Talk:1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg

Sun Dog
http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/nuremburg-ufo-battle-debunked/

I think this information is probably worth including in the article. 71.62.161.219 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks like a pretty good argument/option. Not sure if the source is good enough for wikipedia.  206.214.242.230 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This link now produces an error 404. 86.3.108.49 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Kalle (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC) I wasn't sure whether the source was good enough either, but I added it in as best I could

Title Change
I want to put on the record here that I made some changes to this article starting with the title of the entry which was listed as “1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg.” As celestial generally refers to stars and the night sky and this takes place during the daytime, this rings false. I considered a range of alternatives like “the dreadful apparition of Nuremberg,” “ 1561 aerial phenomenon --,” “1561 ufo phenomenon --,” “1561 meteorological phenomenon --,” but settled on “1561 sky phenomenon over Nuremberg” as having the least objectionable prejudgments of its nature. Dreadful apparition would be truest to the text of the broadsheet, but could be thought as skewing things towards the unreal and visionary. Sky phenomenon seemed the most neutral term available for the situation.

I felt it necessary to add a translation of the text because some existing accounts of the case speak of there being discs present, but that seems false and this seems the best way to demonstrate that fact. Frank Johnson’s “Nuremburg 1561 UFO “Battle” Debunked” gives a different translation than the one used here. I only prefer this one because it reads more smoothly, not because of any material disagreements. Johnson’s gives a fuller sense of the ambiguities of translation, but these are matters better hashed out in different settings.Magonian (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous title is what this phenomenon is most commonly known as, so inventing an alternative title without sources to back it is not consistent with WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the phenomenon occurred between 4am and 5am, which is pre-dawn and thus at night. Whether the phenomenon was a meteor shower, aurora, UFO's, or mass hallucination of course is speculative. - MrX 11:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have also made some change to your bold edits. Your edits overall were good, but there was too much prominence given to one source in the lede. Some of the edits to the last section are lacking inline citations for verification and seem as if they may be original research. - MrX 11:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is boring without the colored woodcut picture.
It used to be on previous versions but is now removed. Way to remove a huge primary source and the only interesting visual thing about this article, dumb-butts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.143.22 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg → 1561 Nuremberg broadsheet – What is being described here is not so much the supposed event, whose historicity is uncertain, but the broadsheet that serves as its sole source. The more comprehensive German article recognizes this by way of the title de:Nürnberger Flugblatt von 1561.  Sandstein  15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 00:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Where is the logic of that? The subject of the article is the event, not the broadsheet; only one sentence is about the broadsheet, and only one source (which actually doesn’t work) relates to it. The rest is about the event; its history, description and interpretation, with corresponding sources. The fact that the article contains a long quote from the primary source doesn’t make that the subject. As for articles in other projects, all the others have the same subject (ie the event) and comparable titles (viz: French, Spanish, Italian, etc),, while even the German article is about the event (Das Nürnberger Himmelsspektakel von 1561 ist ein ungewöhnliches Ereignis...), and is only at the current title because someone moved it there, without discussion, a while ago. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Moonraker12. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Another siege"?
The last paragraph of the section "modern interpretations" makes little sense to me. The opening words are, "On Good Friday, 1554 another siege happened". What does that mean? Firstly, the phenomenon described on Hans Glaser's broadsheet reportedly took place in 1561, so the word "another" is confusing at best. Secondly, what does the word "siege" mean in this context? The reported phenomenon in 1561 did not involve a siege being laid to the city of Nuremberg. Thirdly, "one broadsheet publisher described mock suns that prognosticated God's will wanted confession of sinful ways" is a grammatically incorrect sentence. Fourthly, what does it mean that "mock suns prognosticated God's will"? Finally, the only source that is cited for the enitre paragraph is a 1982 book by Otto Billig, which I would consider a weak source. I recommend deletion of the paragraph. Does anyone object? Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It has been six months, and nobody has objected, so I have deleted the paragraph. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't Glaser simply have been lying?
Baffles me that that isn't listed as one of the theories, we have a singular source of someone saying absolutely wild things. This isn't a sun dog, this just seems like a hoax to me? 2001:1C05:250A:6A00:A46B:4E0D:E959:7096 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree it's a plausible theory, and if you can find a reliable source to cite, by all means, add it to the article. The ideas of Jung and some other moderns focus less on the 'reality' behind the incident and more on what the symbolism--invented though it might be--is saying.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)