Talk:Gunnar Heinsohn

tagging of the article/biased article
The article does not mentioned that many of Heinsohn's publications/results are highly controversial and often not accepted among the mainstream science community in particular those dealing with historic topics but others as well. A detailed discussion of the controversial nature of his research can be found at the German wikipedia entry, unfortunately also most of his sources regarding his reception within the german science community are in German as well, since his work is not that well known outside of Germany. For now please see the German entry for details, I will try to find out out whether there are some notetable english reviews available as well.--Kmhkmh 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did provide references to criticisms of Heinsohn´s view by mainstream scholars I could find, and I will add any further references I can find.


 * Heinsohn´s chronological ideas are usually classified as chronological revisionism and, as far as I can see, are not accepted by mainstream historians, which I did explicitly state in the article. Please add references to any detailed refutations of Heinsohn´s claims.


 * His and his colleague Steiger´s work in economics seems to enjoy a mixed reputation - again, I did reference a refutation by Nikolaus K.A. Läufer that is available online, and I did not reference that Steiger was awarded the William Kapp prize for and article based on his work with Heinsohn. So there seems to be both praise and criticism of this aspect of his work.


 * Regarding the theory that the witch-hunts were part of a general pro-natalist strategy towards repopulating europe, I referenced a refutation by Walter Rummel.


 * I am not aware of any discussions of Heinsohn´s work on the origins of priest-kingship or the holocaust.


 * I plan to rewrite and restructure the article, including a special section on criticism as soon as I have time. --Thewolf37 00:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations to critiques of Heinsohn's chronology revisioning from five critics have been added at the end of the entry with two quotations of conclusions and minimal discussion of another's     critique. To the best of my knowledge these critiques have not been answered. Heinsohn's 1994 article on the World War II airplanes buried in Greenland has been subjected to a scathing critique, "Fraud Exposed?" by Sean Mewhinney in December 1997 on a        list-serve which has been posted to the Discussion page for the Immanuel Velikovsky entry at       Wikipedia here. Phaedrus7 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: "Fraud Exposed?" cited above is a reply to an English translation of item no. 344 in Heinsohn's bibliography in Ref. 1 in the main Wikipedia entry that was posted to two list-serves in December 1997. Phaedrus7 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

tagging of the article/biased article
The representation of Heinsohn's theory on anti-Semitism is foreshortened and superficial. His main point was that Hitler wished to erase -- both physically and intellectually and spiritually -- the meaning and heritage of Judaism and Jewish ethics for Germany and his Western European allies by literally destroying the Jews as a people. This is how Heinsohn explained the Holocaust: as an attempt by Hitler and his Nazi cohorts to wipe out the memory and the idea of Jewish ethics, which Heinsohn describes at length in his book on the subject, so that the Germans as a people could have the stomach to wipe out and conquer other people and lands they wished to conquer, have the stomach either to make others slaves or to murder them without any pangs of what Hitler called the "Jewish invention": the conscience or ethical norms brought into Western civilization on the part of the Jews -- and carried on by the Christians. Hitler felt that it was the "Jewish conscience" he was fighting against and trying to eliminate for the Germans, so they would be capable of acting like either pagans or cavemen and be able to do what Hitler thought they should do, to act with utter conscienceless brutality to get what he felt was entitled to them. Hitler also saw in the Christian churches signs of this "Jewish conscience," so the Christian ethics he wanted to wipe out was a "Judaized" ethics and the church, insofar as they followed this "Jewish ethics," was equally endangered. That this was totally irrational on the part of Hitler is not the point. What is missing in the Wikipedia entry on Heinsohn is this vital aspect of Hitler's thinking and his intentions and the power this form of anti-Semitism possesses -- as an explanation for the Holocaust as well as an explication of anti-Semitism in general.Svetov (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)svetov
 * I agree that the article is still not in a good shape and it still lacks a better perspective on Heinsohn's mostly refuted claims. However the article at least mentions now in a few lines that some of his results are rejected by mainstream research, but it does not explain really why. The bigger problem however seems to be that most authors seems to be aware of the shortcomings but none (including me) seems to have time or interest to fix it. An alternative solution that might require less work is simply to replace this article by a translation of the german article, which is much better.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article still needs cleaning up. I've started by making sections and deleting the worst of the original research. Fences and windows (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The ideas of Heinsohn need to be presented better and there need to be more and better sources discussing them.
 * Personal life?
 * Bibiliography?
 * The references need tidying and duplicates removing.
 * Working from his entry on de.wiki may be of some help:.

In the context of Heinsohn's achievements as a scholar (presumably the reason why the article appears in the first place), what is the significance of what the Germans called Gdynia, what they used it for during the war and the specific unit where Heinsohn's father served? All this sounds a bit hagiographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.6.95 (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gunnar Heinsohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051018093908/http://www.univ-orleans.fr/deg/GDRecomofi/Activ/doclyon/steiger.pdf to http://www.univ-orleans.fr/deg/GDRecomofi/Activ/doclyon/steiger.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Gunnar Heinsohn. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/funnyguy_35/publikat-heinsohn-03-07.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/funnyguy_35/6IKSF31.heins-steiger.witchcraft.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Horrible POV
Heinsohn hasn't ignored the criticisms of his work. He has addressed them. In addition Charles Ginenthal tore the criticisms of Cochrane, Dardu etc. to shreds in his multi-volume Pillars of the Past books, exposing these criticisms as unfounded, and often based on circular logic or outright lies.

Also, "because of the problems with his methodology almost all professional historians..."?! How is this NOT POV? First, it's POV to say that his methodology has "problems". It only has "problems" if you have a POV about them. Secondly, how the the editors here claim that "almost all professional historians" say or feel anything at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.13 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, the only horrible POV I see is in your edit. I've reverted it. You seem quite au fait with Wikipedia alphabet soup ("POV") for an IP. Do you have an account? Bishonen &#124; talk 11:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC).


 * When "Dougweller" undid my constructive edit, she said that it was "unsourced pov". So, apparently making baseless attacks on someone, and outright lying is "sourced" and not "pov", yet trying to tidy it up, and adding actual facts IS "unsourced pov". Saying 'Heinsohn has not responded' is an outright falsehood. And, as stated, Ginenthal has devoted several hundred pages of published material refuting the nonsense that is held up as "proof" of Heinsohn's "problems". Yet this is blanked outright by Dougweller, while she also claims to know what "almost all professional historians" believe. This, after the article lists a series of professional historians who agree with Heinsohn's findings. This clearly IS "pov", as to make blanket statements about what "almost all professional historians" believe(which is clearly unsourced, and impossible to source anyway), while deliberately only showing one set of beliefs(those of Dwardu, Cochrane etc.), while deliberately blanking mention of the refutation/debunking of Dwardu/Cochrane etc's comments, is clearly presenting one side as "fact", and not even presenting the fact that there IS another side!!! "heinsohn has not responded"? yes he has, but this article refuses to allow mention of that. And, from i read, it is clear that the article that you are supporting is the very definition of horrible pov.


 * a)It is only allowing one side of a disagreement to be presented, while denying that the other side exists at all(eg. Heinsohn's responses, Ginethal's extremely detailed responses etc.) And not just that, but it claims that, eg. Ginenthals' refutations DO NOT EXIST AT ALL!!


 * b)It claims to 'know' what "almost all professional historians" believe.


 * c)It states outright that Heinsohn's methodology has "problems", rather than saying that historians(whether "almost all professional historians" or not) claim that Heinsohn's metholodogy has problems. So apparently Dougweller and you are either experts of stratigraphy, or more likely, you choose(because of "pov") to only accept as "Valid" and "real" those historians who tell you want you want to believe to be "true".


 * The article as it stands, and that you reverted to, is terribly biased, it's incomplete, and it's something one would expect from some sort of fascist dictatorship, not an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.13 (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, Doug Weller has taken this to the fringe theory noticeboard for discussion, where more people will see it than just those few (if any) who may have this article on their watchlist. Please feel free to weigh in there, in this section. BTW I don't think "Doug" is often a female name. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC).


 * The IP has actually improved it slightly although he/she still hasn't sourced their edit. But I'm very disappointed. Given the language the IP has used, I think I can suggest that the IP is either ignorant about Heinsohn's and Ginenthal's major critics or is being dishonest in not using them - or rather one specific one, Heinsohn's friend Ev Cochrane. "It is with a profound sense of ambivalence that I write this article, taking a critical stance towards the historical reconstruction of Gunnar Heinsohn. Not only do I regard Gunnar as a personal friend, he has long been a supporter of Aeon, first as a contributor of numerous articles and also through featured appearances at various symposia. Yet the suspicion has been building for some time now that all is not well with Dr. Heinsohn’s handling of the ancient sources." "Heinsohn’s reconstruction cannot be taken seriously for the simple reason that it is entirely at odds with the historical record it seeks to reform." "That Heinsohn is forever misrepresenting his sources does not inspire confidence in his methodology. Nor has Heinsohn been forthright or prompt in responding to criticisms as they arise. Witness his response to the objection raised by Stiebing: The fact that Nabonidus excavated an inscription of Hammurabi is impossible under Heinsohn’s scheme. Rather than just admit he was wrong or offer a substantive rebuttal, Heinsohn recently admitted that he hadn’t even bothered to check out the source in the ten years since it has come to his attention!" He also criticises Ginenthal in a separate article, concluding with "Looking to the likes of Ginenthal and Heinsohn for guidance on matters of ancient chronology is a bit like seeking out Clark Griswold for advice on the best route to Wally’s World. I mean, these guys can’t seem to get anything right.!" So either the IP is too ignorant to be writing about Heinsohn, or? Doug Weller  talk 19:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

So personal attacks make for a good historian?

As Ginenthal says:

''What is also extremely inappropriate and unscholarly on Cochrane’s part is not only the rude ad hominem he employs on me, but his going to the length of attacking a book he had at that time not read. As a scholar in the field of Velikovskian studies, he is, presumably, well aware that Velikovsky’s many critics had also not read Velikovsky’s books before raising that same form of hateful comment. Not having read my book, Cochrane says it is “wrongheaded”, “biased,” and “virtually worthless.” ... Interestingly, his rude tone and words about me will, I am sure, be kept from the readers of his critique of my book, if it is ever presented. I believe this unseemly side of Cochrane will not see the light of day in Aeon. However, more than four years after his promise to write a daily or weekly point by point rebuttal of Pillars of the Past I have found nothing from Cochrane or from his associates in touch with the Kronia talk group of his promised critique. With respect to Cochrane accusing me of “chiding” him “for raising the issue of astronomical retrocalculation,” let him produce such evidence. I am rather a great supporter of astronomical dating of the ancient world via the attested documents supported by careful retrocalculations. I do not recall ever having claimed that astronomical evidence is of little or no value. If Cochrane has such statements by me, let him publish them.

[we need to keep copyright text down to about 240 words, so I've cut this - the IP is welcome to substitute an equivalent text, but not restore all the copyright material. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg!! Every point you made, and proudly stand by, was refuted almost line-by-line in Pillars of the Past Volume 2(ISBN: 9781329745841), and far more besides. Yet, you choose to cherry pick quotes that are are actually more insult than historical critique, but delete anything that defends Heinsohn? I also see that one of your friends has AGAIN reverted all my edits, including the grammatical one(of the lack of comma which made the sentence as it is now effectively meaningless). Clearly there IS "pov" at work here...yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.13 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Huge chunks of copyright material aren't allowed anywhere in Wikipedia space, so I've cut this down. If the IP has something they want to add to the article, they can replace what I've left with it. Doug Weller  talk 13:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ginenthal's comments
Dougweller has no problem with people like Cochran making unfounded comments about Heinsohn and using those in the article. Ginenthal's comments are just a few of his FROM HIS PUBLISHED book(with ISBN listed) that are a response to Cochran, showing how Cochran's criticisms are baseless. Yet Dougweller blanks those as being "insulting", while in the same breath referring to Heinsohn's decades of hard work and research as "nonsense".

I'm not saying that everything Ginenthal stated about Cochran's criticism of Heinsohn should be included, only select passages, which can make the article have a more neutral tone. Yet Dougweller chose to blank it entirely. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.13 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't up to me or you to decide what is unfounded. And it is a violation of our WP:BLP policy to say someone has lied. Doug Weller  talk 13:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I never said anyone had lied. In a PUBLISHED BOOK Ginenthal states that Cochran's criticisms of Heinsohn are without valid foundation, and that Cochran had falsified what Heinsohn had supposedly said.

If for example, in an article about David Icke, a published book stated that some of Icke's comments had no factual basis, would it be "a violation of our BLP policy" to quote those comments in the article? According to you, it would. Again, Cochran criticised Heinsohn, which you seem to think is fine. But quoting from a published book which responds to Cochran's criticisms of Heinsohn is "a violation of our BLP policy"? Surely Cochran's comments themselves are "a violation of our BLP policy" as they are effectively saying that Heinsohn is wrong? Or are there one set of rules for BLP policy if it's someone you agree with, and another set for someone who you think is "nonsense"?

I see now that someone has removed part of Cochran's attack on Heinsohn though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.13 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * When you write here suggesting it's true that " In addition Charles Ginenthal tore the criticisms of Cochrane, Dardu etc. to shreds in his multi-volume Pillars of the Past books, exposing these criticisms as unfounded, and often based on circular logic or outright lies." it's a BLP violation. Attributing such statements to a known author would probably not be (depends upon context). I blanked copyvio - can't see where I said insulting, please show me a quote for that.


 * And why were you restoring unsourced text claiming that mainstream historians reject him? I removed "but is generally being rejected by mainstream historians." and "These critiques have been ignored by Heinsohn. Because of the problems with his methodology almost all professional ancient historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, archaeologists, and specialists in scientific dating methods reject Heinsohn's claims." but you restored both claims, sourcing the first one for some odd reason to works by Heinsohn, which I'd also removed. Even more oddly, the IP's rationale was "reinstated citation needed tags. If they can't be verified, then these comments should be deleted." I've removed "but is generally being rejected by mainstream historians.      as Heinsohn isn't a reliable source for mainstream historians and I don't think you can source a statement saying that mainstream historians reject him as by and large they just ignore him. Please don't restore it again. And please learn to do inline citations properly, the sources shouldn't show up in the ariticle.  Doug Weller  talk 11:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A simple placement error. The article claims that "citation is needed" for Heinsohn claiming that Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization arose around 1200 BC(not 1100 BC as the article states). These links were to articles by Heinsohn stating exactly that. the problems were that a)They were incorrectly inserted at the end of the wrong paragraph, and b)the Wiki formatting. Rather than simply delete them entirely, it wouldn't have hurt to place them after the correct "citation needed" tag, and help 'wikiformat' them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.72 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, we only need one source for that, which do you suggest? Doug Weller  talk 11:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The one that summarises Heinsohn's findings as a whole the best is probably "The Restoration of Ancient History" at http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/heinsohn.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.13 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Doug Weller  talk 17:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Basic issues
I made some changes to rearrange the article in line with basic WP:biography requirements. The article should inform about Heinssons biography and may refer to his publications, both as an author and as scholar. Not all of it is "research". Polentarion Talk 10:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. By the way, we use lower case 'b' for biblical when the word is used as an adjective, see MOS:CAPS. Doug Weller  talk


 * Youre welcome. Did I use Biblical? Thnx for any correction. Polentarion Talk 11:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gunnar Heinsohn. 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 tag to http://www.samf.aau.dk/~cbruun/phd/phd_thesis.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/funnyguy_35/6IKSF31.heins-steiger.witchcraft.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925073709/http://www.maverickscience.com/gunnar.pdf to http://www.maverickscience.com/gunnar.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713201341/http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/The_Security_Demographic/Summary.shtml to http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/The_Security_Demographic/Summary.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311022800/http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2003-03/14hendrixson.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2003-03/14hendrixson.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)