Talk:Welteislehre

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science 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. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Bottom‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

A new twist...

Would be worth mentioning that a few years ago, they did find ice in some polar craters on the moon. An odd postscript to the story...

Are you thinking of the frozen astronaut urine? --Commander Keane 13:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah! I asked myself what a "disambiguation crater" may be - I suspected it to be traces left in a Wikipedia article after someone disambiguated it :) --Hob Gadling July 4, 2005 22:46 (UTC)

Name

Is this called "Welteislehre" or "Eisweltlehre"? Ardric47 22:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first. I never heard of the second. --Hob Gadling 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some citations, especially for the fact that most of the German populace believed in this cosmology during WWII.

unreferenced tag

I concur with anonymous above. If it was widely believed, there must be books, etc. that can be cited. I also added a {{fact}} to a statement near the bottom, which (before I edited for POV) seemed to imply that all reasonable people believe in the extraterrestrial source of water. --Storkk 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Himmler?

Hmm, no citations yet? It's not like the broad propaganda-machine Hörbigers is still at work? I would be especially interested to see whether Himmler was indeed "a strong proponent of the theory", and Hitler "an enthusiastic follower". Not only because I can't recall Hitler being an enthusiastic follower of pretty much anything. The 1953 survey (a million followers) would also be appreciated. Hexmaster (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support in the Third Reich

In the "In the Third Reich" section, the first half lists what seems like considerable support for Welteislehre among the Nazi leadership, but the second half says that after the institutions were shut down and that according to the propaganda ministry "the publications constituted high treason". Although these aren't mutually exclusive (god knows, the Nazis could be inconsistent), it does at least require some sort of explanation. As it stands, it doesn't make much sense. John.Conway (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biography of a trilobite ?

Is anyone familiar with ‘Stem-eye the primeval crab’?, Dohm, Batti (1942) [1933]. Stielauge der Urkrebs.

One of the weirdest books I've ever seen. It was issued through branches of the Nazi party in 1942, espousing Welteislehre as a cosmogenic theory. I think it would be a worthwhile addition here, if only it's possible to source some commentary upon it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was in terrible shape

There were essentially no sources cited for the lion's share of the article regarding the Nazis' supposed support for this theory, and the very few citations listed were either to unsourced .com articles or books that did not contain the information the article's author claimed they did. I deleted all that- if any information on it could be brought to light, please do, because right now that seems like a work of fiction. Someone with real knowledge of either this topic or the scientific community in Germany in the first half of the 20th century needs to go through this article and determine what discussed in the "history" section is worth keeping. I earnestly doubt whether or not this should even have an entry on Wikipedia.

Of course it is. Add in the fact that the rings around Saturn are of ice and it rains down on the planet, and you are talking about a major blunder in keeping this article the way it appears. Ice and rain exist outside of our atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00F:67E2:CC8B:637F:EEDE:6B71 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is as silly as saying "today is was colder than yesterday, so global warming is a myth". Hörbiger was not about the rings of Saturn. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your summary for the edit that removed the “Third Reich” section, you say that “[o]ne book was cited- the specified quotes and information does not exist within that book”. There were three books cited there; which one failed verification? I don’t see the “.com source“ you mention in that section. While I agree that the article needs better sourcing, every book I have that mentions Welteislehre talks about its enthusiastic reception by the Nazis, so the article should certainly cover this, using appropriate sources. Brunton (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]