Talk:Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories

message: 7day: If you want to mention he Zheng He map  then do it in a way that makes it obvious why such a mention is relevant to the topic. As you wrote it it mentioned neither zheng he or islam or what the relevance of the map is to thinking that moslems were present in precolumbian america. Right now it is a non-sequitur within this article (which is a non sequitur by itself) but I am not going to rewrite it for you so I'll cut it untill you write it in a manner that proves it to be relevant.Maunus 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zheng He

message: Interesting topic... --Striver 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: intresting

message: The 1421 section should really be a minor note, with a tag pointing towards the main article.  There's no point in having a large section duplicating info from the main 1421 page, though it could definitely be used to expand on the Islam-specific points.  
WLU 13:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I've just moved the tag above to the top of the article. Jagged 85 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1421 

message: The proponents of these theories often DO present them as established fact (see Mroueh, Yucel, et. al. in the Notes and References sections); pseudohistory (i.e. "fake history") is a perfectly accurate description in this context.  Furthermore, theories which are frequently repeated or believed by some people but which have no evidence to support them can also be accurately termed pseudohistory (see 1421 hypothesis regarding China). Buster Friendly 22:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to use the term "pseudohistory", then you'll need to provide a citation referring to these specific theories as pseudohistory. If not, then that would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I'll have to remove that term from the article in that case. Jagged 85 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudohistory 

message: Is there any reason not to delete this article?  It doesn't address a coherent topic, and everything covered here is, or should be, addressed in Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and 1421 hypothesis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClovisPt (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Id vote for a merger yes.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Caliphate of Cordoba was in Spain, not Africa. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep this article.Vice regent 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article? 

message: There seems to be a major problem with all the articles about Abubakari  and Sultan Mansa Musa -- I have tried hard to find a reliable source for the story, and the closest I have come is this Echos of What Lies Behind the 'Ocean of Fogs' in Muslim Historical Narratives which is indeed the source of at least some of the quotes. (The article is a bit odd, last I heard the Amazon wasn't in the midst of the ocean, but fringe writers do tend to cherry pick).
The full quote: "its French translation by Gaudefroy-Demombynes says: "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler. Their tribes are Antasar, Yantar'aras, Meddusa and Lemtuna ... I asked their ruler Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib (who was in Egypt returning from the pilgrimage): "How had you become ruler?" He replied: "We belong to a family where the son succeeds the father in power. The ruler who preceded me did not believe that it was impossible to reach the extremity of the ocean that encircles the earth (meaning Atlantic), and wanted to reach to that (end) and obstinately persisted in the design. So he equipped two hundred boats full of men, as many others full of gold, water and victuals sufficient enough for several years. He ordered the chief (admiral) not to return until they had reached the extremity of the ocean, or if they had exhausted the provisions and the water. They set out. Their absence extended over a long period, and, at last, only one boat returned. On our questioning, the captain said: 'Prince, we have navigated for a long time, until we saw in the midst of the ocean as if a big river was flowing violently. My boat was the last one; others were ahead of me. As soon as any of them reached this place, it drowned in the whirlpool and never came out. I sailed backwards to escape this current.' But the Sultan would not believe him. He ordered two thousand boats to be equipped for him and for his men, and one thousand more for water and victuals. Then he conferred on me the regency during his absence, and departed with his men on the ocean trip, never to return nor to give a sign of life [5]."
No Abubakari mentioned.
The article on Abubakari II says "Virtually all that is known of Abubakari II was recorded by the scholar Al-Umari during Kankan Musa I's historic hajj to Mecca. While in Egypt, Musa explained the way that he had inherited the throne after Abubakari II's abdication. He explained that in 1310, the emperor financed the building of 200 vessels of men and another 200 of supplies to explore the limits of the sea that served as empire's western frontier. The vessles were pirogues built from large, hollowed out trees equipped with oars and perhaps sails. The mission was inconclusive, and the only information available on its fate came from a single sailor who refused to follow the other ships once they reached a "river in the sea". According to Musa I, his predecessor was undeterred and launched another fleet with himself at the helm. In 1311, Abubakari II temporarily ceded power to Musa, then serving as his kankoro-sigui or vizier, and departed with a thousand vessels of men and a like number of supplies. After the emperor failed to return, Musa became emperor."
Ignoring the difference in the number of boats, can anyone else get that from the first quote?  Is Kankan Musa I definitely Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib? "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler." doesn't sound like the Emperor of Mali.--Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims for the Mali Empire 

message: I've been discussing this with some map scholars on a mailing list and showed them a copy I found.
They don't think there ever was such a map and think someone may have reconstructed it from a description. At least one expert hasn't even heard of such a description.
Where "Ard Majhoola" can't be told for sure from the reconstruction if it is one as it is a circular map and we don't really know what the conventions were.
Without a map, what we are left with is a description -- anyone read Arabic? I can get the text, which I am told "It is a mere description of a mythical land while
describing the "earliest known populations in the earth". The whole paragraph is put into a mythical context and could never be interpreted as an indication of actual geographic description.
So this needs editing but a translation of the Arabic would be very useful first.
--Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Masudi's map 

message: Why is there a merger template suggesting this article should be merged into Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories? The Caliphate of Cordoba was in Islamic Spain, not Africa. Since such a merger would be pointless, I am removing the merger template from the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain is not in Africa 

message: The sole reason given for the continued existence of this article is the section on al-Andalus.  All other content belongs in Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories or in 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, where, in fact, much of it already exists.  Wikipedia does NOT need an article on "pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories" anymore than it needs one on "pre-Columbian Christian contact theories," which could include everything from St. Brendan, an Irish monk, to the Norse, many of whom were Catholic, to various Europeans from the 1400s, etc., etc.  The current structure for the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact uses ethnicity/region as a basis for categorizing theories, and this article should follow the same format.  I propose removing the Zeng He and Mali Empire content, integrating it into the proper articles, and re-titling this article something like: Pre-Columbian al-Andalus contact theories.  ClovisPt (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The move is a good idea, for the reasons stated above. The title might be clearer with the adjective "Andalusian", i.e., Pre-Columbian Andalusian contact theories (instead of "al-Andalus"). I know "Andalusian" is also used to refer to the modern Spanish province, but the article al-Andalus uses it to refer to the Muslim domain in Spain. Shouldn't we? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Another concern is that the present title (and the one I just proposed) do not specify contact with the Americas. What we're describing in the article is "Theories of pre-Columbian Andalusian contact with the Americas." By analogy with the Africa-Americas article, this should be Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable.  ClovisPt (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and make the change. ClovisPt (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the problem has now been dealt with, I don't see any reason for the neutrality tag to be there anymore, therefore I am removing it from the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-title; remove content 

message: Hi all. I suggest that this page be merged into Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.  Any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The lead has the statement "These theories are generally not credited by mainstream historians, however." I added a  tag. Dougweller removed it with "please take this to the talk page and show how this is really contentious - do you really think it's wrong or are you making a point?". I think it unfortunate that he deleted the tag rather than providing the requested citation. Insofar as I was making a point, I seem to have succeeded by showing that the statement concerned was not easily to be sourced. As I (very imperfectly) understand it, the theories concerned have simply been ignored by mainstream historians. On the face of it, there is evidence which requires examination. My question is: has any "mainstream" scholar examined the documents concerned, if not, why not, and if so, what was their conclusion? At the moment we have the unsupported word of wikipedia editors that the documents are effectively to be treated as worthless. This is not a satisfactory way to leave it, and my addition of the tag was drawing attention to that fact. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting issue and I've brought it up at WP:FTN. First, I think you may be reading "generally not credited" as 'discredited' (or maybe not, you do used the word ignored). To me the statement says that these 'theories' have been ignored, given no credit. I don't think that's particularly contentious. And you may be asking editors to prove a negative - if something is so trivial and unlikely as to be ignored by mainstream scholarship, then it may not have drawn enough attention for anyone to comment on that lack of attention. And to not convey that somehow in this or any other article does not help our readers. How would we get over this bind if the statement can't be sourced? Dougweller (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I see no justification for either of the words "trivial" or "unlikely". On reflection I can't believe that the documents concerned have been completely ignored, and I hope to search a bit. The justification of the tag "citation needed" has clearly been totally established. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent deletion of fact tag