Talk:Oera Linda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah I know it was a hack job but I wanted to get something up since I was shocked there was no article :)

Contents 1 Indeed! 2 Initial editing completed. 3 Date links? 4 In "Hoax" category 5 Atlantis 6 BCE/BC 7 Frya 8 2193 or 2194 BC

[edit] Indeed!

No kidding... considering how popular this nonsense text is becoming once again, especially amongst misguided modern heathens/asatruar, it needs some outlining.

I shall see if I can add a few more lines to it. :)

[edit] Initial editing completed.

My own editing of the article is also quite rough in form, but it adds more on the content of the text itself. When I have some free time, I shall add some quotes from the text as well as links and other references to academic journal articles and books dealing with the Oera Linda hoax; for and against, if I can find anything remotely useful in the 'for' category. ;)

[edit] Date links?

Is there a reason all the dates appear to have links to non-existent Wikipedia articles? I'm new to this and I don't want to edit if there is some convention that requires them. Melangell 06:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In "Hoax" category

Interesting how everyone here claims it a hoax, when it has been stated elsewhere that there has never been any actual proof that it is a forgery. --75.2.22.184 11:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that claims it is a hoax are not NPOV? Robert Brockway 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Differentiating claims that it is a hoax and stating it is verifiably a hoax are quite different things. The first is called for, until it is proven a hoax, or the hoax accusations become something historical rather than contemporary. As Mylita says just below, the book calls for consideration of its claims. --Chr.K. 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that this book is not a hoax is not to be sniffed at, especially as found in Wilkins's book, which I cited. It should be noted that this evidence has absolutely nothing to do with "Neo-Nazis" or white supremacists, and I do not think that prominently displaying that theme is particularly sophisticated. Have you even read the book? I am certain you have not read Wilkins's arguments in favor of its authenticity.--Mylitta 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis

On the sentence about Atlantis: "It also mentions Atlantis under the name of "Atland," which was supposedly submerged in 2194 BCE".

Comment to last statement: It does not mention Atlantis under the name Atland, Atland means "Old Land" and several modern theorist believe that it could be in reference to Atlantis. Comment unsigned attached by 216.106.93.239

[edit] BCE/BC

The style guide is clear on this "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." This article was started with BCE and AD in its first version, but then AD was dropped. My conclusion is that the style should be BCE/CE (I've reverted changes the other way around when I've found articles starting with AD).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frya

The article has recently been changed to say " Frya (the Frisian equivalent of the Norse Freyja)" - the only source for this I can find is the Oera Linda, if no one can find a reliable source for this I'm reverting.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Frya is the Frisian language equivalent of Freyja, just as Frija is the Dutch equivalent. Why is this a problem? TharkunColl (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2193 or 2194 BC

The Oera Linda Book dates the submergence of Atland, in its very first section (the letter of Hidde), as 2194 BC. It says that AD 1256 is 3449 years after the sinking of Atland. 1256 - 3449 = -2193. -2193 is 2194 BC, because there is no year zero. Similar mistakes have occurred in many articles on Wikipedia, such as the ages of Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, etc. (i.e. those whose lives straddled the BC/AD epoch), which I have corrected when I see them. TharkunColl (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well don't correct this one as it's referenced, it is from Jensma. And as you don't know the assumptions made by the authors of the Oera Linda and the Dutch almanacs, any such calculations are OR.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round. The authors may well have intended 2193 BC, which would be pretty amusing if they had made such a mistake - but unfortunately we don't know and therefore it's OR. The calculation of the date as given by the book itself is not OR - it's just a date. TharkunColl (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The book says "Written at Liudwerd, in the year 3449 after Atland was submerged - that is, according to the Christian reckoning, the year 1256.", so you have to make an assumption to get either 21943 or 2194 about whether the authors used a year 0, right? But the date I gave was from Jensma, which is why I say you shouldn't revert it.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is though that we don't use a year zero, so whatever year the authors intended, it is definitely the year that we call 2194. TharkunColl (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've left 2194 in earlier. But the Jensma referenced bit should stand.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because, to change it or even say it's wrong (the Jensma bit), you'd have to 'create a fact' about the usage, or not, of a Year 0, or at least assume one, and that would be OR. Doug Weller (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Many calendars are routinely converted to ours in Wikipedia and this is not classed as OR - it's just our way of expressing exactly the same info. It may well be that the authors were assuming a year zero, or maybe were just ignorant, but what we can say with absolute certainty is that on our calendar, the statement in the letter of Hidde yields a date of 2194 BC. If Jensma gives a different date, shouldn't we at least point out that he is actually talking about the year that we call 2194 BC? For example if someone gave Caesar's assssination as 43 BC, rather than 44 BC, a similar comment should also be necessary, if only to avoid confusion. TharkunColl (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)