Talk:Viktor Schauberger

message: I have nothing to do with this article; writing, editing, or otherwise. I am not seriously interested in perpetual motion, but I am rather interested in anyone of note who has claimed to have made such devices. This person is obviously someone of note. Therefore, I strongly object to the deletion of this article. 74.197.184.250 (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No bird has such a whirling thing on its head, nor a fish on its tail. Only man made use of this natural brake-screw for forward propulsion.
A propeller would automatically make the animal a subject of continual motion of not perpetual. How is it supposed to control motion in a fluid if it uses a propeller?
It is flagged with multiple issues. Getting someone to read the man's work and make a reasonable commentary on it would be a start.
Weatherlawyer (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Consideration for Deletion

message: The article is effectively a mix up of unreferenced material, that presents speculation as scientific fact. There is no reliable evidence to support these claims, and as such the article requires full referencing and a clear distinction made between the reality of physical science and Viktor Schauberger's unsophisticated and uneducated work.
I am not a skilled wikipedian but I came to this article wanting to find some information about Schauberger's life and work. I had hoped that the article would include a brief outline of his ideas, theories and beliefs. If such ideas, theories and beliefs are not accepted by, or are in opposition to mainstream science; then that is notable and important, but it does not justify excluding such information.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.5.207 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Issues 

message: I believe Schauberger worked out how to generate large amounts of energy from the motion of cold water, by utilising the fact that water reaches its maximum density at about 4^ Celsius, i.e. just above the melting point of ice. Does anyone know anything about this?
 Meltingpot 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4C water anomaly point 

message: Er - I thought at first it was supposed to be some reference to tides, but that wouldn't affect the density of all water everywhere, and in fact the full moon doesn't mean tides are any higher or lower or anything else. It's just fully lit because of relative geometry between the Sun, the Moon and the Earth, not because it's at perigee. Is it instead supposed to be some sort of mythological reference? If so, it should be noted in the article that it was something *Schauberger* believed and not something that's factually true.--Dbutler1986 (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a weird one eh? Maybe because it means the sun and the moon are on opposite sides of the earth? Anyway - clearly nonsense, but if it's something he believed then I suppose it should indeed be in... --Oolong (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water is densest when cold (and at the time of the full moon) - Say what? 

message: IP user 128.232.237.98 added 3 sentences to the introduction. I have removed them, because there are problems with each one - 
1. “Schauberger's work is not real though.” This sentence is simply un-encyclopedic. What do you mean by ‘not real’? Please expain what you are trying to say. Many of the devices he designed were built and tested, that seems pretty real to me - although I recognise that some of the designs are not based on accepted theory.
2. “A lot of people on the internet think he made UFO's for the government, but it is a conspiracy theory.“ A pretty tall claim there, and not one source. There may well be some references to Schauberger in UFO conspiracies, but the introduction is not the right place for it. I propose adding a new section to the article (perhaps call it “Controversy”?) so that we can cover this particular issue properly. 
3. “Schauberger was not a real scientist.” Schauberger never claimed to be a scientist, and the intro already lists his various occupations. The sentence is redundant, unless perhaps you are trying to clarify that he did not have a qualification.  Logicman1966 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content from the Introduction 

message: I have again removed this section again:
Schauberger believed he was "more intelligent than all of the world's existing scientists" and evidence suggests that he was possibly a narcissist."Scientific Genius and Uneducated Guesswork", Professor Joseph Silk, Oxford University Press, 2000.
It requires proper references for both the quote, and as stated previously, I would be happy to claim that VS was a 'narcissist' if the source had a degree in Psychology, which I'm not sure is the case.  I am open to discussion on this page to omit, or re-insert future modifications regarding the reference of Joseph Silk.  Please discuss before re-inserting this information MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources say he was a narcissist, it is reasonable to include that in this article. However, given the pejorative nature of term narcissist, the burden of proof should be on those who claim he was a narcissist, not on those who claim he was not. (Somehow, I have a feeling that he was not.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV with doubtful reference 

message: It is not clear if Schauberger claimed to be a scientist, but if he was, in the words of this article, a “forest caretaker, naturalist, philosopher, inventor and biomimicry experimenter”, then he probably qualifies as a scientist. I consider him to be somewhat of an enigma.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientist?

message: I have previously questioned one of the references issued by Tachyon502 on the VS page, namely the reference: "Scientific Genius and Uneducated Guesswork", Professor Joseph Silk, Oxford University Press, 2000. I have contacted numerous Oxford University Press departments both locally and overseas and they have never heard of or have reference to this publication. I then emailed professor J.Silk about this reference, to which he replied "i have not written this book. it's an erroneous citation!". Because of this new information, I have removed this reference and the associated POV material MrAnderson7 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scientific Genius and Uneducated Guesswork" reference

message: This article is littered with unreferenced statements - citation-needed tags dating back one or two years...you name it.
I plan to delete everything that remains un-cited after all this time - if you have references for anything here - please present them ASAP...otherwise this article is going to get a LOT shorter.
SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious cleanup required. 

message: I can't believe I actually read through all of these comments.  The article on Viktor Schauberger is a mess, and I can certainly see why.  I'll make one single observation at this point in time.  In expressing something as historical fact -- as opposed to mythos, or conspiracy theory, or unverified speculation -- the quality of the citation must be taken into consideration.  There have been dozens of inconsistent and conflicting reports related to Viktor Schauberger and his involvement with aircraft research in Nazi Germany -- and they are inconsistent because each of these works, many of which have been cited as references in this article, are highly speculative and poorly supported by facts.  One of the books even erroneously reports the circumstances of Schauberger's death -- absurdly careless since that is something that could have easily been checked.  
The fact that something is a published work that has an ISBN number (as one of you expressed so eloquently) does not substantiate the quality of the citation.  This is true even of a more respected author such as Nick Cook who -- if you read his book critically -- you will find sadly based much of this work on information from Igro Witkowski, a Polish UFOlogist, and his unnameable sources.
There is a lot of garbage out there, on a whole host of different subjects, that are published works with ISBN's.  Instead of picking up snippets of "information" out of UFOlogy and similar sources, please be a little more serious about checking not only your sources . . . but their sources as well.
Respect Wikipedia, and respect the proper categorization of what you are posting on the articles as fact, or theory, or urban myth, or speculation, or whatever.  Otherwise, Wikipedia can become just one more Internet source that cannot be taken seriously.  And that would be too bad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaissanceAgain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Quality 

message: A claim is made in the Wikipedia article that "At the end of the war Schauberger was apprehended by US intelligence agents, and kept in custody for 9 months. They confiscated all his documents and prototypes, and interrogated him to determine his activities during the war.[5]"
Although this was represented in the book by Nick Cook, it is simply a repetition of an earlier unsubstantiated claim by Canadian author Ernst Zundel (publishing under the name of Mattern Friedrich) in the book "UFO - Nazi Secret Weapon?".  Zundel/Friedrich claimed that “Viktor Schauberger lived for some years in the United States after the war where he was reported to be working on UFO projects. His articles were greatly discussed and then one day in Chicago he just vanished. His battered body was found and as to who killed Schauberger or why has never been discovered. One version has it that gangsters tried to beat his revolutionising secrets out of him and accidentally killed him.”
The lack of credibility in this original claim, repeated by Nick Cook, is attested to by the fact that Zundel's account of Schauberger's death is also completely inaccurate.  He didn't even die in Chicago, but in Austria!  What makes this even worse is that, if you go to http://www.zundelsite.org/, you will see Zundel's real agenda for spreading tales like this.
I would propose that this reference to his captivity in the US be removed unless there is better independent substantiation.  Any discussion?  NaissanceAgain (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Post-War Captivity of Viktor Schauberger in US  

message: Just found this: http://www.pks.or.at/menu_en.html: "Christine Sindelar finished her dissertation on Instream River Training at the Technical University Graz, Austria, especially looking at "Meandering Ramps" as constructed by river-engineer Otmar Grober - based on the work of Viktor Schauberger." .. the thesis is in English, can be downloaded from http://portal.tugraz.at/portal/page/portal/Files/i2130/pdf/Lehre/dissertationen/englisch/PhD-thesis-Sindelar.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.144.211 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sindelar's PhD thesis 

message: So, many people agree that this article is a train-wreck.  It contains an enormous quantity of uncited and highly dubious material.  Those uncited sections have been there for at least three years now - and show no sign that they will ever be cleaned up and properly referenced.
Therefore, in accordance with WP:REF - I've removed every uncited fact that is likely to be contended.
If you want to put some of this material back, you'd better find references for everything you say, or it'll just be deleted again in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies.
I know this seems harsh - and I know some people are going to be upset that their fine words were deleted - but that's how Wikipedia works.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup. 

message: The book cover claims that Schauberger "demonstrated how Nature's abundance is the result of a complex interaction of energies that actually create matter, not the other way around as orthodox science believes". This explicitly contradicts scientific consensus, making the source unreliable.
:It contradicts scientific consensus because Schauberger did.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, a proper source could state that Schauberger believed that he had proven this (if this was the case). But since the source claims that he actually managed to prove it (which is complete nonsense) the source can be considered unreliable. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Callum Coats, Living Energies

message: Most of the external links lead to an assortment of pro-Schauberger websites, again violating WP:NPOV.
The one link that is from a more serious source (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070910/full/news070910-13.html) only mentions Schauberger in passing (so it should't be given as further reading). The Nature article wouldn't be suitable as a source either, as it doesn't appear to be a properly researched secondary source.
--Daniel Dunér (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: It seems a load of creepy pedants have cut the entire guts out of the article. According to Wikipedia he existed and that's that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.232.208 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shambles 

message: Near the end of his life: "If I reveal everything it will only be hushed up because it not only involves the whole scientific establishment but also the doctrines of the Church. All power politics will collapse once the truth emerges that science is the actual causative agent of cancer. (...) The whole of science and all its hangers-on are nothing but a band of thieves who are suspended like marionettes and must dance to whatever tune their well-camouflaged slave-masters deem necessary" (link #2 in ) 
We are not explaining how his opinion of science evolved during his carreer. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disenchanted at the end of his life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Viktor Schauberger. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101121091450/http://www.pks.or.at:80/menu_en.html to http://www.pks.or.at/menu_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I came to this article to read about VS, and instead found another instance of the ridiculousness that is Wikipedia editing. I don't care about the UFO technology or whether it existed. I don't care if there are no sources for Hitler and Schauberger having meetings. But as noted in [| Shambles] above, this article has been gutted. Was there no reliable source that said he helped construct log flumes?? Article claims that he "was an Austrian forest caretaker", is there no source as to what forest(s) he was taking care of?? Not one mention of an invention. Not one mention of his claimed "pseudo-science". This is silly. It makes one either WANT to vandalize the article, or agree with conspiracy theories that his work has been scrubbed and swept under the rug. Wcichello (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Edit War just makes conspiracy seem viable