Talk:Heribert Illig

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heribert Illig redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

old comments

Hey all,
How does dendrochronology refute Illig? Reading your post i dont really understand. Thanks.

I removed the reference to dendrochronology because Illig's hypothesis cannot be disproved by it. There will be very few trees belonging to a dated structure, and Illig will explain those away as spurious. E.g. if a Viking boat is found and established to be aged 1200 years by dendrochronology, Illig will just claim it belongs to the year 500 rather than the year 800. dab (ᛏ) 17:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dab, I reverted it again. 1) the lack of credible motives is a separate counter argument. Even if no world conspiracy were needed, it's still doubtful because of the lack of motives. And Illig makes some vague talk about motives, but these are not credible (Otto III wanted to see the millenium ...) 2) Dendrochronology does refute Illig. Wood that can be reliably dated in relationship to events, e.g. in buildings is compared to these big american trees they use for it. Then the events connected with the building are safely within a certain time. Since these all seem to confirm the traditional dating, Illig is refuted. 3) I also added astronomical observations. Str1977 20:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, you may be right. I am asking for sources. I can give you a source for the Gregorian stuff. So who refuted Illig with what tree. You need a wooden building dated to some precision to dates before 600. Not too may of these exist, I suppose. Name one. dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have misplaced my lecture notes from a couple of years ago, where this was covered. I'm currently checking a couple of essays on the topic. Maybe one of these can give me references. I'll post them if they do. Str1977 21:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we agree, of course, that the theory is pure nonsense. My concern is to list only strong arguments, and to avoid putting up strawmen for Illig's people to knock down. The density of sources if of course the key argument, it is what makes you shake your head as soon as you hear of the idea, but it is tedious to go through point by point, and Illig can redate all events as he likes. The Gregorian argument, as far as I'm concerned, is the single argument dealing the theory's death-blow. Not only is it strong, but if makes Illig look silly, exposing that his original idea was based on an embarassing mistake, and that he was just too stubborn to withdraw once that fell down. dab (ᛏ) 21:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and as soon as I have found a reference I will provide it. Are you German(-speaking)? If you are, I can post you two places of references in general. Str1977 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

of course, German references will be fine, in a case as obscure as this one, my own references are also in German, I don't think this discussion has crossed the language barrier yet :) dab (ᛏ) 07:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom time hypothesis

I moved most of the information that was here to the previously existing page on the hypothesis itself.This page should probably be kept to biographical details, and the refutation of the theory should belong in its article. Feel free to revert my changes if I'm being too bold about this, of course. Factitious 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, since his hypothesis is about the only thing Illig is notable for, we could just make this page a redirect, as far as I am concerned. dab (ᛏ) 12:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dbachmann. Another point: there are other "phantom time hypotheses" around, and if anyone ever wrote something about these, the pth page could serve as a disambiguation page. I, however, am not knowledgable enough to write anything about these other hypotheses. Str1977 13:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there are New Chronology (Fomenko) and Immanuel Velikovsky, and of course Young Earth creationism. I don't know if these are referred to as "phantom time hypotheses", but I thought that similar with Fomenko's stuff, the title should specify that the article is about Illig in particular. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, as a defintion for PTH I'd suggest a claim that a certain period of time and the supposed historical events of that time have not really existed. New Chronology can also mean that the chronology is flawed and some events historiography has separated in fact were simultanously. I don't know Formenko or Velikovsky, but David Rohl works in the 2nd field and thus would not qualify for PTH. Also, I would totally rule out Yound Earth Creationism, since they are dealing with pre-historical times. But I have once heard about a guy who claimed that the entire history from the 1st to the 14th century was invented, namely that Jesus Christ lived in (what we call) the 13th century. Str1977 14:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read the artocle on Formenko, I think he's the guy I was talking about. Since he talks a lot about conspiracies and equates different events with each other (in contrast to Rohl), I think Formenko does qualify as a PTH. Str1977 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My merging was motivated by the belief that "phantom time hypothesis" referred to a specific theory. Are there references for Formenko and Velikovsky's ideas being called phantom time hypotheses? If so, what would be a clearer term for the theory Illig and Niemitz have been arguing for? Factitious 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The invented Middle Ages"? (see below) -- but "PTH" is fine for me too. dab (ᛏ) 09:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just as a note, the German article is at de:Erfundenes Mittelalter. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page also be proposed for deletion?

As his claim is so radically opposed to the sciences of archaeology, dating, etc., it is incumbent upon Heribert to prove that his claims are more than disatisfaction with current dating methods and supposed radical innacuracies of medieval scribes. This is Heribert's only claim to fame, his only reason for inclusion in the Wikipedia. As such, is it enough to actually justify any page on him? Especially a stub of a page like this one? I think not and, if nobody disagrees, will be nominating this page for deletion as being a current biography of a living person who hasn't done anything notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia other than to promulgate thoroughly implausible theories. Banaticus 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we have a lot of articles on kooks. Iman Wilkens, Stephen Knapp, Anestis Keramidas, Jean Faucounau, you name them, just being a crackpot doesn't mean you won't be featured on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the policy on living people. The time thing is Heribert's only notable contribution that could even remotely qualify him for a current article in the English Wikipedia and that is such rubbish that it just doesn't meet the mark. He might perhaps qualify to be in the German Wikipedia, though. Anyway, please see the AfD on his theory. Banaticus 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, you are free to AfD him, of course. dab (ᛏ) 08:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal would be to merge Illig's thesis into this article and to turn the "Phantom time hypothesis" article either into a redirect or into a disambig page, linking to various similar theses. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good solution too. I agree we don't need two articles on Illig's stuff. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to that -- merge the information from Phantom Time Hypothesis into this article and turn that article into a redirect to some other page regarding multiple authors investigations into "lost time", such as the German Wikipedia criticism| Chronology criticism page. Such a page does not currently exist on the English Wikipedia, in fact pretty much none of those guys has a page on the English Wikipedia, which I think underscores my assertion in the Phantom Time Hypothesis AfD that although such may be notable on the German Wikipedia, it's not notable here on the English Wikipedia. However, if you'd like to create those pages here, dab (or if anyone else would like to), I'll withdraw my AfD, transfer the information over and change Phantom Time Hypothesis into a redirect. Banaticus 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good. note that if it is notable on de-wiki, it is also notable here, we don't do language-dependent notability (an encyclopedia aims at being a compendium of universal knowledge). dab (ᛏ) 14:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We absolutely do language-dependant notability determinations on Wikipedia. 1) Note the difference in the Falkland island articles in en.wikipedia (from Great Britain's viewpoint) and sp.wikipedia (Argentina's viewpoint). 2) Some things are notable in one particular country and either everyday occurences in other countries or simply not notable. For instance, 300 days of sunshine in Southern California is a normal occurance. 300 days of sunshine in Great Britain is newsworthy. Just as there are some thing in English which aren't notable enough to make it onto the English wikipedia (note that more than 1k pages in this category are deleted from en.wikipedia every day), so too are some things (which may be notable in other countries and other languages) not notable enough to make en.wikipedia. 3) Language is part of the determining factors which determine overall notability of a particular subject. en.wikipedia is not a catch-all encyclopedia which aims to hold everything, including junk, from every place. Each article must be examined under its own light and must either stand or fall on its own merits. Banaticus 10:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, this has nothing to do with language. en-wiki shouldn't hold English language junk any more than Turkmen language junk. Yes, different language editions will tend to be from a different pov, de facto, which is something we try to consciously counter, without of course ever being able to fully compensate for the effect. This is beside the point, you are free to put articles up for deletion on AfD. If they pass AfD, they stay. dab (ᛏ) 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This section is for discussing the merger of Phantom time hypothesis into this article. Since previous merge discussions never seemed to get anywhere one way or another (even though there seemed to be some consensus), I've made this a sort of straw poll.

Merge. The recent AFD result was a "keep", but a lot of people supported a merge. Currently there is considerable (if not %80 or more) duplication between the two articles. Looking at Phantom time hypothesis "What link's here", it doesn't really have any articles pointing to it that are not "See also's" (maybe one?). As someone pointed out above the German Wikipedia has a single article. Heribert Illig isn't really known for much that is not related to his theory - the man and theory are fairly inseparable. Heribert Illig is generally seen as a crackpot, as is his theory, making it highly unlikely that much will ever be mentioned about him in other Wikipedia articles. With all these things in mind I think we should merge these into a single article and re-direct Phantom time hypothesis to this article. -- Stbalbach 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge -- maybe delete the bio article. If merging the theory into the bio, there would be the problem of WP:BLP giving extra obstactles for adding criticisms of the theory. --Pjacobi 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the theory criticisms ad hominem? -- Stbalbach 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not ad hominem attacks. Although Heribert is still alive, there is no reason, as far as WP:BLP is concerned, that the two should not be merged. Banaticus 10:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge to phantom time hypothesis. If there are other "theories" with a claim to that title, disambiguate at phantom time hypothesis (Illig). I agree that Illig's notability is entirely due to his misguided theory. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The writer is not known for anything other than the theory. Concept14 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten Article

I rewrote the article, since it handles the person of Illig. Articles on humans are biographic, especially, when there is another article about their work. Illigs thesis is subject of the article phantom time hypothesis, and should be presented and discussed there. - best regards --mmg (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this has been discussed at length last year, and we concluded that there is no grounds for a dedicated biographical article. The only thing that is notable about Illig is his hypothesis, which has its own article. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If Illig's only notability lies within his thesis, there is no need for an article on Illig, but only on his thesis. Therefore the right solution is, to redirect to Phantom time hypothesis, as you did. Thanks! - best regards --mmg (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heribert Illig/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The entry for Illig is entirely one-sided. No evidence FOR Illig's thesis is presented or even mentioned, and the impression given that such evidence does not exist. Also, it is stated that the Julian calendar was somehow "updated" at the Council of Nicea and that it was this updated "Julian" calendar that the Gregorian reform was intended to correct. Yet there is no evidence for this whatsoever. It is merely assumed to be the case, since the number of days' error corrected by the Gregorian reform is otherwise inexplicable. In short, it is an entirely circular argument.

Last edited at 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)