Talk:Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney

message: Besides being just wrong, it's not usual to style Norwegian nobles that way Fornadan (t) 14:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st Earl of Orkney?

message: The article states that Karen Ralls says Henry and William Sinclair testfied against the Templars. When did this happen? The trial of the Templars was in 1309, and Henry Sinclair was born around 1345. I'm confused, either Ralls is talking about a different set of Sinclairs or a different trial. --67.68.10.7 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think she is talking about a different trial.  While the Templars were put on trial in France in 1309, the resulting papal bull disbanding them was not read out in Scotland until much later.  I will have to check the reference, but it seems likely that Ralls is referring to another trial (one in Scotland, and at a later date.) Blueboar 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Dates, and Templars 

message: I have cut the following:
*The huge inheritance from his wife Joseline Sinclair and the political power of her brother ( his brother in arm in the first crusade) helped Hugh jumpstart his fraternity. It was known that 9 people established the fraternity but one stayed unknown  (could the ninth be the Saint Claire and then his family line).[]. .
and
*The St. Clairs (Sinclairs) (from Normandy, France) were among the families that supported William the Conqueror in 1066 and this is how they received their holdings in Scotland. Shortly after moving, they changed their name to the Scottish Sinclair[]
The angelfire sites are personal (self publised) websites that do not meet WP:RS.  Feel free to add the info back if you can find better citations. Blueboar 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: I have raised this before, but need to raise it again.  We say that the theory that Sinclair sailed to America is sometimes called the "La Merika Theory" (or "La Merica Theory").  I understand that we have sources to back the fact that a few loony authors claim that America was named after some sort of star by that name... I am not concerned about that.  What I am concerned about is the lack of citation to show that anyone actually calls this idea by the exact name "La Merika Theory".  Without a citation to back the fact that this phrasing is actually used by someone, I can only assume that it is a neologism created by an editor.  That constitutes Original Research. Blueboar 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO calls it the "La Merika/La Merica Theory" 

message: Why is it so difficult to accept that that a 13th Century Earl whose subjects in Orkney where by and large Norse, could have sailed to America or elsewhere when Leif Ericson did just that in 1003?
The vessels Sinclair would have used must have been and improvement on 11th Century designs surely?
Yes I accept the evidence to prove it is scant but that does not mean to say it could not be done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.55 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question isn't whether he could have done so... the question is whether he did do so.  Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinclairs as sailors 

message: OK, we seem to have a revert war going on here... Please explain why it is so important to mention Ian Sinclair.  How is he at all relevant to this article?  Why must he be mentioned (and more importantly, why do we need to have a photograph of him) in an article on his distant ancestor?  This article is about Henry... not about his descendants. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, I've been taking it out as well as it has no place here, especially the picture. The IP has yet to discover a talk page though I think. I left a message on the talk page of the last ip they used, now on a different one (sigh).--Alf melmac 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yup, I guess I'd be an involved admin if I did it myself. It'll be tempting though :)--Alf melmac 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... This is actually part of a pattern.  We also have a new article on Ian Sinclair's Gnostic Templar group (see: International Order of Gnostic Templars).  It seems that the IP is trying to promote that org by mentioning it here.  Having looked into this further, I have nominated that article for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting the words in this edit, removing the photo of the statue, there does appear to be business interest. (By the way the statue cannot be anything other than conjecture, as is the one at Harvard, where they managed to dress the guy in the wrong centuries' costume - so I'm not overly mindful of its disappearance).--Alf melmac 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... no real loss. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Sinclair 

message: According to the History Channel the Hooked X rune links the Kennsington Stone, the Newport Tower, The Knight Gunn in New England, and Christopher Columbus as relation by marriage to Sinclair as all Templar in America evidence. I'm sure the show will air again. My point being: Will the skeptic that manages this page add to or reject the new evidence presented by the History Channel. To Note: The History Channel has also said Templars moved to Switzerland and invented modern banking, and that Columbus started as a Catalan revolutionary fighting Spain before faking Italian heritage to sail to America under a Spanish flag. My other point being: the History Channel is self contradictory. In anycase, I hope to return here and see what becomes of Prince/Earl Sinclair.
:Having seen most of the History Channel programs related to this topic, I seriously doubt they actually state all this as being fact.  The History Channel at least pretends that it covers its subjects with ballanced historical accuracy... so when covering specualtive theories such as these, they ususally stick a qualifying phrase such as "according to some..." in there somewhere. And they usually get around to debunking it all in the last three minutes, by interviewing a noted historian who says it is all a load of crap. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooked X Rune 

message: Would someone please clarify the following sentence:
*"The theory also makes use of the supposed Templar connection to explain the name Nova Scotia ("New Scotland" in Latin), basing themselves on the 18th century tale that some Templars escaped the suppression of their order by fleeing to Scotland of Robert the Bruce[11]..."
*"...by fleeing to Scotland of Robert the Bruce" is baffling, due to the expression and position "of Robert the   Bruce".  Do you mean to say: ...by fleeing to  the  Scotland of Robert  the  Bruce"?   Thanks.— 24.49.51.81 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have clarified by changing it to "by fleeing to Scotland during the reign of Robert the Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change.  Thanks. —24.49.51.81 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsection 3: "Alleged..." 

message: I have had to revert a chunk of recent edits by Caledon861 (see my revert here.  The edits were made in good faith, and some of the material probably should be retained,... unfortunately some of the changes were unsupported and contentious, and I can not separate out the good from the bad and so have had to revert it all.  I ask Caledon861 to go a bit slower... make a small change, then wait until others have had a chance to see it and comment (say a day or two), then move on to make the next one.  Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted a bit about the Louisburg cannon, based on some bad research by Andrew Sinclair. This was definitely not a 14th century cannon. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060406214240/http://www.sundayherald.com/45946 to http://www.sundayherald.com/45946
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061103131257/http://www.renaissancemagazine.com/backissues/sinclair.html to http://www.renaissancemagazine.com/backissues/sinclair.html
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) 09:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. 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.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=485458
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217163327/http://www.nls.uk/print/search/indx/indx.cfm?key=39.4 to http://www.nls.uk/print/search/indx/indx.cfm?key=39.4
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) 06:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified