Talk:Die Glocke (conspiracy theory)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose[edit]

Yes but what was it? How did it work and what was it supposed to do? Was it a weapon? If so how was it supposed to work? Was it some propulsion experiment? Again how was it supposed to work? I am sorry but we have had half a century of scientific progress and the implied notion that nasty Nazi's came up with anti gravity and flying saucers is frankly bollocks, designed to appeal to the flat Earth society. Now I am not saying they weren't experimenting with something but without hard evidence and replicated experimentation is this really worthy? Shouldn't this be classed as populist pseudo science like Little Green Men and the Loch Ness Monster? I only know of one modern experiment using a metal high pressure vessel pumped full of hot liquid metal and stirred up to high speed and it has the relatively benign purpose of modeling the magnetic fields of the Sun. I think this article should reflect considerably more skepticism. In good faith. AMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.104.171 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is nonsense from beginning to end. It all sources back to one person telling a story with no facts whatsoever to back it up. Purpose aside, there is no evidence that it ever existed. Its not even pseudo science. Its a modern folk tale. 184.63.149.199 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real references needed[edit]

The sources used for this article are pseudoscienctific fantasies written by authors that cite "something that someone mentioned" as a source. There's a lot of hard hitting evidence that can be used in this article without needing to refer to fallacies and fantasies. There needs to be some actual research done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.60.240 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research? What references should be used for this that haven't been used (they have to mention Die Glocke of course)? Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jv 46.114.32.236 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the so-called references all pull up page-not-found errors. Although some of the documents or programs exist, I was unable to find the subject matter actually mentioned in them. At first, they seem legitimate, but they do not actually support the article. Perhaps the entire article should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.164.77 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kecksburg and Die Glocke[edit]

Physicist Dr. Joseph P. Farrell associates 'Die Glocke' with the Kecksburg UFO incident in his books and radio interviews:

I hate to break it to you, but Farrell isn't a physicist — he's a theologian! Cf. Joseph P. Farrell. As such, he's no more qualified to discuss these matters than you or I. Oboroten (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference section[edit]

Far too large, some of the links are to sites which may be holding copyright articles that shouldn't be on there. Ditto the videos, which may be copyright. The idea of a reference section is not to list everything that you can find about a subject. dougweller (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note #1, Kiger, Patrick J. "Nazi Secret Weapons". National Geographic. Retrieved July 23, 2010, the link to "Nazi Secret Weapons" is dead and I cannot find it on the NatGeo site.

  1. Should I make a note that it's dead?
  2. Should I try to find a replacement link like on archive.org?
  3. How would I make the edit for a replacement?

Chuckr30 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed[edit]

As the result of merging in The Bell and lack of writing skills by some authors, there are several redundancies in the articles, sometime telling essentially the same statement three times. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries[edit]

Added the below but removed links to google video and youtube. AWT (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Forums[edit]

I know forums are not usually linked but I added the below first because it was a skeptical thread, adding a skeptical POV to the other non skeptical links and references in the article. Is this this not acceptible?

Sorry, it's still a forum (and one full of posters who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic (I read ATS from time to time, some of those posters are seriously scary). dougweller (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing it. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was used as a source, but it's just thrown in there basically saying to go look at it for any information. Reignfire (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

The below were removed becuase: dl all links to greyfalcon, whose site says "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. "

If they are found elsewhere would it be ok? AWT (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, if you can be sure there are no problems, maybe. dougweller (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

First, I wanted to add Magnetic Field Disruptor because it's about the device discussed in the 'The New Nazi-Bell' article. Someone else removed it so I'm mentioning it here to see what others think.

Second, I haven't read through all the links listed, but curious why Wewelsburg and Karl Maria Wiligut are? I saw they're Nazi occult related, but I don't see how they relate to The Bell, unless I missed something. Reignfire (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the Magnetic Field Disruptor article as a {{prod}}, but if a device of that type is described in an article by Witkowski, I guess that makes it a reliable source (well, as reliable as things get in this field!) Please remove the tag and reference the work of Witkowski in that article, with an appropriate citation. --TS 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with Witkowski. I'm just saying that the device in that article matches the device mentioned in The New Nazi-Bell article by Tim Ventura who speculated that someone is attempting to recreate The Bell. Reignfire (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I got a bit muddled there between the original "Nazi-Bell" described in Prawda O Wunderwaffe and this later article. I see, if it's just this article that looks to have been published on a website then it's probably not going to match our criteria. --TS 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Question

Doug are you saying it is now wikipedia's position that it will not link to OTHER sites that contain copyrighted information? can you please substantiate that in the rules somewhere?

That is a HUGE change in copyright law on the internet if one site must now verify that another unrelated site it links to has the right to the content the SECOND site contains. That frankly a dangerous and seemingly inappropriate extension of copyright law and one that is actively fought against by leading legal groups such as the electronic frontier foundation.

Basically it would seem if wiki was to take that stance it would automatically being claiming liability for any links it has to other site where copyright violations took place. Who is making that decision for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopilotwiki (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Wikipedia:Identifying copyrights in links. Note that this isn't just a guideline, it's policy. And it isn't a recent change. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greyfalcon site again[edit]

Please folks, once again, this site openly admits to copyright violation on its home page. It needs to be removed from the article. I only have intermittent access right now and really don't want to have to do it myself, but I think this is pretty much a must, we don't link to copyvio sites. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely hoax[edit]

I added a "Hoax" tag, since apparently all information comes from the writing of one person, who first wrote about it in 2000. Did the other subsequent writers have access to any sources beyond what apparently were verbal sources given to the 2000 writer by persons no linger living? Edison (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Udo Holey is a german esoteric - and nationalism - associated author who should NOT be taken serious. He writes conspiracy - crap and seems to be a liar. Wikipedia should seriously think about removing him as a serious source of information.


The whole article about the "Glocke" is probably a hoax without realistic background. Only NAzi - UFO - conspiracy - nonsense like Neuschwabenland and other lies.... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artiranmor (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, most definitely. Like lampshades and conveyor belts, Die Glocke is little more than a bizarre "Germans-are-evil-sorcerers" propaganda piece that has survived thus far only because it has never been significant enough to warrant any investigation on historical merit. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Die Glocke is that there is nothing to even investigate. Tne entire story sources back to one untrustworthy person telling a story with no documentation. 184.63.149.199 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gluszycy Voice[edit]

Material sourced to Gluszycy Voice isn't an acceptable source for inclusion in this article. Unfortunately, comments posted on webnews pages are not considered verifiable reliable sources. The newspaper site cited includes a disclaimer (in Polish) that specifies that "comments are personal opinions of users" and not subject to editorial oversight. Also, the comments appear to be a transcription of a conversation regarding rumored German atomic research in the Wenceslas mine area, and do not bear any direct relation to the subject of the article. We can only include "speculation" published by reliable sources. We are not permitted to synthesize material to create our own unique or novel speculative conclusions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Die Glocke Information by Lucky Louie[edit]

As it is not obvious how to communicate directly with Wikipedia editor Lucky Louie over rejection of additions to the article Die Glocke I have added my response here to elecit some sort of two way communication.

The update which I added quotes as it's source the editor of a local newspaper in Poland, taken from an interview conducted by the author himself. Users are also invited to make their own contributions and these are not subjetc to editorial oversight. Lucky Louie has attached significance to this disclaimer to infer wrongly that the article by the newspaper's editor from the interview of a Polish Army officer was not subject to editorial oversight. This inference is an incorrect speculation. The newspaper has a staff of writers and an editor producing articles which are subject to editorial oversight whilst on the newspaper's website users of the website are not subject to editorrial oversight.

Next issue the Wikipedia article itself relates to valid speculations about the nature and purpose of the device housed inside Wenceslas mine during World War Two. Luckie Louie has permitted various speculations that it housed zombies, or UFOs, yet finds difficulty with the transcript of an interview with a Soviet physicist who was actually there and actually knows what was in the mine during WW2.

Lucky Louie rejects this newspaper article by a credible newspaper editor, citing from a retired Polish Army officer with the transcript of an interview with a credible scientist.

This is not original research, or personal opinions of my own. These are credible verifiable sources who shed light on the original topic.

Luckie Louie also rejects my contribution on grounds that this contribution is not relevant to the original topic Die Glocke yet because nobody knows what Dir Glocke was Lucky Louie is in no position to know with any certainty what is or is not relevant. Teh wikipedia article itself cites that it is speculation about Die Glocke. Lucky Louie does not know what Die Glocke is and for him to apply his own personal opinion of what Die Glocke is not is to be in breech of Wikipedia's own editorial policy. I invite Lucky Louie to enter into a reasonable dialogue rather than continue issuing edicts which may not be discussed.

Sigsmund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigsmund (talk • contribs)

I'm not even sure you have the right article. Perhaps you're looking for German nuclear energy project? Or Project Riese? This article is specifically about a fabled antigravity/UFO device made popular by fringe authors. It's not about allegations of cyclotrons at the Wenceslaus mine. Again, I'll try to clarify: our "no original research" policy prevents editors from finding primary source material that makes reference to German activities at the Wenceslaus mine in WWII and interpreting it to have direct significance to "Die Glocke". We require high quality secondary sources that make the connection to Die Glocke themselves. We can't do it for them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent changes[edit]

I made some changes to the article. The intent was to make sure a few points are clear:

- The entire story of Die Glocke sources based to the Polish Journalist. There are no other primary sources or documentation for its existance other than his personal account.

- The article should be careful to avoid the interference that sources that are exclusively based on the account of the journalist constitute seperate sources for the existance of Die Glocke. As far as I know, everything other than the first book is a secondary source.

- The interrogation of the SS Officer which is claimed to be the unseen true original source needs to be put in context. The SS officer's service record is well known as he is a rather notorious individual. He served in the occupation forces in Poland and Norway. He never had any scientific or technical role during the war. 70.234.243.58 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, but we need to attribute this specific analysis to a reliable and objective source and avoid original research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you were concerned with the accuracy of the article, you could find the service record of Jakob Sporrenberg at [1]. It can also be referenced via 'The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945' by Gerald Reitlinger on p. 515. You could have found one of these references on Wikipedia if you had bothered to look.
Your argument that stating the simple fact that the only primary source for this entire story is Igor Witkowski constitutes original research is difficult to comprehend. You seem to be suggesting that we need a source to establish the absence of sources.
The article as it stands now improperly uses secondary sources to create a false inference that there are additional primary sources beyond Witkowski.
I made the edits in good faith. I went out of my way to explain the edits in the discussion. And you simply reverted every word I wrote. There is no reason to play games. Obviously you see yourself as owner of the article and other editors are unwelcome. This note is left as a warning to anyone else who comes across this particular dungheap of an article that its not worth bothering with. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think two things are happening here; you may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia editorial policies, and you may not have closely read the article. The article does not imply there are any sources for the story beyond Witkowski. It makes clear he is the sole originator of claims, and that they were retold and attributed to him by others: "Although no evidence of the veracity of Witkowski's claims have been produced, they reached a wider audience when they were related by British author Nick Cook in his non-fiction book The Hunt for Zero Point." Not sure what I can say to mitigate your frustration, except I think you may have jumped to a false conclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict)(that is, I wrote this before LuckyLouie's post but am still posting it).:::We always have a problem (and by we I definitely include me) about situations like this. I'd be surprised if you were wrong, but WP:VERIFY is fundamental policy. Maybe we can figure out some way to not suggest any other sources are independent. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put in the words Nazi, Ufo, Area 51 and you get nonsense like this which is regularly aired on TV to keep up the pretence that there is any validity to this hoax at all. They start off talking about UFO's do a detour to Nazis and this article's nonsense and end up with the B2 bomber. It's a comedy of.. sorry, for fools.1812ahill (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates[edit]

Why does this article show coordinates? It is not a place. I suspect it is pointing to the Wenceslaus mines, in which case the coordinates should be moved to the appropriate place in the prose. I see a circular structure on the satellite image, possibly the alleged "henge". SpinningSpark 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the coordinates of an old storage tank frame, although it's really not verifiable as being anything. Good catch. I would have never noticed it was there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Mercury ... doesn't exist?[edit]

This article implies it does, or rather, doesn't explicitly point out that red mercury is a hoax element. It probably should, the link to red mercury in the article is a pretty amusing read however. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

An image [2] labeled as "An alleged photo taken within the facility" is actually a black and white version of a color photo taken at the Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser microfusion in Warsaw. [3]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actual historical information.[edit]

Die Glocke was the only clandestine research and development operation to be given the highest possible classification, "Kriegsentscheidend", (ie: Decisive for the outcome of the war) guaranteeing any required resources were provided as quickly as possible. In April 1945 General Hans Kammler, (head of Wencelas Mine operation) refused a direct order from Hitler to release the Junkers Ju-390 allocated to the mine so the entire German high command could use it to evacuate, (only two Junkers Ju-390 evacuation planes had been built by this time)because the Die Glocke's evacuation had higher priority. Even today it is astonishing that the safety a single military research and development project is deemed more important then that of a country's entire military leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.194.247 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So these non-existent Junkers Ju 390s were used for the non-existent Glocke? I think you are on the wrong page, this isn't a forum to discuss Die Glocke, it's the place where we dicuss improvements to the article. Now if you have a WP:Reliable source mentioning this.... Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term Kriegsentscheidend was actually used on elements of the German nuclear research program (in particular, the electric power needs of the research) which have been incorrectly associated (after the fact) with Die Glocke. There was only one Ju-390 prototype which was designed as a long-range bomber. Claims for more Ju-390s are conspiracy nonsense even though Wikipedia treats it as a fact. 184.63.149.199 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

I'm putting an edit summary here because the article's page suddenly and inexplicably 'twitched' (scrolled a short distance) so that my mouse pointer was over 'Save page' just as I was about to put the summary in the appropriate box, i.e. the edit window. The result was that I inadvertently pressed 'Save'
It should read: 'Copyedit - including putting non-English words in italics'.

RASAM (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

questionable claims in article[edit]

"Farrell says that the device was considered so important to the Nazis that they killed 60 scientists that worked on the project and buried them in a mass grave.[10] In his book, Hitler's Suppressed and Still-Secret Weapons, Science and Technology (2007), Stevens states that Die Glocke contained red mercury[11]"

After looking at the material in question, I can find no basis for these statements other than either pure speculation or Farrell/Stevens just says so. They are not primary sources. They present no references to any sources to support these statements. What is the basis for treating either as supportable facts? 184.63.149.199 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken page (yet another one)[edit]

Note that this is yet another broken Wikipedia page that is delivered as the mobile version to a high resolution tablet device. These have been proliferating during the last few months and it's time Wikipedia got its act together and fixed it! One almost wonders why there is a mobile version at all these days as the proportion of mobile devices with the low screen resolution such pages were originally intended for is declining rapidly. Meanwhile, problems such as this make the whole Wikipedia experience very poor for the large and growing proportion of users with high resolution devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.241 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams and technical details[edit]

I'm sure this thing is total bullshit, but for the sake of having a more entertaining article that would have a better chance of convincing 10 year olds, I'm gonna put these links here:

GMRE (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is total bullshit. But this stuff can be entertaining if its kept off the actual page. The material you found assumes that the "bell" existed and then tries to walk backward into what the design was. The problem however is that all the designs seem to be for devices that would instantly explode and perform no useful function other than perhaps poisoning and/or killing anyone near to it. Lots of interesting discussions about how to do dangerous and useless things with science. But nothing useful. Its all based on the idea that hidden laws of physics can be discovered by throwing a pile of junk together and hoping.

Red Mercury doesn't exist and never existed. There is nothing magical about "plasma" or its physical properties. The sum total of all information about "the bell" comes from one person who has not one bit of independent documentation. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

toward a better summary description[edit]

Currently: "purported top secret Nazi scientific technological device, secret weapon, or Wunderwaffe"

Most of those words seem totally redundant, unnecessary and phrased in a very clumsy manner. If its a "Wunderwaffe", it would be best to call it a "purported Nazi "superweapon" (Wunderwaffe)". "scientific technological device" is a silly, rather childish phrase. Calling it "secret" twice in the same sentence seems equally pointless.

The link to "Nazi occultism" (also in the introduction) seems unsupported. Does anyone have an example of an author who ties the supposed device to the "occult" rather than pseudoscience? 75.17.124.178 (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular speculation[edit]

The second paragraph of the lead begins, "According to Patrick Kiger writing in National Geographic magazine, Die Glocke has become a popular subject of speculation and a following similar to science fiction fandom exists around it...". Surely either it is a popular subject of speculation or it isn't? If Patrick Kiger writing in National Geographic magazine is considered a reliable source, then the article should just state as a fact that it is. I'm changing it accordingly. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Die Glocke. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism section[edit]

There are way more academics and journists who've looked at this subject and don't think it's legit than the other way around. Where's the other side? 2605:A000:1301:8B09:196A:C6AF:CAAD:2BEC (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Comment[edit]

A lot of dubious detail has accumulated from dubious sources such as Stevens and Schelm (sp.?) and will need to be cleaned out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: Stevens seems to be a crackpot.[4] Nazi UFOs is as bad or worse. I love the use there of this guy.[5] Doug Weller talk 19:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fringe theory, in order to create an objective article about Die Glocke, WP:FRINGE requires us to use WP:FRIND sources that are independent of the fringe theory. Accordingly, I have removed material cited to Stevens, Marrs, and Schelm. I have expanded cited and attributed material from our remaining non-fringe sources, copyedited the text, and summarized the lead per WP:LEAD.[6] - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on this source?[7] The publisher mostly focuses on military aviation history. --mikeu talk 23:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I saw Operation Lusty: The Race for Hitler's Secret Technology turn up in a Google books search. I was surprised to discover the text about Die Glocke was a word-for-word copy of one of the previous versions of this Wikipedia article, with a few of the authors comments thrown in, so I think it's not useable per WP:MIRROR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work by the way. The article has vastly improved and expanded with the addition of multiple reliable WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style/Description[edit]

Eventually, someone will suggest separating the article into headings again, like this, where a "Description" section offers readers critique-free claims about Xerium 525, red mercury, gory deaths, and time travel. I understand that style of sectionalization is appropriate for articles on mundane subjects, but given that this subject is essentially an extraordinary fringe pseudoscientific claim from start to finish, I feel that having criticism remain integrated with the text, rather than ghettoized into a separate section, is the best format. What say others? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory[edit]

The (hoax) parenthetical in the article title is rather thinly supported; it is suggested by one source as being among other options like exaggeration and rumor. Seeing as we now have multiple RS calling Die Glocke a conspiracy theory, it might be appropriate to move the article title from Die Glocke (hoax) to Die Glocke (conspiracy theory). The topic is roughly analogous to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Why is the word hoax being used in the title? The article makes clear that no one knows if the bell was real or not, yet you put the word hoax in the title as if you have some evidence that it is completely made up. You don't though. Maybe it was made up, but until you know, you shouldn't be putting a word like that in the title that is clearly biased. 209.179.71.76 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP. Fashion is of late that articles on fringe or hoax topics are to be deleted, because it is impossible (allegedly) to discuss any such claims as claims, rather than as "truth". Of course we know they're not truth, but we can still document the story.
WP is of course wrong here, but it's another sign of the dumbing-down which has been going on for the last year or so.
AfD is probably imminent. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really care if the word “hoax” is in the title or not. The important thing is to have an objective article using WP:FRIND sources and avoiding sources that promote the fringe theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
" sources that promote the fringe theory."
But WP now seems incapable of distinguishing between a source that promotes a theory and one which describes it. Every Fortean reviewer is being canned as "non-RS". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for WP in general, but at least in this article we can agree that Farrel, Stevens, Marrs, and Schelm are promoters of this particular fringe theory. I think WP:FRIND is pretty clear that unless their ideas have been discussed in objective sources, we shouldn't be citing their books. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is correct. If we can find reliable sources discussing this, then we can use them. If not, we shouldn't be citing unreliable sources directly, not even for their own claims—they cannot be trusted to contextualize or otherwise appropriately represent the situation, for example. We see this over and over again with fringe proponents—it's a hallmark of fringe status, after all. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But WP's definition of "reliable" has shifted (yet again) to "one which agrees with a vociferous handful of editors", rather than anything more objective. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a source you think should be included in this article that is being suppressed by other editors, let me know. I'm not afraid of any cabal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is primarily an issue of whether or not this is the primary topic. The page was moved in July of last year on the assumption that it wasn't, yet Die Glocke still redirects here. Lizard (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to the name with "(hoax)" (although I'd be open to other disambiguators), and Die Glocke now redirects to Glocke, a disambiguation page that also contains real things. —Kusma (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sold that "hoax" is the right disambiguator. Basically, this is a plot element in some Nazi fan fiction. Perhaps "legend" is better, or "fictional device"?? —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with that too. Hoax implies a deliberate deception. I'm willing to believe that subsequent people who have written about this have done so in good faith. So I guess what it comes down to is what we think of Witkowski. His failure to identify any sources tends to make me believe the worst, but this could still just be a case of self-deception or willingness to believe. I don't like your alternatives either. This is not a work of fiction as such, it is untruth presented as truth. Urban myth, or one of its synonyms, is a closer description. SpinningSpark 12:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that hoax implies deliberate deception. Support legend or myth or conspiracy theory — being roughly analogous to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory. i.e. a fantastic weapon shrouded in secrecy by military authorities. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Die Glocke (conspiracy theory) works for me. "Legend" doesn't seem right. None of the definitions given at Legend fit very well. SpinningSpark 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wenceslas Mine" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wenceslas Mine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8#Wenceslas Mine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mucholapka, Muchotapka and The Henge. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly an early cyclotron prototype[edit]

I’m not too well versed in this subject, however I have heard the claim before from an “expert” on Quora that Die Glocke was an attempt at creating a cyclotron. Not sure if anyone has an opinion on this, or maybe some more information. 207.164.49.202 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the article: https://www.quora.com/Can-somebody-explain-the-working-principle-of-the-Die-Glocke-or-Nazi-bell/answer/Daniel-Palacios-5?ch=17&oid=165275136&share=e5070ba5&srid=hzAl6q&target_type=answer 207.164.49.202 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use that in the article. See WP:Quora. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Die_Glocke_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_1&oldid=1190843647"