I do not believe that the hypothesis has any credibility in the mainstream press at all and that there are any references to material that is not part of the book.If you reversed the merge, it'd make more sense in terms of content. So the book documents the hypothesis, but not all its claims. And it's garnered popular press, and references to it elsewhere, which don't always talk about the book at all. Oppose as the hypothesis and whatever supporting material is available, is more than that documented in the book, so merging it would mean adding material that is not part of the book into the book article.There is no supporting evidence in the article and there has been plenty of time to provide it. I am reopening the discussion as there are no alternative major sources supporting the 1421 hypothesis and the material is duplicated between the two articles.- Matilda talk 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I agree.
I appreciate a merger has been discussed before ( Talk:1421 hypothesis#Merge with book article but it was some time ago. On the other hand, this hypothesis could be incorporated into the pre-columbian discovery article, or build a new article on world exploration voyages before the age of exploration or non-European ones during the age. You just need to add sourced rebuttal material to the articles, if you feel like it. We have articles on books that are of much more minor import or popularity than these two books. Doug Weller ( talk) 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC) If the books are notable, they should have articles, regardless of the intellectual integrity of the content. I don't think we should have 3 articles in any case. And I wonder if he actually wrote this one? The first one seems to have been actually a team effort.
0 kommentar(er)
