Talk:Henriette Mertz

Dubious sources

The material in this article seems to be largely derived from the websites www.greece.org and www.ancientgr.com, both not named in the refereces section. Both are extremely unreliable sources, and contents in this article should be scrutinized both for possible plagiarism/copyvio from those sites, and for verifiability and reliability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Deucalionite 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then will you please tell us where the information actually is from? It's certainly not all from the three "sources" you quoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If I tell you where the information comes from, will you guarantee me that you (or anyone else) will not try to delete the article? Deucalionite 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Disclosing sources is not conditional on promises or favours, it's a basic obligation of every Wikipedia editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking you to do me a favor. I am asking you to provide a simple guarantee. Since I cannot trust you, you will need to be slightly more accomodating in order for me to help you with this "problem article". Do you want to secure my cooperation or not? Deucalionite 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment further here, and leave it to other admins to take action. Not playing by the rules will get you blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, have fun figuring this one out. I will, however, give you a hint just to make things interesting. Everything you read on the article is based on everything you see and access. However, everything else you are not sure of comes from the world of "Arachne." If you're celebrating early, then I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. Deucalionite 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not how this works. There's no freedom of the press on wikipedia, so you don't get to conceal your sources. If you're not going to say what they are, then the article will be judged on the merits of what's there. The burden is not on us to 'figure out' where the material is from. --InShaneee 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deucalionite, if you're not willing to identify your sources, I will remove any information that I'm not able to verify myself. (I promise to make a good faith attempt.) Please let me know, TheronJ 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good faith? Well, I guess it's a lot better than Future Perfect's bad faith. Besides, since the article has passed the "biography test" and will not be subject to any "swift deletion policies", I am at peace. I guess it wouldn't hurt to tell you where the information comes from. Get a pen and paper.

The career section comes from an interesting paragraph I found while searching on Amazon.com for books written by Henriette Mertz [1]. The only mistake I found with the paragraph was the age of the author. Yet, it is the only information available on the Internet pertaining to the author's background. Delete it if you want, I don't care. The theories section comes from the external links listed on the article. The published works article was the result of simple book searches. That's it for now and Happy Thanksgiving. Deucalionite 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on sources

A couple quick comments:

1. 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.
2. 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)

This hardly constitutes a form of "criticism". I've read better comments. Deucalionite (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod

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)

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)

Expanded article

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

Fir-Tree?

I read the 1953 version of "Pale Ink" here [2], 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)

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)

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)

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)

It's a staple of their trade, thanks for your work here. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

2250 BC

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 [3], and is quoted by Needham with some exclamation marks. In her conclusions, p. 158 [4] 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)