Talk:Theodor Landscheidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Schroeter Institute

A Google search for "Schroeter Institute" -Landscheidt produced no hits, suggesting this was a one-man outfit JQ 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that convinces me.--86.131.93.168 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources / deletion

I happen to know that TL exists - I've read one of his papers - but there is precious little in this article that is reliable as a source (when was he born? who knows how we know). Nor is there much in the way of claims to notability: he is dead, but no-one seems to have written an obituary.

Unless someone finds some RS and claims for notability, I'm going to AFD this soon William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I referenced his one paper for his prediction. Do a search on it and you will find numerous copies. I read the reliable sources part and it appears this is sufficient, to quote a paper.(207.229.58.156 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Is [1] really a reliable source? It looks like an el cheapo astrology text to me. Ditto [2]. If its true that no-one but astrologers talk about him, errrrm, doesn't that tell you something? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


I haven't found any information that describes Dr Landscheidt as an astrologer. (Jarl87 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

The fact that all the books that refer to him are astrology texts should be a teensy hint. Or try [3], though whether that counts as reliable is dubious. Essentially all him papers are astrology, ore or less cunningly disguised. In the unlikely event that you're interested, I once debated with him on sci/env in the old days [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Its a published source, the information is verified in his own book and the Kazakhstan research institute you removed, so I readded the material. Just to add, the source is listing birth dates of notable people, Landscheidt has given the information regarding his birth date, time, and other astrological facts himself in his book. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Most of his papers are about the sun, it's position, and the effects caused by that positioning. One example is how the sun affects our weather. (Jarl87 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Funnily enough, he was smart enough not to write "astrology" on papers he was sneaking into the sci press, cos they would have been rejected outright. So he disguised it. In german he was more open. The astrologers claim him for one of their own: see below William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Was is Doctorate degree in Astrology or did he sneak that in also? (Jarl87 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Funny how someone who is not notable has so many people writing about him. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bourabai Source

Is a research institute in Kazakhstan which has been used by the United Nations. Please do not remove it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, and no it hasn't William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
They were listed in the AfD, so I am readding the removal. [5][6] --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Try to read what you're citing. Those links *do not cite bourabai* William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, he wrote the report for the United Nations agency, thank you for making my point larger then it was. Now unless you have some proof, other then bad web design and there praise of someone you have a personal issue with, please leave it alone. Just to make something clear, the United Nations finding them reliable, trumps your personal opinion about their work, in other words, get some evidence that is not derived from your Original Reasearch. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. You're realised your error. The UN has not cited that web cite. The FAO has accepted some text about forest fires from the chap who maintains that site. This says *nothing whatsoever* about the reliability of the website. If he was talking about forest fires, then you might argue that he was an expert by showing that the UN had used his words (its a thin argument, but just about possible). But when he is talking about astrology, then he becomes just another website (*I've* been cited by numerous scientific papers. Does that mean that if I dump an arbirtray fact onto my website I've a RS for that fact? Of course not). My personal opinion of their work isn't relevant, because I'm not using it to add to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If the UN finds the institute reliable, as he is listed by it, then it surely meets our requirements. Your personal bitterness regarding the subject has gone beyond reason, perhaps you should consult the AfD and realize Wikipedia does not agree with you. Further they did not just "use his words" its not a quotation, its an entire paper. Further its not his personal page, its the page of the institute, so no, your journal is not the equivalent. I think its time you dropped your obviously personal crusade to one up a man you had a month long argument with. Now I have presented proof that the institute is reliable, how about you provide proof contrary instead of going on about what you personally feel. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The UN doesn't find the institute reliable. The UN offers no opinion. The UN has used some text on forest fires, and has quoted the affiliation that the person gave. Thats all. Further,

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Source? I am sure the UN if they did not find them reliable would not use them ... Again I ask for your source to support your argument. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, the UN if they did not find them reliable would not use them would if accepted demonstrate that they were experts on forest fires. But no more. It wouldn't make them reliable sources for other material. Yes, you do again ask for my source, which demonstrates that you haven't understood. I don't need a source, because I'm not adding anything. *You* need something to demonstrate that the website is a WP:RS. You though it was cited by the UN; it wasn't. That the author of the site has written text for the UN does *not* demonstrate the reliability of the site William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but information has been presented that an international body finds the research institute reliable. You have provided nothing, again, do you have a source, or just more of your personal opinion? --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Dunno what to say that I haven't already. You're clearly not reading what I'm writing. You could try taking it to the RS noticeboard if you really want to get it included. What this needs is a reliable 3rd opinion. I'm going to raise it at the AFD, since there will be interested parties there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've taken out bourabai again. Its not a WP:RS and just looking at it, its fairly easy to tell that. It is but another bunch of wackos. Try http://bourabai.narod.ru/redshifts-e.htm for example. "study refuting dogma about constancy of speed of light in vacuum..." is all too typical psuedoscience. Or even from their TL page: "REHABILITATION OF ASTROLOGY... Till now vulgar materialists, the official science refuse in rights for existence of astrology as a science. Naturally, official science being obscurantly closed (please remain Gödel Theorem about incompleteness) prefers to consider that unexplained things simplly does not exist... Dr. Landscheidt was the bright intellect who has understood the great capability of astrology and has made very much for introduction of methods of astrology in scientific researches, for developing modern methods of astrology, particular in the field of its computerization. Theodor Landscheidt has written the book about his mystical experience "Wir sind Kinder des Lichts" ("Children of the Cosmic Light"), which printed on german" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Theodor Landscheidt's work does not have 100% universal acceptance, that is in no way is a valid reason to remove his entry or his work from the Wiki. There are still people who discount evolution, should we remove Darwin from the wikipedia? (Jarl87 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC))


I restored it for now as I'm not convinced by the arguments to remove. If the UN feels it reliable enough, then WP should. Also there have been questions raised regarding conflict of interest involving William Connolley, so that is another reason to revert his removal of this--at least until this issue is looked at more carefully.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please quotes the words which make you think that the UN feels this website is reliable. I haven't been able to find and, and nor has IWS. But if you have some other source, pleas do share it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your belief that the UN uses random people off the street to write papers for them is amusing. I await your source however that they are not reliable. Giovanni, do you care to write a report on the Economic Health for the U.K Ministry of Finance? I heard they asked John at the pub,,but he didn't want to let go of his beer. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The UN has nothing to do with this argument. Papers written by Theodore Landscheidt which were published in academic journals ARE acceptable according to WP:RS. The fact that an independent site includes those papers for all of us to see doesn't make the source unreliable. Bourabai has the permission of Theodor Landscheidt's wife to publish Theodore Landscheidt's work. If the journals are in someway not legitimate then those papers published in those particular journals can be questioned otherwise they should remain on Theodor Landscheidt Wiki entry. (Jarl87 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
The point is that Bourabai is not a reliable source for info on Landscheidt's life, awards and so on, any more than my personal website would be for info on some person I chose to write about (even though I have had stuff published by the UN, cited by UN agencies and so on). I checked the Dewey institute site and there is no evidence on an award to Landscheidt so I think we need to drop this one. My apologies by the way, I think I originally included this material at a time when I wasn't as fully aware of the need to adhere strictly to WP:RS.JQ (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Its the institute site, not his personal site. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not paying attention. It *is* his personal page, because he is the institute (like Singer is SEPP, and L was Schroeter Inst). Your belief that the UN uses random people off the street to write papers for them is amusing...: you are still missing the point. B is likely a reliable source for forest fires; thats what the FAO used him for. But not for L William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying they are a reliable research institute, however information about a scientist received directly from the family of it, is not permitted? That doesn't make any sense. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try one last time. If the Bourabai Institute had given the award, it would be a reliable source for that fact, and I'd be in favour of including it, despite the rather dubious nature of the Institute. But to verify an award given by the Dewey Foundation (also a little cranky, but a real , you need either a statement from Dewey (I can't find one) or a source that is considered reliable in general (for example, the New York Times) not just some one-man outfit in Kazakhstan with possible expertise in forest fires.JQ (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A new source has already been found and placed in the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You now source the award to one of Landscheidt's own papers in E&E. Apart from the fact that E&E is extremely questionable as a source in general (though much superior to the Bourabai nonsense), I could not find anything about Landscheidt and his awards, at least not in the online copies of the paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I provided not only the page, but the essay, volume and number. Not sure what you cannot locate it, perhaps you should confirm you are reading the correct volume etc. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As you man know, E&E is extremely hard to find, as very few libraries carry it. Most online copies of the paper do not have the appendix. However, I found an online offprint via Google Scholar, and it does have a short "About the author" note repeating the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Stephan, [7] looks like the source. As Stephan has said, E&E isn't generally considered a WP:RS for anything actually under dispute, which this is, so I've removed it. If we *did* believe it, we have a puzzle: it sez: After studying philosophy, law, astronomy, and natural sciences, at Göttingen University, Theodor Landscheidt has engaged mainly in independent interdisciplinary work covering astronomy, geophysics, climatology, cycle research, and solarterrestrial relations. Are we to assume that his career as a judge was some part time event? Did it ever occur? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting argument, anything not mentioned did not happen ... those are some straws you are grasping at. Bring it up at the RS for people to debate. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
E&E is trash. Furthermore, in this case its just repeating whatever L has told it. There is no reliability there at all. You have retreated from a whole series of positions on this. First the FAO cited Bourabai. Then they didn't, but you desperately clung to it anyway. Now (thank heavens) you have seen sense and abandoned Bouarabai, but sadly you're replaced it with more trash. What all this is trying to tell you is that sources for L's life are very very very thin on the ground, due to, errr, his lack of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I will let it stay out for now, since it seems to be a sore spot for you. Perhaps if he isn't notable you can put it up for AfD ... o, wait. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything other than your opinion to substantiate that E&E is trash? The publisher has been publishing for 47 years. Do your statements have any merit? Or is it just that E&E publishes articles that contradict your beliefs? I hear a lot about unsourced or bogus references applying to the parts you want removed (bordering on censorship) but that same principle doesn't apply to the parts you want included. We have a sourced description of T. Landsheidt studied and what he engaged in after those studies. No mention of Astrology or ever being a judge. Let's remove them and replace with a more current and relevant description. A WIKI page that includes his name is NOT a credible source. (Jarl87 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
E&E doesn't even satisfy the very minimal requirement of being listed in the ISI Science Citation Index, and its chief editor freely admits to following her personal political biases in managing the journal. There are tons of references for Landscheidt being an astrologer and high court judge. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there Raymond, you're getting carried away like the giddy young teenager you are :-). There are lots of astrology books saying L is an astrologer, so thats probably fair enough. Are there any judicial books saying he is a judge? I can find *no* reliable sources at all to him being a judge, let alone a supreme court judge. This is surprising. See the quote above. Is "judge" a mistranslation?
The most reliable mention I can find is a short blurb from Der Spiegel published in early 1988.[8] Roughly translated, it's "Theodor Landscheidt, former judge and solar cycle researcher, (would like to have?) predicted the stock market crash" presumably in reference to the October 1987 stock market crash. There's a construction in there that I can't quite make out regarding the stock market crash, but the "ehemaliger Richter" (former judge) bit is plain, and "Sonnenzyklenforscher" (solar cycle researcher) nails him down as our man. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is actually part of the TV program, announcing guests for the talk show "III nach 9". It describes Landscheidt as follows: "Theodor Landscheidt, former judge and solar cycle researcher, who claims to have predicted the stock crash". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm OK I think I have to give you that. I still find it odd that there is no apparent official record at all of his judgeship, let alone existence, online. Meanwhile, [9] might be useful for anyone wondering if he was an astrologer or not William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Tons of references? Any credible ones? As for the Journal, please include those minimal requirements and proof that this journal has no value. And does the editor's personal beliefs (who was the editor in 2003?) have anything to do with the article and the substance within that article? Are all the authors who published in this journal over the years now considered trash, wackos, irrelevant or generally no longer applicable because the ISI didn't list it this journal in it's index? If you are going to impose rules on sources to this degree then they should also apply that to every statement and opinion that you proclaiming with equal vigor. It appears to me that his research was often used by astrologers. Does that make him an astrologer? Did he write horoscopes? Do you have any examples? Did he rule on german cases? Any examples? (Jarl87 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Responsible Admin

If I was a Wiki Admin and wanted to delete someone with the same stature who I thought was an idiot like let's say 'the hockey stick guy' then I would purchase his book (Landscheidt's is available on amazon.co.uk) and look at the liner notes and follow the leads myself to his legitimate place in whatever field he's influenced (astrology or determistic 'compare by graph' analysis). Even if I didn't like the old guy when I was on the debate team, I would probably leave him a place in the space I frequent because that is the 'spirit of the community'. Strangely enough, the quality of the article would have surpassed the majority monitored while the consideration has taken place for said absense in the 'encyclopedia you can change' (cough).(Itsonlysteam (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Thank You

I like minimalist, tight articles. Thanks for all the edits, I knew somebody out there could get it to this point (142.59.246.176 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Yet more sourcing problems

For was a German judge, astrologer and climatologist.[1][2] one source is

  • [1]: (2004) Zodiac by Degrees: 360 New Symbols. Weiser Books, 15. ISBN 1578633044. This is an astrology text. Under "Aries" it gives a list of various examples, one of whom is TL. It says of him "Venus. German attorney and supreme court justice. Amateur astronomer - established galactic centre" Established galactic centre sounds like a very big claim... if its true, it should be in the article. If it isn't... then the obvious question is, can we trust any of the rest of it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a credible source. How do you argue that the sources listed above(Bourabai Source) aren't good enough when this is all you have? Theodor Landscheidt made money from astronomy, that makes him a professional astronomer. (Jarl87 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Show us one text written by Theodor Landscheidt that he named the 2030 Gleissberg minimum after himself. Show us one place where he established the galactic centre in his own writing. Show us one legal case that he ruled on in Germany. Show me one horoscope that he wrote. (Jarl87 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
  • I can show you where he successfully predicted an El Nino three years after his death. That is not astrology; It is climatology. He used astronomical data to make that claim. (Jarl87 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Constantly editing in your own form of reality to suit your agenda is not what the Wikipedia is about. You had a personal conflict with Theodor Landscheidt in the past which is obviously a factor in your edits. For the sake of accuracy, please refrain from making changes without very credible sources to back up the editorializing. (Jarl87 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
I'm a bit unsure which side you're arguing here. You're asserting that [1]: (2004) Zodiac by Degrees: 360 New Symbols. Weiser Books, 15. ISBN 1578633044 is not a reliable source? Then get angry with me, I didn't put it in William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This source is just hearsay, nothing more. Can you show where he established the "galactic centre" in his own words? If not, then why are you reverting changes without sources to back up these claims? (19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarl87 (talk • contribs)
All the sources for Landscheidt are hearsay. Re [10]: were do you find evidence for him making money from clim? Also, you removed the judge bit. I'm puzzled as to why. The dodgy astrology texts referenced support that. If you think they are too dodgy to support the claim, then they should be removed entirely William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You aren't at all puzzled. He wrote at least one book. That means he is an author. So why did you remove that? I have asked repeatedly for evidence that he was a judge(specifically a case, law degree, etc.) All you have is a 'dodgy' text. If it is so dodgy, why are you considering that a reliable source? He worked on climate studies for 30+ years and you still dare to call him an amateur. He correctly predicted a major climatic event 3 years after his death. You can't refute that but instead you label him as an amateur as a way to discount what Theodor Landscheidt had to say. That is why you remove reference to what he really worked on and include all the astrology stuff. The website of German astrologers is not a source for anything, nothing can be or should be used from that site. If it is the credibility of Wikipedia is jeopardized. You have already shown a personal conflict with this person, you should do what's right for Wikipedia and not try to blemish Theodore Landscheidt to further your own personal goals. If you have information to add, then add it, assuming that it meets the rules on sources and in your case your own dubious rules (see barborai above) on sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarl87 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never suggested that there were any reliable sources supporting him being a judge. Youre clearly unhappy with him being an astrologer, because (for obvious reasons) its rather embarassing. Might I suggest that his book, "Cosmic cybernetics: The foundations of a modern astrology" does rather suggest that he might, perhaps, just possibly, have some faint connections to astrology? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Galactic center, its an astrology term, not the literal meaning you are falsely applying. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah... when it said "astronomer" I assumed the bit afer the dash should be read in an astronomical context. But do go on. What do the astrologers mean by it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I am not an astrologer, just figured I would inform you of your contextual error. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Errr, so how do you know that it is to be interpreted in an astrology context? Oh... you mean [11] and stuff? OK! William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess after reading through an astrology book it might be odd for some to discern if the content has some relevance to astrology. I guess you can continue to assume and argue that the book is stating that Theodor discovered the center of the universe. I think it would be quite amusing to see you make that allegation to a larger audience with the supporting evidence you have. The other options are we can assume I am correct or you can do your own research and realize you are wrong, or the final as proposed above, you can bring it to a larger audience and seek more advice. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)