Though I much appreciate the effort, I'm not quite satisfied with this section.
I will add some notes here to the existing points:
- According to the book, the ancient Northwestern Europeans called themselves Frya's Children/Folk (or simply Fryas) and spoke only one language, which they called Fryas — and even “God's language.”
→ "ancient Northwestern Europeans" may be too vague: what time is meant and what part of NWE? Even in some of the OL texts, parts of NWE were lost to other folk. Also, they (esp. the traders) may have also spoken other languages besides Fryas (even though Gosa advised against this). We recently decided to translate as "Fryas or God's language", but they may have meant "Frya's or ..."
- According to the book, the ancient Northwestern Europeans were not heathens, but believed in only one God, whom they called Wralda (“the Primordial One,” or lit. “the Overoldest”).
→ 'Heathens' is a vague, derogatory term, something like 'racists' in our time. Wralda would rather translate as 'over-old-one' than 'overoldest' (even though Wralda is defined as THET ALDER.ALDESTA JEFTHA OVER.ALDESTA, that's not the literal meaning of the word.
- The book was quickly attacked and ridiculed in newspapers before the first translation was published in 1872.
Would this be well understood by someone completely new to the topic?
- The book is called invented by some (e.g. Wikipedia), but it describes events and places confirmed by modern archaeology; so the supposed 1800's forgers would have to be psychics. The motive makes no sense either, as it would have required a huge amount of time, effort and money with no hope of any gain.
If there are concrete examples of these events and places, these could be fitting for the did-you-know section. OL-'skeptics' will reply that the creators guessed right with some things but that there is still too much nonsense (in their view) in the book to be authentic. 'Motive' would have to be specified. What motive, from what theory? How would it have required a huge amount of money? What if the intention had been to fool or confuse people?
I may think of some clear and strong point of discussion, similar to the statements made by a doctoral candidate, which are usually supplied on a separate sheet with the thesis and which the doctoral candidate is to defend against opponents during the doctoral defense ceremony.
Ideas are still welcome. Until we have something good enough we can keep this section open.