Talk:Henriette Mertz

message: A couple quick comments:
#Future Perfect, if you have evidence of a copyright violation, you're free to report it or take action.  I wouldn't worry too much about whether Deucalionite names her sources or not.  
#Deucalionite, refusing to name your sources is basically the same as not having any, in my book.  My recommendation is that you name them, but if not, the article is likely to be deleted/stubbified as lacking verifiable sources and/or notability.  (The books themselves can presumably serve as primary sources of their own existence and contents unless the summary is controversial).  TheronJ 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This hardly constitutes a form of "criticism". I've read better comments. Deucalionite (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on sources 

message: I removed the prod notice - a google books search indicates ~ 40 hits for Mertz, and her books are at least sources for their own existence, so I think the bare minimum of verifiability and notability are achieved.  I wouldn't object to stubifying the article down to its verifiable elements, at least until someone digs up an obituary or Whos Who entry for use as a source.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You found 40 hits on Google books and didn't contribute an ounce of work towards expanding the article. Wow. Unfortunately, this comment is also kind of pointless. Deucalionite (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed prod 

message: Just so everyone knows, I expanded the article as much as possible. Please contribute wherever necessary. Deucalionite (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded article

message: I read the 1953 version of "Pale Ink" here , and it pretty much states the "Fu-Sang" was the corn (or maize) plant of middle-America. In the conclusion (ch. XV), she states: It is my belief, that ...the plant "Fu-sang" was "corn," and the country "Fu-sang" was Mexico
. Smarkflea (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That struck me as odd too because Fusang never meant fir tree in Chinese based on what I've read. I suppose the books of Childress, David Hatcher are not anymore credible than those of Mertz herself if he can't cite her right. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Giving that he praises Mertz for being "scholarly", and looking at his biography here, there's even more reason to conclude that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, Fusang never meant corn either, so Mertz' own idea doesn't make much more sense. I guess the Chinese whispers work quite well among these "alternate" historians. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a staple of their trade, thanks for your work here. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fir-Tree?

message: I was afraid that might have been a typo for some year in the 3rd century BC (the common dating of the Shan Hai Jing) although it appears as such on p. 14 in the 1st edition of Mertz's book , and is quoted by Needham with some exclamation marks. In her conclusions, p. 158  Mertz wrote "That the Chinese were in America in a period at least as early as 2200 B.C., and came periodically up to a date as late as 500 A.D., preceding Leif Ericson by more than 3,000 years" so it looks like she really meant it that way. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2250 BC