Talk:Viktor Schauberger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Lao Wai wilfully sabotaging the Viktor Schauberger booklist
I have now twice fixed the booklist, from which he removesevery single book, except the one that is _not even available_. Why in the world is he allowed to do this, please? Also, he is removing immense amounts of information from the wikipedia-entry. why? why in the world?
- Well the reasons ought to be obvious. This is an open edited entry and I did not like those "sources". The entries were not, in my opinion, encyclopaedic. In fact given the claims of involvement in advanced German aircraft design from soem highly questionable book I do not see how anyone can defend these "sources". The websites are even worse. I have asked for advice and I will get back to you, but I reserve the right to edit as I feel like. That is not willful sabotage. Notice at the bottom there someone else has questioned the POV nature of this article. Lao Wai 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- if you had only removed the UFO related things, then fine. but. you didnt. what you removed were: ALL books written by Alick Bartholomew, Callum Coats and Olof Alexandersson, which are the core of Schauberger research. you went and removed all "in-print" books, and left in the only out-of-print book (Schauberger Companion). why do this? is it because they all mention schauberger-implosion-antigravity-devices, which, when attaining a specific RPM, had to be bolted down in order to not fly off?
- also, you removed most of the schauberger-links, and the schauberger-mailinglist, claiming that they do not work, when 1) only one doesnt work (which i removed) 2) the rest work 3) the mailinglist would be a decent place to have a conversation about schauberger-related matters.
- explain why you had to remove the books, that are a central way to get information on Viktor Schauberger, please. explain why you picked "the schauberger companion" as the only book to be left in, when you could just by going on amazon find out that it is rare, and out of print. i have all the books on schauberger, except "nature as teacher", which is hard to get a hold of, and i have not ever even heard of the schauberger companion. i would love to meet Callum Coats and ask him what was the content of this book, but i would more so like to meet you and ask you why you chose that book over every other book? all the books in the booklist are based on, enlarge upon, and focus on Viktor Schauberger - why remove them?
- Granted, there is no singular one good "everything" book on Schauberger, although "hidden nature" and "living energies" and "living water" get very close. Granted, there is no singular good "everything" documentary on Schauberger, in english. Granted, there is no singular good "everything" webpage on Schauberger, in english, unfortunately. all these 3 things are a right shame. however, i do not quite understand why removing Frank Germano's research on Viktor Schauberger, is somehow be justified in your mind?
-
-
- Well yes. I did it precisely because they take the anti-gravity devices seriously. That is pretty much what I mean by "non-encyclopedic". In fact I would like to remove them all, but I am in the process if checking to see what they are like. Actually I don't think I said it was only because they did not work. Again "non-encyclopedic". I did go to Amazon. It never occurred to me to check if it was rare. It looked like the only vaguely non-flakey book and even that one was dubious to me. If Germano publishes anything in a peer reviewed journal I will be happy to look at it. What this looks like to me is a distortion of a real man's work by including UFO theories that I suspect are not very, ummm, can't think of a polite word for it. The fact that these claims are backed up by wedsites is immaterial. I would like to see some real published academic work. Do you have any? When Mr Germano starts going off into perpetual motion machines I tend to turn off. Lao Wai 17:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
The article is about Viktor Schauberger. It does not matter whether or not his theories are accepted by mainstream science or not, only that these were the areas he studied. I do not think there are grounds to remove sources based on what "you feel like." You don't simply remove sources because you feel like it without giving a valid reason. I fail to see how the sources are "non-encyclopedic" as they provide a great deal of incite into Schauberger and his work. Have you even read them Lao Wai? If not the only grounds by your own admission for removing those sources is "you dont like them" which is infact the only POV I see in the article. --Nazrac 07:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ... after negotiations with an American company, =
could you please be more precise? which company? thanks a lot in advance 70.84.56.171
- Donner-Gerschheimer consortium.
[edit] ... All patents are Austrian. ...
almost correct. but at least one patent regarding vortices (Forellenturbine) ist french.
as described in "Olof Alexandersson: Lebendes Wasser (1999), 259 Seiten, ISBN 385068377X" guess it should also be available in english since Alexandersson wrote it originally in swedish. 66.98.131.224
some patents were registered in u.s., great britain, switzerland, czech republic, france, germany.. and so on. even a brazilian patent
[edit] Cleanup and NPOV
The cleanup notice refers to the fact that this article has things like "We recommend checking these patents out at RexResearch (note, not all are there) ( http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm ) There are also patents in we believe germany, austria, switzerland and the czech republic. Much hunting will have to be done to get a proper website with all the patents sorted and with further information." This is not encyclopedic writing. Additionally, I'm not sure we need a synopsis of every patent the guy made, some of which are quite banal ("Conduits, channels, and other water sluices for the transporting felled trees or logs").
-
- the Logflume patent is in no way banal - these logflumes allegedly usurped the unviolable Law of Archimedes - and enabled heavier-than-water objects to be transported utilizing centripetal movement, and temperature gradients.
The NPOV refers to the fact that this article asserts many things as facts which it does not reference and are likely not from reputable sources, yet it does not make any overt indication of this. NPOV states that anything which may be considered a controversial point of view must be labeled as such and attributed if it is to be included. A claim like: "It is believed that his implosion technology was used in the "Foo Fighter" advanced weapons programs during WWII as documented by Nick Cook. He produced several working prototypes, but the Russian and American military confiscated his work at the end of the war," needs to be fully referenced in all parts of it. --Fastfission 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is outrages who is paying you to sneak around here and remove informations witch are correct. Are these informations to embarrassing for your employee ? Are you working for one of the agency's payed by the oil boys to spread misinformation everywhere where there is the danger of people becoming aware?
If the article asserts things that are factually innaccurate or disputed, that is not considered POV. Put the factually disputed tag on the article, not a POV tag. As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter whether or not Schauberger's work is accepted by mainstream science or not, only that he infact studied these areas. If there is a dispute on whether or not he actually studied certain theories such as vortex implosion engines, UFO technology ect. it should be mentioned in the article that "some sources allege..." (and cite them) rather than removing reference to that subject matter altogether. Because you don't agree with someone is no reason to remove it. Instead try discussing it on the talk page or simply revise that part of the article and give your reasons for doing so on the talk page. --Nazrac 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
