Talk:Oera Linda Book

message: th
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. :)
Could you try to get some sources to the question about lack of carbon dating, this is the most obvious missing piece --JC 92.41.71.16 (talk)
:How would that help? It's a 19th century book. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indeed! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Date links?

message: 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)
replies: text: So you're suggesting that claims it is a hoax are not NPOV? Robert Brockway 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In "Hoax" category

message: 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)
thread_title:  BCE/BC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Frya]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And I've left 2194 in earlier. But the Jensma referenced bit should stand.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2193 or 2194 BC

message: According to Jensma, Haverschmidt intended the Oera Linda Book as a parody of the Christian Bible. An article in late 2007 by Goffe Jensma Extraordinary professor of Frisian Language and Culture, in particular the literary-historical aspects of Frisian, at the Faculty of Humanities of the Universiteit van Amsterdam says that the three authors of translation intended it "to be a temporary hoax to fool some nationalist Frisians and orthodox Christians and as an experiential exemplary exercise in reading the Holy Bible in a non-fundamentalist, symbolical way." However, ignoring clues that it was a forgery, it was taken seriously by J.G. Ottema and achieved (in 1876) popularity for the reasons given above. Its creators felt unable to admit that they had written it, and it became the foundation for a new belief. Jensma concludes his article by saying "It is a perfect irony that a book written to unmask the Holy Bible as a book of human making was to become a bible itself."
:We shouldn't even be trying to explain Jensma or Ottema, we look to reliable sources for that. Please read WP:OR. And don't just delete cited text because you disagree with it. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To who you booth D talking, or just talking?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To one another? Do they all talk like you in Illinois, or is this a Neolithic Frisian accent? --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  >100 years gap in logic

message: I'm just enquiring to see whether anyone knows of any academic texts in the English language that discuss this work in any detail? Many thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any good academic texts on this work? 

message: :i don't get it. isnt the question whether these arguments are /good/ or not the real question here? whether the book is /in the system/ or not seems redundant to me. I guess wikipedia isnt good enough... because argument from authority is the know-nothings way to truth. Furthermore, i don't see any citations for the claims that since there were one more scholar(so important that they dont even have wikipedia pages which should tell you something) that didnt support the claim for authenticity, that therefore the document is a forgery. Can someone tell me exactly how wikipedia determines truth because all i see is most of the scholars supporting the document's authenticity have wikipedia pages while the ones who don't, don't. Furthermore the scholars going against its authenticity uses rhetoric while the ones supporting it's autheticity uses arguments... I understand wikipedia have a set set of sources its considers "Truth" and i probably can't change that, but where is the wikipedia policy that says that since x amount of scholars say it is a fraud against y amount of scholars saying it is not a fraud; it is a fraud. ? - anon 13:34, 7 June 2021 80.213.192.60
::If we had to count scholars, then that would be something which was part of a legitimate scholarly controversy.  That's not the case with the Oera Linda Book -- there are a few enthusiasts who support its factuality, while reliable sources overwhelmingly do not. AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not "determine truth", only verifiability. See WP:TRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2021

message: Error in introduction: "De gemaskerde god ("the masked god"), including a new translation" - this work from 2004 does not include translation. Translation was published separately in 2006 as "Het Oera Linda-boek. Facsimile - Transcriptie - Vertaling";  / can someone change this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:5E3A:37C5:11D2:A74E:C2BD:3666 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I've restored the category - we use them as navigational aids, and there's enough evidence that it was a hoax to enable people looking for hoaxes by category to find this article. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't :Category:Literary forgeries be more specific in this case?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we use both? Doug Weller (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can, but Literary forgeries is a subcat of Literary Hoaxes which is a subcat of Hoaxes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category hoaxes 

message: Removing 'hoax' from the lead breaks both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is a summary of the article 

message: I wonder about this word forgery, as if the creators of this book were trying to pawn off their creation as the real Oera Linda, while all the while they knew the real version was in the desk at home! That's what a forgery is, an attempt to pass off a copy as the real thing. If you replace "forgery" with "work of fiction" the intended (I hope) meaning is more clear. E.g. Most scholars think Oera Linda is a work of fiction. Hoax is an alternative to forgery, assuming we know the intention of the author, who isn't even known.173.173.20.99 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was mainly intended as a work of fiction, then the author would have been expected to write in a language he actually spoke, and submit it to a magazine, or whatever.  An attempt to present it as an old manuscript in an old language tips the scales towards hoax... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I certainly believe it is a forgery it is notable that some works of fiction are presented as being authentic for the purchases of entertainment.  These works do contain information (such as a relevant notice) that shows them to be works of fiction.  An example would be the Handbook for Space Pioneers which purports to be an aid for anyone considering emigrating from Earth to one of eight colonisable planets. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax status doesn't derive from being in a fictional universe, but from the author's intention to artificially manufacture plausibility (i.e. to try to get other people to believe something which is not an abstract spiritual revelation, but an assertion about things which did or did not happen in the real world). AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgery or Fiction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oera Linda Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/doi/abs/10.1515/FABL.2007.017
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503085724/http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/2.pdf to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most works on Wikipedia follow a "contents, then reception" model. You may argue this is done to drive home that this is a hoax or something, but the ontro already does a good job of that, so this just feels repetitive. 87.223.3.46 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really only notable because of its reception. There's a (very) brief summary of its contents in the lead. I think that the sequence works here although I agree it isn't usual. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception before contents? 

message: I came to this page to learn about the contents of the Oera Linda book. All I see is paragraphs upon paragraphs asserting that it is not an authentic piece of history. This is a worthless article for someone like me who is interested in learning about the subject. It is very obvious that there are politics and bias at play here and I am disgusted by this article as someone who is interested purely in knowledge. -- 04:09, 10 September 2021 2601:602:681:2da0:70c8:96f8:94ea:7c3a
:We build our articles on what reliable sources say about the subject. You seem to have come here with a preconceived idea that it's history. If you want to know the contents of the book, read it. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 2601:602:681:2da0:70c8:96f8:94ea:7c3a -- It depends on whether you want knowledge or pseudo-knowledge.  There is an English-language translation of the book available on-line (or was the last time I looked into it). AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Observer