Talk:La Merika

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why La Merika? 

message: 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  tag until it is repaired (though I'm not sure if that is the appropriate tag. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AfD? 

message: 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 given the comments, I have withdrawn it for the moment.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)
thread_title:  AfD debate 

message: 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  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 The Hiram Key, Knight and Lomas 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, 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  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)
thread_title:  Next group of cuts - uncited material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why "La Merika"? section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge (or alternatively re-name)