Talk:La Merika

Why La Merika?

I haven't been able to track down why this land should be name 'The Star', but it think its a reference to a star which they navigated by - i seem to remember as well a picture of a templar ship sailing towards a Star - can anyone help? Pydos 13:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What language is La Merika supposed to be? And what's wrong with Amerigo Vespucci? Mark O'Sullivan 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is meaningless, the name America is actually derived from the name "Amerigo Vespucci" which was the name of the first scolar to create a map which included "the new world", the "La Merika" claims are completely unfounded and should be ignored. - 17 June 2006 andyjm

seems like both are equally contentious. After all if you were called, say, James Dean and you discovered an island you would call it Dean Island, not James island. To Answer Mark's question I think Merika is the name of a/the star in Chaldean or Phoenician mythology. Pydos 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing how the European map makers in the early 1500s were all fluent in Chaldean! Blueboar 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I could tell you what a few words of ancient Egyptian mean, but that doesn't mean that i'm fluent. I appreciate however what you are getting at. Knight/Lomas believe this is because of the (alleged) unearthing of the ancient scrolls which mentioned stuff like this. The star is pretty much a universal symbol so i suppose it kinda makes sense. Pydos 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

"The theory also comes in for criticism as there is no documentary evidence for it - just a graveyard in Nova Scotia."

the article never mentions a graveyard in Nova Scotia. SchmuckyTheCat 07:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does;

Evidence for the Theory:

"The theory is based on old graveyards in Nova Scotia which contain grave stones which incorporate Masonic devices such as Crusader Crosses and Pentagrams.". The problem being is that it doesn't say which graveyard(s). When i wrote the article i didn't have the book to hand, so couldn't remember the name(s). Pydos 11:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This piece represents a POV advocating the theory, lacks a neutral presentation and even included blatant nonsense:

Many see this as unlikely because countries and continents are not normally named based on first names.

I've affixed a {{POV}} tag until it is repaired (though I'm not sure if that is the appropriate tag. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

la merika

why then so many american countries and states have a star in their flag? whether the templars actually discovered america is irrelevant. columbus may have been a freemason himself. and anyway the name was given later and the hypothesis that it comes from amerigo vespucci is ludicrous

They have stars in reflection of the American national flag. The symbolism of those particular stars is easily understood and widely known. In turn your reasoning would seem to suggest that Knights Templar also founded England (there are stars on the flag!) and Australia at the very least and named these countries La Merika as well.

But I wouldn't expect someone with no ability to reason to put all that together on their own.

AfD?

This article has been tagged as not having references or sources for over a month now. While I am sure that there must be some reliable source that discusses this theory, It seems no one can be bothered to look it up. Is it time to nominate the article for deletion? Blueboar 13:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete the damn thing or include a much larger section of criticism written by people with a real working knowledge of American history.

Nominated. Blueboar 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The only time I've seen the theory was in a book I read about 12-13 years ago. I think the author was a Sinclair and the title was Grail related. Given that it was mainly read in the cockpit of a yacht in the english channel en route to France and accompanied by a glass of rather charming claret I can't offer anything much more than that I'm afraid. Standard HBHG type stuff though.ALR 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP IT  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are three books published that I have read regarding the subject. They are called the Hiram Key, The Second Messiah, and The Book of Hiram. Blueboar...If you would like to see some interesting evidence on the Masonic connection in AMERICA, do this..... Go to google earth... Zoom in on Washington DC.... See the "pentagram", and the "compass" laid into the street plan of the city. If you can't see it, google "sybolism in washington dc" They have a better diagram there. (unfortunatley, a big "luciferian conspiracy" accompanies the info by a bunch of closed minded people) Tell us what you find out. I have been reading on the subject for two years straight! *EP3*

If you want it... then add sources for it. That was the whole reason I nominated it for afd. Blueboar 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the AfD page, it was suggested that I simply remove any uncited material... I have done so. Not much of an article is it? Blueboar 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD debate

What follows is copied from the page's AfD nomination... given the comments, I have withdrawn it for the moment. Hopefully we can improve things so I don't have to re-nominate.

La Merika - Unreferenced and speculative at best (Note that requests for references and citations have been in place for over a month with no responce). Much of this seems to be Original Resarch. Without any clue as to who came up with the theory or who supports it we can not tell if it is notable or not. Blueboar 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep from a Google search, the theory seems to exist, and has been referenced in multiple places on the Web, and in print, for example, a The Guardian article [1]. That's not much, but still barely worth keeping, methinks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Still no references added to the article. It remains unsourced. Blueboar 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Added references. They're weak, in the sense that they're relatively off-hand mentions of the theory in each case, the books and article are not really devoted to this theory per se - but, again, I think they're enough, given that our article is relatively critical of the theory. If you don't want to search for the two books, which may be a bit obscure, you can search for "La Merica" using Amazon "search in this book" and Google Books. I've provided a link to the latter, it gives info for many items in the article on one page. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Better... but these are general references. Much of the material is still uncited and borders on OR... all highly speculative. I would still vote for delete unless major improvements are made. Blueboar 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Gosh, you're demanding. It's not as if we're going to be facing a libel suit and need to go by the very strict standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or something. It's just a theory, a fairly hokey theory, and our article says as much - I haven't checked the edit history in detail, but wouldn't be surprised if you wrote much of the criticism section, if so, good work. It's not controversial mainly because no one takes it seriously. But it's also an existing theory that is referred to; therefore, as the world's largest encyclopedia, we really should say something on it. We're by no means endorsing the theory, we're just saying it exists. The references clearly say there is such a theory. If you want to delete individual unreferenced items from the article, fine, but the article as a whole should stay. (By the way, then you really should get a copy of the Templar books, rather than just rely on the Amazon search.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
          • • Given that none of the references are used to cite any given statement, I could delete the entire article line by line, and we would be left with a blank page. Far easier to simply delete the article as Non-notable. As to the "the theory exists" argument... Just because a whacko theory exists does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The theory has to be notable and subscibed to by more than a few authors. See WP:NOT.
• (unindenting) Actually, being subscribed to by a few authors is what makes it notable. "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources." Wikipedia:Notability. That's what a few authors are. And by actually deleting the article line by line [2], including the things that have been referenced in the very references I just provided, you're verging into WP:POINT. Did you notice the part where I wrote that if you want to claim that the books don't back the facts you really should read the books? You apparently didn't even follow my Google Books link, because just that page backs most of the article. Please restore your edits. If you think the article should be deleted entirely, you've done the right thing by starting the AFD, wait for consensus to agree with you. Blanking the article content is not the way to do it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OK... you obviously care enough about this article for it to be kept for now... so the nomination is withdrawn for the moment ... however, to keep me from re-nominating it, you are going to have to put a lot of work into the article. Specific citations are one item on the list... Let's take this discussion to the article's Talk Page (I will copy it there)... and we can work on seeing if my concerns can be met. Blueboar 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion after AFD

OK... part of my problem is that while some references were added (about time), citations were not. To give you an idea of where and what I feel needs to have a citation, I am going to remove the general "this article needs references and citations" tag and put a {{Fact}} tag on each of the statements that need to be cited. Blueboar 18:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good. I admit, the AFD was the first I had heard of the theory, after which I did some web searches. So I'm not the best defender for this article ... but it seems I'm going to be the best it's going to get for now. So, even if we end up knocking out over half the article as uncited, that's OK with me - if it stays around, eventually someone more into pre-columbian or masonic info will come along to add more cited stuff. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have read some of the books you reference... and as someone who IS quite into Masonic info, I can tell you that 99% of that connection is complete rubbish... The opening line states: "The La Merika Theory is the theory that America was discovered centuries before Christopher Columbus by the Freemasons (possibly the Knights Templar)." The problem with this is that the Freemasons did not exist "centuries before Christopher Columbus"... the earliest records of the existance of Freemasonry date to the mid 1600s... centuries after Columbus. The tenuous tie to Freemasonry is the (unproven and highly speculative) theory that Freemasonry is a descendant of the Knights Templars. Even if (for the sake of argument) we accept that theory as being true, the link occured well after this supposed voyage. Thus, the article starts off on an erroneous footing. It goes down hill from there.

According to much of this article "the theory states" and "some people say" ... etc. This is called "weasle wording" in Wikipedia. We need to know who says what. I don't mind bad pseudo-history, but uncited bad pseudo-history is something I abhore. I wish you luck in citing this stuff... Just don't believe any of it. Blueboar 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK folks... it has been suggested that we cut those things that have not be cited ... I am going to do this slowly, to give people a chance to comment. First cut is the reference to Freemasonry in the intro. I cut this for the reasons listed above (Masonry did not exist at the time of the supposed voyage). Any Objections? Blueboar 17:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Mason, I object. You are working from the assumption that Freemasonry did not exist during the time of Columbus. While the first Grand Lodge was not chartered until the 18th Century, Freemasonry has existed since at least the Middle Ages in not only the form of the Templars, but the stone masons who constructed cathedrals as well. Secondly, you are far too demanding on this article requiring a citation for every statement when we have a list of sources at the bottom of the page. Look at a page on Roman history and you won't find citations for every statement. I would recommend that whomever added those sources do their best to give us a connecting citation, but by no means does the fact that every statement is not cited (as though this far-fetched theory were a dissertation) mean that we need to delete the whole thing. Another poster has commented that the purpose of this article is to present that this theory exists, not that wikipedia accepts/rejects, or otherwise makes a judgement on its validity. In fact, ideally we should include a section at the bottom with criticisms of the theory (with their citations as well). I don't think we can arbitrarily delete an article confirming the existance of X without performing due dilligence to somehow counter claims that X exists. That is not to say that X is true, false, or anything else, merely that X exists and has the following properties: x,y,z. JJ4sad6 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a theory, there is no credible evidence that speculative FM existed in the period under consideration. There is also no credible evidence which links the Templars with FM.

The evolution from an operative tradition to a speculative tradition has been extensivly discussed in a number of papers in Ars Quatuor Coronatum, the transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge. There may be something in back issues of Heredom, the transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society. I say that as a member of QC Correspondence Circle and the SRRS.

On the related note re citations, WP is supposed to be aiming towards being an authorotative source, that means provision of referencing. Whilst the use of referencing can be misused to unbalance an article, see Christianity and Freemasonry and Catholicism and Freemasonry as examples, appropriate oversight of the process should lead to a more credible article. If the article cannot be made credible then the process allows deletion in a reasonable manner.

ALR 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But when you say we need to make the article more credible, that implies to me that we need to make it to where people would actually BELIEVE the theory. I'm fairly certain we have an article here on Wikipedia on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which by no means is meant to be believed. Likewise, we probably have articles on the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy, both cases of entity that exist as a concept, but not in scientifically measurable reality. I see this theory the same way. Yes, it is a weak theory, based only on a few tombstones found on the East Coast (which are likely from the colonial period). But wikipedia only has to present that the theory exists, not that it is 100% true. We could likewise argue for the deletion for the Evolution or Intelligent Design (or both) articles on the grounds you present. Wikipedia is FAR from an academic journal, and I don't think it should presume that it is. Just present the facts (of the existance of said theory) and leave it to the reader whether they believe the theory or not. Anything else would be NPOV, in my opinion. JJ4sad6 10:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Making the article credible, and making the subject believable are two different things. The article can be credible without endorsing the subject. fwiw I think the subject is drivel. Enforcing referencing and citations makes clear to the reader that the discussion that they're seeing is robustly formed.ALR 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate, because from what you just wrote, it seems to me at least that you still want an article that states this theory is believable. There are sources at the bottom, and looking up the concept on google produces results. I think making a academic journal entry out of this theory is giving it far too much credit than it is worth. Again, the sources are there at the bottom of the page, and requiring that EVERY statement be cited is a bit of overkill when compared to other articles on comprable concepts. I recommend that whomever posted the sources do the best they can to connect the statement to the source, but perhaps we should put the same burden on those who dispute the existance of this theory. In other words, if you don't like this theory and you want to refute the sources provided, then present counter sources that dispute the credibility of this theory. The fact remains that this theory exists, it has no serious supporters, but that is no reason why it should be deleted, otherwise we'd have to delete the page on "Ancient Astronauts" or any similar concept of unconventional archaeology. I agree that the subject is drivel, but I think that since it does in fact exist as a concept, it should be included in Wikipedia (unless we are somehow running out of space). JJ4sad6 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

JJ4sad6, Take a look at WP:V, which is one of the key pillars of Wikipedia. I will quote the key sections:

• Sources - Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims require stronger sources.
• Burden of evidence - The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. <Note... I have been asking for this for over two months now - BB> If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. <Done - BB> Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. <Also done - BB> Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

This is not an arbitrary deletion. For two months, I have repeatedly asked for citations as per Wikipedia policy, and NO ONE has provided them. Thus, I feel it is abosulutely appropriate to cut what is not sourced. If you disagree, fine... please PROVIDE SOME F#@*ING CITATIONS. Blueboar 12:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Personally I'm uncomfortable about using Knight and Lomas as references. The books themselves are recognised as being extremely unreliable given the p*** poor scholarship and creeping assertion style.ALR 10:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone was to figure out which statements were made by Knight and Lomas, and cite them properly, I would not have a problem with something along the lines of "According to authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas in their book 'More Stuff We Made Up About Hyram', La Merika is (blah, blah, blah)..." As it is, too many statements are asserted as fact. Blueboar 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded a bit to make it clear that this is all speculation, and have attrbited the few citations in the main text as outlined above. As for "The Hyram Key"... I would second ALR's caution about the scholarship of that particular source. Again, I don't think this caution is enough to completely delete the references... but perhaps the questions about the source should be mentioned in the "Criticisms" section.

This also brings up another issue... While Knight and Lomas do discuss some of the background material that is mentioned in this article (the Templars fleeing to Scotland, or supposedly finding "secret scrolls" etc.), I don't remember them discussing "La Merika" specificly. Who came up with this theory? We seem to be missing the key source that ties all of this together. Blueboar 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Next group of cuts - uncited material

Continuing with the deletion of uncited material... From the section titled Why "La Merika?", I have cut the lines:

• However, according to ___(name needed)_____ , in Templar symbology 'Merica' is a western star toward which ships sail, or mounted knights ride. The name 'Merica' is believed by some {{Fact}} taken from the name of the five pointed star of Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess.

Since we do not even know who came up with the theory, I can only assume that this is original research on the part of whoever put it in the article. Thus the cut.

and from the following paragraph I have cut line highlighted in bold below:

• Authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas postulate <ref>The Hiram Key, Knight and Lomas</ref> that, after nine years excavating the site of the temple of Solomon (during the Crusades), the Templars may have uncovered a treasure of ancient scrolls . They postulate that these scrolls might have contained many lost religious doctrines, upon which the Templars based their rituals, the locations of other treasures hidden in Israel, <ref>The Dead Sea scrolls make reference to buried caches of treasure, so (according to Knight and Lomas) there might have been other such scrolls in existence. The Hiram Key, Knight and Lomas</ref> or (key to the "La Merika" theory) Phoenecian maps describing the location of "Merica" - the New World - although that supposes the Phoenecians knew of America.

I have checked my copy of Hiram Key and while Knight and Lomas do go on and on about the possibility of the Templars finding scrolls, they are talking about religious scrolls, and not maps. I also can not find a single reference to the name "La Merika" in Hiram Key. That means that the last line is an unsubstantiated addition, unrelated to the claims in Hiram Key... which would be original research without a citation. Thus the cut.

My cuts to this section create a problem... we now have a section that is entitled "Why 'La Merika'?"... but which does not discuss the term "La Merika" at all! All it says is that Knight and Lomas think the Templars may have found scrolls. Comments? Blueboar 12:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it instead of (I have to assume) downloading a digital copy and hitting the "search" button? The Hiram Key includes a mention of La MeriCa at the end of one of its chapters, and extra discussion later on. Note their use of the spelling with a "c" and not a "k." I'd love to cite it for you, but I borrowed it out to a friend of mine who lent me the Holy Blood/Holy Grail novel for an extended period of time. Perhaps you could try that search instead? (Sorry if that comes off a little harshly, but it's the only conceivable way I can imagine that you might have made that claim: they mentioned it QUITE specifically.) -Luke 4:16 CST, October 7, 2006

Why "La Merika"? section

With my prior edits, it no longer makes sense to keep the section "Why 'La Merika'?" The section no longer discusses the meaning of the term. Blueboar 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

"the ships disappeared from any documented history.[citation needed]" - do we really need to prove negativity? Or will an opinion from an author do? This page is beginning to annoy me. Pydos 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend writing something like: "SoandSo states in his book BOOK that these ships disappeared from any documented history." That way, it has a citation and we don't have to go through the logical impossibility of combing through EVERY record in history since that time to see if those ships were ever found.JJ4sad6 12:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

JJ4sad6 sums it up perfectly... a citation request is exactly that... a request for a citation. I am not asking for "proof" that the ships disappeared... I have been asking (for more than two months now) someone to provide a citation to a book that says this. Preferably one that mentions the words "La Merika" so that we can finally tie all these statements to the title of the article. Blueboar 12:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: To say that the ships "disappeared" from documented history means that they must have been documented at some point. Maybe if you could find references to the ships elsewhere, you could use the most recent to substantiate the claim. Something to the effect of "...and were last documented at X location at Y time according to Z" -Luke, 4:22 CST, October 17 2006

Name Change?

Actually, from looking around as much of the net as I could, I'm not seeing any reference specifically to "La Merika". I thought I read about it before somewhere, but since I can't remember where, I'm not even going to begin to speculate. What I suggest instead is that we perhaps change the name of the article to reflect the theory that Templars came to America in the Middle Ages. There are several easily accessible books and articles on that subject at least. La Merika to me seems too obscure and not readily found in non-wikipedia related articles, at least on the pages of google. Perhaps we can simply merge this with the article on controversial discoverers of America? JJ4sad6 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head... what this article seems to be doing is taking quite a few theories that are loosely tied to the Templars and lumping them into one article. I did the same search for "La Merika" and had the same result. For two months I have asked for someone to cite where the title of this article comes from... to tell me WHO says "America" comes from "La Merika". No one has done so.

As for a name change... that might work (it would at least solve one major issue). However, it may be that much of this is already in other Templar or Sinclair related articles. We should check for this first (no need for duplication of articles). And even if we change the name of the article, some serious work on citations is needed. Blueboar 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. While not as detailed, the article does discuss the theory. Blueboar 14:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

More cuts

Let us now address the following line: "The proponents of the theory claim that there are old graveyards in Nova Scotia which supposedly contain grave stones which incorporate Templar devices such as the Crusader Cross and related symbols."

My basic question is: Who are these so called proponents? Citation please. Blueboar 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To continue, I have cut the section in bold:

• The Knights Templar were publicly disbanded in the early 1300s, after the arrest in France of thousands of their members by the King of France[2]. It is claimed, however, that ten thousand more Templars went unaccounted for after that point, and most of the others were released from custody by 1314. Notably, the Templars are said to have had a fleet of large ships used to ferry passengers and cargo from Europe and the Mediterranian to and from the Holy Land. After their public dissolution, the ships disappeared from any documented history. This is considered notable as the ships would have been of significant value. Speculation suggests that these ships were quietly sailed to Scotland where they continued to be used by surviving Templars, and may have been used in an expedition to the New World.

Again, who claims this? Without a citation I can only assume that it is all Original Research. Blueboar 15:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will hold off for the rest of the day, to give people a chance to comment on what has been cut so far ... but without citations yet more cuts are to follow. Blueboar 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would be Lomas and Knight again, also in The Hiram Key. Unfortunately, I can't cite that. As I said above, the book is no longer in my posession at the moment. However, you apparently have a copy of some sort. Maybe you could find it for us? This would be towards the end of the book. Sorry I can't be more help right now. -Luke 5:06, October 17 2006

reinstated AfD

Just so everyone knows... I have retracted my withdrawal on the AFD (ie reinstated it)... I think everyone can see where things are headed if I keep deleting unreferenced material (basicly, no article will be left) and I see no point in wasting everyone's time. Several of you have made comments saying that the article can be improved on... but no one actually seems willing to make any improvements. Again, without citations (not general references... I mean citations to where in a book or article the statement was made), this article is in serious violation of both WP:V and WP:NOR. If you disagree... add citations. If you need time to hunt for them, copy the article into a sandbox page, work on it there and when done create a new article. But, as the article currently stands... it is simply not up to Wikipedia standard. Perhaps some day, with a lot of work, it will be... but I am tired of waiting. It needs to go. Blueboar 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... OK... the result is "no concensus". So I guess I will have to do this the hard way after all. More deletions coming up. Blueboar 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you really have it out for this topic. Has it occurred to you that you might be the minority view here? And are you sure you're not just using deletion as a consolation for failing to have the whole topic deleted? Again, I wish I had my copy of T.H.K. on me so I could source a lot of the theories mentioned both here and in the book. And has it ever occurred to you that if you had spent as much effort finding the citations yourself as you have spent trying to get every bit and piece of the article deleted (ala full deletion), it'd be a much more complete wiki entry? I hear you on the weasel words, but I do think you've gone a bit overboard. And is it any wonder that a populace that is taught in school that America was first discovered by the joint efforts of Amerigo Vespucci(sp?) and Columbus would rarely seek out an alternate explaination? Ergo: it's a bit demanding to expect a whole lot of traffic on the La Merika page itself, let alone experts or even novices on the subject. Is leaving the "citation needed" marks until someone has the oppertunity, AND the time, AND the resources to cite them really a worse alternative to constantly trying to remove as much content as possible? When people see "citation needed," it's a red-flag that the information posted is not immediately reliable (which isn't even to say that they can't be credible outside of the context of the presentation.) So there's not really much need to crusade against misinformation, here. -Luke 5:46, October 17 2006

Actually, I don't really care about this topic one way or the other ... what I do care about is creating a good encyclopedia with articles that are well sourced and cited. If you look at the talk page and edit history, for over two months now I have repeatedly asked people to provide citations as to where the various claims made in this article come from. And yes, I have even tried looking for citations myself ... without much success. For example, when i did a quick google search on "La Merika", I got very few hits (actually, I got a lot of hits about a band or album by that name... but very few hits that discussed this theory). Of these, most mentioned the theory in passing while discussing other "Columbus was not the first" theories. In fact, I have yet to find any source that acutally uses the term "La Merika Theory". One or two sources talk about Henry Sinclair's voyage, others talk about the Knights Templars, and one mentioned the term "La Merika" in passing... but none of them use the term as it shows up in the title of this article. If we are not to think of this as Original Research, we need to have verifyable citations to show that someone actually calls all this the "La Merika Theory".

Wikipedia policy and guidelintes (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS to start with) make it clear that it is the responsibility of the editor who wishes to include something in an article to provide citations when they add it. In other words, the citations that I have repeatedly asked for should have been provided when the article was written. Unsourced statements can and should be deleted. This is especially true for controvercial or non-mainstream topics. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".

Again... the issue for me is NOT what this article says - the issue is that the article says it without being backed with citations. I don't know enough (nor care enough) about this topic to do more research than I have already done. It is up to those who do know (and care) about it to improve the article. I would be perfectly happy to leave this article alone if anyone was bothering to work on this issue. However, it seems clear that unless there is someone attacking the article, no one will bother to improve it. So... I will be the devil's advocate, and will continue put the pressure on others to come up with the citations that are lacking. I will continue to delete unsourced statements, and will probably re-nominate this for AfD several more times, if for no other reason than to goad people into improving the article. Blueboar 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge (or alternatively re-name)

Given the great overlap of material between this article and that at Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney, I have suggested a merge.

Before some of you leap all over this and accuse me of trying to delete this article in a back handed way, let me explain... I accept that the consensus was to keep this article. The merge suggestion is the result of that acceptance. The one thing that continues to bother me is the title of this article. No one seems to be able to find a source for calling it the "La Merika Theory". I can only assume that the name is the coinage of the person who created this article. This rubs me the wrong way. So, I would say we either should rename the articel or... merge it with one that is almost exactly the same. I have looked long and hard at both articles, and have come to the decision that my concerns would be solved if the information was kept, but done so as part of the Henry Sinclair article. I think that the merge will result in one fairly good article, instead of two rather lame ones.

So... Merge or Rename? Let me hear from you? Blueboar 22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Support merge. Clearly, there is a great deal of speculation about Henry Sinclair in America, while only a small part of that refers to "La Merika". So I support having a large "Henry Sinclair in America?" article (whatever that's going to be called, possibly just Henry Sinclair, depending on whether HS is worthy of an article without the speculation) with a smaller paragraph mentioning that this, or part of this, is sometimes known as the "La Merika" theory. La Merika would then be a redirect to that. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would still have a problem with mentioning the "La Merika" theory, as there does not seem to be any evidence that anyone actually calls it that (in fact, I'm not sure this theory actually has a name, which may be part of my problem). But that becomes a minor issue once things are merged. As for the name of the merged article, most references to this particular Henry Sinclair relate to the supposed expedition... so I will defer to others as to how to name it. thanks for the support. Blueboar 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)