Talk:Phantom time conspiracy theory

message: If the phantom time hypothesis were true, wouldn't the much older russian and Hindu calendars drop it ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.158.34 (talk) 18:54, 2006 May 23 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If you need to know more about these topics I would recommend you to read "the lost keys" 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).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.251.14 (talk) 06:37, 2007 March 13 (UTC)
: The above comment was removed from the talk page in an edit. I have reinserted it as the user who removed the comment was not the one who added it. Apologies if this is a mistake. --Black Butterfly 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older calenders

message: 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]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.152.15 (talk) 23:06, 2005 November 8 (UTC)
:I've merged in the relevant information from Heribert Illig. There's a lot of it. Factitious 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Illig Merger

message: In the course of the AfD that I posted on this article, I've become more famliar with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states:  This article also referenced Wikipedia:No original research, which states:   In other words, if the refutations are to stay, most of them need the  template to insert  as most of the refutations currently have no attributed source.  Banaticus 01:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No original research

message: Please see Talk:Heribert_Illig#Merge for a merger proposal of these two articles. -- Stbalbach 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I wonder if the author has read the book from Illig? Some "facts" stated here are not considering Illig's counterproposals.
For example, the conspiracy was made between Constantine (Byzantine Empire), Otto (German-Roman Empire) and Pope. It is possible that these three have took the chance to modify history. The Muslim claendar, and other calendars do not match (Gregorian, Chinese, it is detailed in the book), these could have been matched later to "fit" to what we know. 
The main reasons are also stated, with proofs.
Starting critisism with the remark that it is not translated to English - it is ridiculous!
So don't throw this theory out of the window too early. After all, Illig's writes: the science of history is based on the writing of history, which is a branch of literature (not exact translation). Abdulka 08:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came to this article a while ago, and it was rubbish. It still is, completely biased. The astronomical dates of the almagest have come under attack from those who actually understand it, not just historians. Robert newton and Fomenko especially. If their results prove something is that nobody can cite the almagest as ultimate proof. the archaeological proof is weak! Why do you think medievalists are killing themselves to try to explain the stagnation of the middle ages?! as to the conspiracy, Antony Grafton, who i take as an authority, has written that "Perhaps half of the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times, and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to all ecclesiastics before 1100 AD, are fakes." (Forgers and Critics pp. 24). according to Alfred Hiatt, who i consider another authority, "There is strong evidence that certain monasteries produced forged documents on a monumental scale, not only for their own benefit..." Why is it a conspiracy theory to search for responsible of a crime among the best candidates that the best scholars have already identified for us? who is the writer of this article? the inquisition? all the article does is give us what critics say: "They say Illig is wrong, so in conclusion he is wrong" or "astronomical dates contradicts him", citing this and that date without ever citing Illigs position or even better, Fomenko's position who has done a great amount of research on this matter. That is not an encyclopedia article, that is the opinion of a person which we would appreciate he/she posts on a blog and leave the article alone. The irony is that those who call revisionists "pseudo history" are using arguments just as weak as the revisionists. can we just have an article telling us what is going on rather than stating an opinion? shouldn't the choice be left to the reader? AG (NSU) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.215 (talk • contribs) 16:56, August 1, 2007
Editors should take into account that current wiki-regs (Specifically WP:NOR) determine that criticism must come from third party sources. This means that in order to say that there has been criticism of an hypothesis you must source it to third parties who are actively criticizing said hypothesis. For example, you cannot say that historians have criticized phantom times for its disregard for evidence by citing the evidence directly (violates WP:NOR), instead you must cite the historian directly using a source in which they offer said criticism. - perfectblue (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is biased 

message: Here it says 'A theory developed ...in 1991' on his page it says 'put forward in 1996' There is a 5 year difference (anyone else see a bit of irony) I am sure the key words here are developed and put forward, should it be changed? Or does it simply mean that he created the idea in 91, wrote it down, but never publicly showed the theory until 96?  Either way, I think some clarification should be made. 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we have a "Phanton time hypothesis hypothesis".
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: They're the same year. :P 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1991 or 96?

message: Are there any examples of actual events being repeatedly recorded in other contexts?
How much of the 'gap' can be explained by the 'absence of a consistently agreed timescale'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Battle of Tours of 732 and the Rus'-Byzantine War (860) are recorded in a wide range of sources.  There is no "gap" to explain.  Supporters of this theory either claim that events (such as the rule of Charlemagne) were invented or (in the case of the Arab Conquests) occurred at a different date.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Moved from article:
Rohl
Using Archaeoastronomy as a means of dating events, Egyptologist David Rohl proposed that dates in the history of ancient Egypt, Israel and Mesopotamia have been incorrectly recorded. Rohl's system modifies the chronologies of the 21st and 22nd dynasties, and moves the time of the 19th dynasty forward 350 years in order to match events in Egyptology up with events in other branches of archeology.[Rohl, David M. (1997) Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest". Three Rivers Press, ]
According to J.G. van der Land, editor of the Dutch language publication "Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie" (Bible, History and Archaeology), Rohl's time line would resolve some archaeological anomalies surrounding ancient Egypt, but creates conflicts with other areas that make it untenable.[van der Land, J.G. (2000) "Pharaohs and the Bible: David Rohl's chronology untenable"]
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses assert that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BC[What Does the Bible Really Teach?, page 216, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society], whereas historians date the event to within a year of 587 BC. Their chronology produces a 20-year gap somewhere between the reigns of Neo-Babylonian Kings Amel-Marduk (rule ended 560BC) and Nabonidus (rule began 555BC) in addition to the intervening reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk, despite the availability of contiguous cuneiform records[Let Your Kingdom Come", Appendix, page 187: "Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.", Watchtower Bible & Tract Society].
OK, it seems bad enough that the article lumps disparate, seemingly unconnected theories together with Illig's as "Variations". But at least some of them share a certain family resemblance. I can't see how either Rohl or the Jehovah's Witnesses fit in here. Seems like some WP:SYNTHESIS going on. Really, unless some evidence of connection between the theories is produced, everything except Illig should probably be removed, and relegated to See Also. Rd232 talk 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the others should be in the article unless we have good sources linking them to Illig. I've taken them out. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that they belong in either "see also", or else a single paragraph that begins something like "Others have proposed similar ideas..." --Bobyllib (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumping disparate ideas 

message: The german Wikipedia gives a large stub account of this author, summarizing his theory briefly, and stating that it has been published in popular press but ignored by the scientific community. I think we are giving this theory undue attention, and im not sure why. is it even, really, notable? i think a good translationn of the german wp article would be a better task than what we are doing here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look back through the history it would seem this article once included much more information than it currently does but most of it was deleted. I don't know how much of that was translated from the German version, but I've added a template to request a German Translation anyway. -- œ™ 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this theory is not notable and is being given undue weight here.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The point is that "phantom time" the crackpot (you cannot put it otherwise) asserts it did not exist has been extensively studied and there is a lot of documentation, scientific data, etc... 
The theory is being ignored just like those theories of people who say "Einstein was wrong" adding "I am not good in mathematics but---", ie. it shows that such claims have very low credibility and their fallacies almost self-evident.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.191.249 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I don't understand how this hypothesis is in any way "paranormal." It is a conspiracy theory involving the systematic forgery of historical documents. I don't see anything "paranormal" about that. The hypothesis is certainly unorthodox but I don't understand how it can be described as "paranormal." Can someone please explain why this article falls under the scope of the Paranormal WikiProject?-Schnurrbart (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some conspiracy theories are within the scope of WP Paranormal. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is not paranormal and I've removed that tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal? 

message: Without defending this theory, I don't think it requires the Tang Dynasty to have been invented. There was no verifiable contact between Europe and China at this point (unlike the case with the Islamic world). If European history has added in a "phantom" 300 years, this does not require Chinese history to be adjusted: it would just mean that early Chinese history was 300 years older, relative to Europe, than previously thought. The Chinese observations of solar eclipses reinforce the point about astronomy already made. What would be problematic, however, is the contact between China and Islam, such as the Battle of Talas in 751. This again reinforces the point already made about the theory's inability to account for the rise of Islam.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tang Dynasty 

message: Which sources meet WP:N? I assume Anatoly Fomenko mentions it in his book. Is that mention being used? --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I'm aware Illig's books haven't been translated into English, but are popular in the German-speaking world. There is though A Guide to the Phantom Dark Age by Emmett Scott, published in 2014. That most sources are in German does not make them unreliable per se, or this subject non-notable.  Eric Corbett 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says they're popular, besides Scott's publisher? What do the two German sources say about the topic? --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You should note that this article has been unnsuccessfully nominated for deletion twice, mostly recently by me last year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the AfDs. Angus McLellan makes a good case. Wish we had details. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the outcome, but I think we are stuck with it. I think editors are showing their naivety. There are plenty of theories that get published in some form. Not all of them will get a Wikipedia article, will they? The lack of sources in English is a good indication of lack of notability. This is not the same as saying that because the sources are German, the topic is not notable. The point is Illig has made major claims about world history, and this has been basically ignored outside of Germany. The lack of notability means there is a lack of serious criticism (as noted above). Evidence against the theory is liable to be removed because it doesn't come from reliable sources. This makes the article very problematic.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Naivety? As opposed to their inability to understand German?  Eric Corbett 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The German issue is a straw man. If you look at the German WP article, it is arranged differently, but it is not much more extensive than this one (except in its Talk pages). According to the 1st AfD discussion, Illig had his "moment of fame" in 1997. I don't see any argument as to why this is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it your argument that notability expires?  Eric Corbett 13:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this theory was ever notable enough. I would like to hear a positive argument in favour of notability. But there isn't really any point, since the article has survived 2 AfDs.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ACADEMIC should apply here. Illig wouldn't qualify, so neither should his theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think this is an example of Wikipedia bias. An article about the child model Kristina Pimenova was recently deleted, even though it could easily have acquired more sources than this nonsense. However, the average Wikipedian is an intellectual, not interested in fashion or tabloid fodder. But historical theories? Of course! Even if they are "bunk".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: First line at the top, people. Jack Upland, best not to respond, such posts really are best ignored or deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these discussions are OK, if they result in improvements to the article. If Illig or his supporters did deal with these points, this should be added, with citations. As it stands, the description of the theory has gaping holes.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand  WP:DUE. In articles about fringe theories etc., it is not an improvement to add more coverage of primary literature by proponents. Primary literature can be cited, but only within "due" context so as not to create the impression that the theory has any merit. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

text: It has been nominated for deletion twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I know and I do not understand your point. I agree it does have some notability. I am suggesting to merge it, not to delete it. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would fit more under pseudohistory. But even with "revised chronologies" alone there is too much material for one article, I think. It would also risk creating a false amalgam, putting together a range of theories that have little in common.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 

message: If you read the paper 'Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?' (reference 1 in the article), then it says that in theory, there were two separate phantom times, the first from 583 - 661, and the second from 750 - 968, as opposed to one phantom time from 614 - 911 as this wikipedia page states.
Lorddobba (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what Niemitz thinks. Illig has his own "theory" with only one phantom time, therefore the 614-911 period is preceded by "Illig believed". As soon as you start from the assumption that you can arbitrarily pick and choose which sources to accept, you can also make up arbitrary fake periods, so it is no wonder those people disagree with each other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I believe Niemitz and Illig don't really exist. Bigfoot flew on a UFO to Uranus and weaved the Bayeaux Tapestry out of his nasal hairs. Then he deposited it at the Library of Congress. DNA testing proves you were present.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in Explanation