discussion. It's your honor after all. So you can't really kill it. I have more of these 'martyr pages'. rpba (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I would be in favour of keeping the article in existence. However, I would more specifically be in favour of an article of similar structure to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - giving an overview of the contents of the book, some historical context, views on its (in)authenticity, etc. At present the article assumes legitimacy with no context given. --Black Butterfly (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find a reliable source that will attest to this book's (ancient) existence. I actually agree with Black Butterfly above, and ultimately I think this may well end up with a page. However, I can't find any sources that WP considers reliable to use here. Per WP:FRINGE we shouldn't be the validating source to make a fringe idea mainstream. Once this topic has been addressed by a mainstream source, a page like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Face on Mars is appropriate. Xymmax (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment regarding the claim above that "Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University" see here (section titled "A New Twist (update 1/2002)") for an investigation into his identity following another suspected hoax, "Burrows Cave") and is not googleable at the Southern Illinois University website. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can see no secondary sources that meet wikipedia's criterion of reliable sources that are independent of the subject (this website does a nicer job than the wikipedia article, but is a totally unreferenced website). There's lots of website action, on UFO and planet-X websites discussing the book, and there's Glenn Kimball's book, but I don't see the reliable sources required to meet the WP:FRINGE content guideline. I too would be all for keeping if it's brought up to a standard of quality approaching that of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I observe that this is a new article nominated for deletion almost as soon as it was created, so that essentilally it has no history. My reaction to the whole thing is that it is an elaborate hoax. It is claimed to be heretical Christian (or Judaeo-Christian) literature, and claims a history for the book up to 1184, when suppressed by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307), an obvious anachronism! It was allegedly preserved by 'religious druids', but Druidism (whatever it was) was a pre-Roman religion in Britain. Any pagan religion had been extinct in Britain for hundreds of years by 1184. It was preserved 'on bronze tablets', not a usual medium for literary documents in Britain - parchment was the usual one. The parent website [3] refers to the destruction of Glastonbury Abbey as an arson attack, but the WP article mere mentions a great fire. That website refers to this as 'the time of history when there was a great suppression of monasterys'. The greater monasteries (such as Glastonbury) were dissolved in 1539 and lesser ones a few years earlier. The name 'Culdian Trust' (a sponsoring organisation) reminds me of a word applied to the survivals of the Celtic Church in Scotland (as something distinct from the official Catholic Church). If this recollection is correct, they are seeking to apply somthing they have heard about Scottish Gaelic Christianity, to an area remote from Scotland that had been under English (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) control for hundreds of years. It is claimed that the book is in 'Biblical English', but what is that? There are virtually no English texts of the 12th and 13th centuries, indeed little between the Old English of the Anglo-Saxons and Middle English of Chaucer, but the language used is neither. It is not even the English of Shakespeare and the King James Bible, since the first person singular is 'you' not 'thou'. The orthography of the text is modern, from the period after Samuel Johnson's dictionary modernised English spelling (or at least I think that was when spelling changed). Everything about this subject says HOAX. The question is then what to do about it. Straight deletion may lead to re-creation, and a repetition of this debate, no doubt following amendment of the parent website to remove the gross anachronisms pointed out above. If a book has actually been published, so that the thing is a real existing hoax publication, and not a mere invention of the creator of a website, I think the best solution will be to add a rebuttal of the claims to the article to counter the WP:POV that this is a genuine survival. In order to persuade me that this is not an elaborate hoax, I would need to see an image of the manuscript. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that it is obviously a hoax, the rebuttal you propose would be original research. That is the basic reason of WP:FRINGE: if you have things that are obviously nonsense, but which haven't received any mainstream attention (not even for debunking it), then it shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right that some of my arguments above are techically WP:OR, but do we have to await an academic rebuttal, before we can say that the article is about a load of trash? I would prefer deletion, but am afraid of re-creation, and us having to go through all this again. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have adapted the text of the entry to reflect more the contents of this discussion and maintain meanwhile that deletion is not wanted since it is part of indeed an elaborate movement of related sites and YouTube video's on the web. To keep silent on this while maintaining links to the book at other pages is an unwise policy. Either delete all traces in Wikipedia of reference to this book, ot honestly say what it is we think it is and let everyone then be his own judge on this. The latter is science in my respect, the former is repression. rpba (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if this article is deleted, all links to it should either be removed or unlinked (depending on the context). That is standard practice with deletions. Fram (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that didn't happen the last time it was deleted. That was why i resumed the discussion and entry of this subject. I found the Wikipedia in respect of the subject and the existence of this text. rpba (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reading WP:FRINGE, I agree that whether the book is ancient or a hoax or that's debated doesn't matter so much - other reliable sources besides Wikipedia need to worry about it before an article (based on those) can be kept here. --Minimaki (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not considered reliable beause you're hiding behind another authority than your own power of reason. Wikipedia should have a character and intelligence of its own too! I consider that inevitable.rpba (talk)13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's actually the other way around - one of the base policies (Wikipedia:No_original_research) is for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia which should not contain original thought. --Minimaki (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What? If no reliable sources are available, it needs to be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on modern druid forgery to further clarify the social and scientific status of this book. rpba (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is not your whole argument about Iolo Morganwg and recent Druidism as a source for the alleged text also an example of WP:OR? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you consider linking something up to what is on another Wikipage Original Research...(o dread!) That is all I did. The argument of druidism is not mine, I just checked it out at that page and found thus a connection to the illuminati scheme. rpba (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.