Talk:Vinland Map/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

It is very well known because of the marketing campaign which accompanied its revelation to the public as a "genuine" pre-Columbian map in 1965.

[Just a note to say that four years later, the article reads a lot better to me. I would like to thank those who have worked so hard on improvements to this article. I think the balance is a lot better than in 2010 while it still effectively puts a blot on the subject / suspect map. Fotoguzzi (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)]

The term marketing campaign seems more hostile than necessary. I don't know why the term publicity campaign could not be used. It would also seem to be as accurate to say that the map is well known because if genuine it would cause revolutions in thinking in the history of the Americas, cartography, navigation, and printing. It would also seem accurate to say that the map is well known because of the controversy over its authenticity.

If the term marketing campaign is desired, couldn't the term marketing campaign for a book be used to clarify what was being marketed? (fotoguzzi) 76.105.160.69 (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, the book and the map were launched jointly- before the book was published, the Map was effectively unknown- even among scholars it was little more than a rumour. The marketing campaign served both to sell the book and to drive up the apparent value (as measured by insurers) of the map. David Trochos (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem uncommon to me that information would be embargoed before an announcement. I would expect that there are examples of books or catalogues being released in conjunction with a paper. If forty-some years later, the conclusions of a book or paper were accepted by all, I do believe that the original announcement would be considered a publicity campaign and not a marketing campaign. The Vinland article, while well done, smacks of more of a personal research project than a dry summary of secondary sources that the wikipedia seems to strive for. If the simultaneous printing of a book about a supposedly scientific subject is so unusual as to a) deserve to be noted and b) be called a marketing campaign, I hope that you will be vigilant in seeking all other such instances in wikipedia science articles and making sure that they are called the same thing. Fotoguzzi (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The best way to get an idea of the extent to which it was a marketing campaign is to read Kirsten Seaver's "Maps, Myths and Men" (and strident though her tone may seem, the 2008 official history of Yale University Press, "A World of Letters" by Nicholas Basbanes, makes it clear that the whole Vinland Map project was conceived very much in commercial terms). David Trochos (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands this sentence is simply wrong. There is an argument that the map became well known in the 1960s because of a "marketing campaign" - but there is not an argument that it is well known today because of a 1960s "marketing campaign". Rather it is well known today through countless reproductions and through the great volume of debate on its authenticity. I suppose it would be better to say something to the effect that the VM "initially became well known because of a marketing campaign and has subsequently remained well known through frequent reproduction and the extensive debates around its authenticity". But I think this just shows up another level of problems with the statement. I do not see any argument for cause and effect between the original "marketing campaign" (if indeed this is a fair description - it is a highly charged term) and the map becoming well known - rather the VM became well known simply because if it is what it appears to be it is one of the most exciting early documents about America. Graemedavis (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody following this discussion is welcome to conduct a survey to find out how many of the other pre-Columbian maps showing Vinland are well-known to non-specialists.David Trochos (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this map is very well known either. :) But yes, it's certainly the most well known. I think the word "marketing" should be changed to "publicity" though, because marketing is done for things that you intend to produce and sell. I'll change it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a survey would of course be original research and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Changing "marketing" to "publicity" is a very small step in the right direction, but it remains the case that the present fame of the map is not due to 1960s marketing or publicity but because every few years the map comes to public attention as the fake/genuine argument ebbs and flows. This Wikipedia article gives the highly misleading impression that that argument is now solved. It isn't. Larsen's study is the most recent, it is a substantial piece of work, it has academic backing, and it has come out with the statement "no evidence of forgery". However strongly some disagree with this view, within the scope of an encyclopaedia article it has to be reported without bias. The tone of "Larsen says X but he is wrong" is out of order as the evaluation is original research. Graemedavis (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The formal report of Larsen's presentation in Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung does NOT show the features claimed in this Wikipedia article. Rather this is someone's very critical interpretation of Larsen's presentation, and as it is not supported by a reference appears to be original research (and therefore it should not be here). The placing of the reference to Seaver as a contrary view within a discussion of Larsen is a literary device designed to discredit Larsen, and is an example of a device which should not be used in an encyclopaedia (Seaver is not responding to Larsen). The source given for Kenneth Towe's critical comments appears to be a Scientific American article - but on examination it is found that Kenneth Towe did not write this article. Rather Brendan Borrell did - and Borrell does not advance the view attributed. The real source is a reader comment posted by Kenneth Towe in an on-line thread discussing Borrell's article, and it is part of quite a long and lively debate. I don't think Wikipedia usually considers such informal discussion to be a source of encyclopaedic fact - but if it does then there are a host of views in this thread to be considered by this Wikipedia article. At the moment Larsen has the last word, a state of affairs that continues until someone publishes a response. More generally this Wikipedia article fails to demonstrate the unresolved conflict between the science/anatase argument ("the map is a forgery and anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed") and the humanities/conservation argument ("no signs of forgery"). Therefore as it stands this Wikipedia article does not reflect the balance of published accounts. For the record my own (published) view is that the VM is most probably a forgery, but the circumstance where different disciplines are yielding conflicting results should give us all pause, and Wikipedia should reflect the debate which is taking place. Finally I note that this article lacks basic courtesy in its treatment of Larsen. He is an authority who has led a team in a multi-year study, and whether his views come in time to be accepted or rejected they should be treated with respect. I recommend deletion of the present paragraph "Conservation" and replacement with a (brief) statement setting out what Larsen has proposed. Anything else is original research. Graemedavis (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction re the Brendan Borrell article: Towe's basic criticism of Larsen's failure to distinguish the form of the Binnenthal anatase crystals is a quotation from him within the body of the article. Also "no signs of forgery" is not "the humanities/conservation argument", it is the Larsen argument; it would probably be possible to swamp this article with valid "humanities" arguments against authenticity which have never been refuted, from academic publications in the 1960s. Also, the placing of the Seaver reference was not "designed to discredit Larsen", but rather showed Larsen's work confirming what Seaver, whose work was then very recently published, had not been able to ascertain with confidence. David Trochos (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Borrell's magazine article is an overview piece and presents arguments both ways. If Borrell is to be cited then his hedging should be made clear, not a view point from him which goes in just one direction. The basic point remains that Larsen's argument is the most recent substantive result and should be reported in a way which gives it the field - whatever any of us think about his views that is the present position. The Seaver reference should not be where it is, whatever the intention was (and if the Seaver reference is intended to support Larsen this certainly doesn't come across in the wording). The whole of this article has a most distasteful problem of tone, which comes to a head in its niggardly treatment of Larsen. It would be possible to gloss the whole article as it stands as "Wikipedia has proved to Wikipedia's satisfaction that the Vinland Map is a fake and anyone who disagrees is a bad scholar". In fact we do not yet have a definitive result on the genuine/fake question, even if chemists think we do. Graemedavis (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Graemedavis. This piece reads more like an op-ed piece than a balanced scholarly view, in my view. Much of the reason the map remains well-known is that debate has swirled around it for decades, with no apparent resolution. That has little to do with a purported 'marketing campaign.' I agree that the wikipedia piece should present both sides of the evidence. As it stands now, it reads more like someone discrediting anyone who believes the map might be genuine. I believe the map is likely a forgery but don't have the skills to know. It is simply a hunch. Neverthless, I believe this piece should give a more balanced portrayal of the pro's and con's than it does now. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be going the same sort of way as discussion on the Newport Tower (Rhode Island). The problem discussed there is slightly different (from OpenFuture: "this is a problem in all pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology, almost all texts produced are produced by crackpots with weird theories. This makes the majority view look like just one theory amongst many, even though it isn't") but the principle is similar. Simply reiterating the "canonical" view of the Vinland Map story to refute inaccurate recent publications by otherwise well-respected researchers just clutters up journal correspondence columns without any real impact on public perception. There is actually a basic failure of the peer-review process at the heart of all this, and perhaps the next major study of the Vinland Map should focus on that. David Trochos (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this Wikipedia article can concern itself with the rights and wrongs of the academic peer review process. Larsen has a sufficiently high professional status for a report of his views to be a required part of this article - in the end his is a multi-person, multi-year study supported by a reputable body. Larsen cannot be regarded as a crackpot with a weird theory, rather as an academic who has come up with an awkward and inconvenient result and reported what he has found, which surely is what we are all supposed to do. And his views have to be stated as they are - without including within them a statement of Seaver's earlier view (which isn't a reply to Larsen - for all we know he might now be convinced Larsen is right) or a reference to an unrefereed on-line "comment" posting from Towe. The tone of criticism of Larsen is distasteful. He is not a chemist - my personal view is that he shouldn't have been drawn on the anatase issue but simply said it is up to the scientists to square it with his findings. (This comment in brackets as it probably counts as original research - it is of course logically possible to reconcile a mediaeval map and synthetic anatase in the ink - when asked in a recent (informal) interview I had an informal stab at just this: http://www.medievalists.net/2009/12/23/interview-with-graeme-davis/ Maybe the lasting value of Larsen's work is that it will encourage us to ask different questions about the map).14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Graemedavis (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That last sentence is somewhat ironic, as it can be argued that the greatest problem with Larsen's most recent work has been his tendency to answer questions which did not need to be asked, while ignoring questions asked decades ago and still unanswered. If I take a sheet of 19th-century paper and write something on it with a 20th-century pen (which I could easily do in a couple of minutes if I didn't mind defacing a book in my library) the result is still a 21st century artifact, no matter how much analysis is done to show that the paper and the ink are genuinely of earlier periods. David Trochos (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again this counts as original research - I'm not aware of an appropriate published source for this view (ie published post-Larsen). It may be asserted that Larsen's recent work answers precisely the questions which needed to be asked while ignoring those questions most appropriately ignored (and no I can't source this view, just as I don't think you can source the contrary view). Wikipedia surely has to report what Larsen sets out without engaging in an original research evaluation of his views. However strongly some may wish to disagree with him he has come out with the "no evidence of forgery" view. We await a published response from someone in broadly his discipline (a manuscript conservator or similar) to confirm or refute his view from the basis of this discipline. A reiteration by chemists that there is synthetic anatase present is not actually an adequate response. Indeed it could be argued that the ball is in the court of the chemists to find a way to explain how this is present on a manuscript which shows no evidence of forgery. Of course none of this is the business of an encyclopaedia which surely should just be reporting without bias or interpretation the views that are out there. In passing to complete your parallel, if what you write on your nineteenth century paper is a copy of a manuscript you have found of an otherwise unknown poem by Lord Byron and you then destroy the original then your copy has value as the sole record of the poem. There are plenty of texts which we know today only from transcripts, and there are even some where the transcript was once thought to be the original. Graemedavis (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's the problem. I can, probably some time in the next few days, rewrite the article to report Larsen more "neutrally"- but the cost is, for pretty much every point he makes in his report, I will include, in its proper place in the article, the equally valid research he ignored. What you mistake for "original research" is actually my knowledge of the existing published research. On the Byron poem comparison, for example, you should bear in mind that the first objectors to the Vinland Map, before scientists even got a good look at it, were experts on the history of cartography. Some of their objections were later shown to have been based on misunderstandings- but by no means all. David Trochos (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Cost"? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(Shifting this left) This is an encyclopaedia, not a PhD thesis. There should be a rough equality between the attention the ideas have received and the space they get here. No it is not appropiate to balance a well reported view with a much less well reported, earlier or obsure contrary view. The very act of the prioritising of such views over those well reported quickly becomes original research. Larsen has said what he has said, and this article has to report it fairly and without bias. To date there is no authoritative, published response to his ideas and so (for the moment) he has the last word. A more general point is that the balance of this article is wrong. The anatase issue is a very major objection to the map being genuine, but many of the other objections presented here as if they are convincing are not. For example the VM overlaid over Greenland is an example of misleading evidence - it is very easy with genuine mappae mundae to find largely unknown bits that will overlay over a map on one projection or another. The view that should come through in this article is that while the VM is probably fake there is enough about it (and enough serious scholars) to give us pause. Until more tests are done (on the contaminants for example) or more documents come to light (say Luka Jelic's sources in the Vatican archives, or information about the manuscript pre-Ferrajoli) or there is some major re-assessment (anything from lab contamination causing false anatase results to a way of explaining how what looks like synthetic anatase may be mediaeval) then we don't know for sure what to make of the Vinland Map. Graemedavis (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"There should be a rough equality between the attention the ideas have received and the space they get here."? Never mind the scholarship, just report the views which have the most effective PR campaigns! There only appears to be "no authoritative, published response" to Larsen's ideas because there is nothing to respond to- when I referred to "research he ignored" I meant not only research which raised problems he failed to solve, but also research which anticipated individual findings of his report by decades.

As for your objection to the VM laid over Greenland- there you are indulging in original research yorself, and bad original research at that. The accuracy of the VM Greenland worried Skelton, and was the very first objection raised by the very first major historian of cartography to be allowed an independent view of the Map (Eva Taylor, back in about 1963)- and it was echoed by most of her peers in Britain and Scandinavia when the Map was revealed to the world. Just because you aren't well aware of that today, doesn't mean it wasn't widely reported within weeks of the Map's unveiling. David Trochos (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the scholarship - that's precisely the issue; an encyclopaedia cannot in any exact sense judge the merits of scholarship. It can distinguish between notable and non-notable sources (and Wikipedia has extensive policies on this) but that's about it. Larsen is notable, his Conservatory is notable, his project is notable. The common sense check is that he is an academically qualified individual working for a highly reputable organisation and conducting a multi-year, multi-person, funded research project. Many hundreds (thousands?) of man-hours of time from academic specialists have gone into a project which has as a key finding that there is no evidence of forgery. As writers of an encyclopaedia article we cannot judge this research - we can only report it. Nor can we carry out a clandestine judgment by juxtaposing Larsen with earlier views that he ignores (perhaps with good reason) or with statements from earlier writers which may implicitly contradict Larsen (the point is that because they are earlier they are not a response to Larsen). Larsen has reported what he must know are contentious views. He has faced quite a bit of criticism as a result. It appears that he has done what we should all do and reported his findings - he hasn't "modified" them to make them acceptable, or kept quiet about a problematic issue. So the chemists have told the world that they are (now) sure there is synthetic anatase in the ink, but the techniques they use are too specialised for most of us to understand. Now a conservator has told the world that there is no evidence of forgery, but the techniques conservators use are too specialised for most of us to understand. The two expert views are incompatible. Something is of course wrong. But all an encyclopaedia can do is report what is published. By the way I am reasonably informed on the history of the debates around the Vinland Map, and as you know I personally think it is most probably a fake. Notwithstanding there are aspects about it from disciplines that I know something about that create uncertainty. Additionally this is the map that was declared a fake in July 2002 (Brown and Clark) and genuine in August 2002 (Donahue) - hardly a settled view. Among the scientists the case against was made by McCrone (1976) and the case for for by Cahill (1987); Towe looked at both McCrone and Cahill and declared for Cahill (1990). Tempers have been lively - I'm thinking of McCrone turning up to a 1996 symposium at Yale that he wasn't registered to be at and distributing text of a paper he would have liked to give. This is a publicity stunt, not reasoned academe. In a nutshell Wikipedia has to report Larsen's views WITHOUT INTERPRETING THEM. Graemedavis (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But you have interpreted them yourself, and you have interpreted them in the way that was very probably intended by the PR effort. Re-read the material and see if Larsen really really does say at any point "there is no evidence of forgery". That is exactly the sort of trap that a good encyclopaedia should be helping its readers to avoid. David Trochos (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(another left shift) This is a discussion thread, so I think there is some freedom for our interpretation. The issue is much bigger than just Larsen. This article reads as if the authoritative decision has been made by the great scientists and that there is now no debate among those who have two brain cells to rub together. In fact this is not the case. Take the following:

CONTEXT. We have proof the Vikings visited N America and Greenland, pretty much the parts shown on the VM. And L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered after the VM. Context suggests PROBABLY GENUINE.

MATERIALS. Radio Carbon gives a mediaeval date for the parchment - and the map was known before the Radion Carbon technique. However the ink appears to be C20th synthetic (McCrone and Towe argue this, though disputed by Cahill and Olim). Materials suggest PROBABLY FAKE.

STYLE: Cartography, calligraphy, language. Every area here is hotly debated. I don't think it is possible to get a simple answer. Larsen has perhaps done more than most to offer a response in this difficult area and the response is no evidence of a forgery (presumably this is a journalist's paraphrase of Larsen, but it seems a fair paraphrase and I don't think Larsen has disputed it). My personal cogitations have led me to feel "the jury is out" (and that is a quote!) NO CLEAR ANSWER.

PROVENANCE. Contextualised within the TR and SH. Where it was before Ferrajoli remains a mystery. Issues around its presentation to the world (eg a book dealer through whose hands it passed "confessed" years later to telling lies). This is of course the big problem - we just don't have the context we need. NO CLEAR ANSWER.

FORGER. If it is a forgery it is very hard to see who did it or why. It needs a high level of skills to produce something like this - and it is odd that a forger didn't go for a more conventional style for a mappa mundae. Luka Jelic surely couldn't have done it. Josef Fischer I find highly implausible. PROBABLY GENUINE.

STRONG VIEWS. People are bothered by the outcome of this debate. There was a riot in Newhaven when it was first declared genuine (ie people didn't want it to be genuine). We've had McCrone's stunt at a Yale conference, which is the best way I can think of for him to throw doubt on his own findings. The book dealer's "confession" (Witten) does not read as a voluntary confession. There is a lot of emotion tied up in proving the map false and a lot of money tied up with proving it genuine. Result TRUTH MAY BE OBSCURED BY RESEARCHER BIAS.

This sense of a balanced debate which has not yet produced a conclusion doesn't come through in the article. It takes as its basis that the anatase argument of McCrone is correct and criticises every opposing view (and implicitly criticises the scholars also). It needs a root and branch re-write to reflect the balance of published views on the map. Graemedavis (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of somebody like Kirsten Seaver, who has studied and, more importantly written a detailed an analysis of a large percentage of the available evidence (both published and private) your conclusion is exactly wrong. The concept that the anatase is the only significant evidence of forgery, and that there is a disagreement between science and the humanities, is clearly shown by Seaver in her 480 pages to be a serious misconception- and for her, one of the most significant aspects of the Vinland Map story is how that misconception came about and continues to be exploited. By the way, one of my objections to Larsen's 2009 piece is the way he creates "straw man" arguments out of Seaver's work. Perhaps slightly less by the way, another flaw in your original research- the Vinland Map first surfaced shortly AFTER radiocarbon dating became famous for its successes at Stonehenge and Great Zimbabwe. David Trochos (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this discussion increasingly troublesome, as it strays, in my opinion, from the true purpose of what an encyclopedia should be about – or perhaps, better said, illuminates its purpose. I agree with Graemedavis that the thrust of this piece should be to examine carefully the tangle of arguments on both sides and to elucidate them as best possible. This is a complicated affair, with no clear answers. The article, as now written, seems to presume an outcome. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, nor is handicapping all the combatants. This piece needs a substantial rewrite. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some strange logic here. That Vikings explored North America does *not* lend credibility to the map. If we knew for sure that the did not explore it, that would mean the map is fake, that we know they did it only means that it can be genuine, not that it probably is genuine.

The unusual style is also not an argument for it being genuine. I've seen that logic applied to for example the Kensington runestone. That it is "unique" and don't look like the genuine article is somehow taken as an argument for it being genuine, especially when as in the case the uniqueness is tied to simplicity. A map in a more conventional style would have been harder to make. None of these are arguments against, but also not arguments for, ending up in a more "no clear answer" position all in all. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be said at this point that such broad-brush considerations did not play a significant part in the academic debate about the Map anyway. The focus was always on specific issues which could be identified as anachronistic or inconsistent- and very probably a large part of the current problem is that the identification of these problems was done by specialists, and published in specialist journals across multiple disciplines. The 1995 edition of "The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation" should have been the place to summarise these specialist contributions together, but that's not what happened .... David Trochos (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The intention of my list is simply to set out that there are more sorts of arguments to be covered and different weightings for them than appear at present in this article. Of course every point can be debated (for example, okay, I see from Wikipedia (no less!) that the Carbon-14 dating technique was discovered in 1949 which is indeed before the map was presented to the world, but I note that the contaminants on the map (and its presumed forgery date if it is a forgery) are well before 1949 - so it remains correct that the map was produced on a bit of parchment of the right date before the technique existed to date the parchment. And yes I know that this might be no-more than saying that a manuscript known to be of the correct date was selected by a forger as a context, but... the argument quickly becomes lengthy and without a provable conclusion). Similarly the discovery of the Vikings at L'Anse aux Medows (and most recently now on Baffin Island) does provide an archaeological context which gives some sort of support to the map, however anyone wants to express this. Seaver's work needs very serious consideration by this article, but so too does Larsen's. This article has to reflect what's out there. I agree that "The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation" should have provided some form of bringing together of specialist views and some form of synthesis, but it didn't, and we are left with muddle. I don't see how an encyclopaedia can do any more than report this position. Graemedavis (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the contaminants on the map ... are well before 1949". On the contrary, one of the most worrying features of the map is that it is soaked with a chemical including fallout from 1950s nuclear testing, which could only have been done between about 1954 and early 1957. David Trochos (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a website WebExhibits which features the Vinland Map: http://www.webexhibits.org/vinland/cartographic.html The idea of the site is to use the Vinland Map as a way of thinking about the nature of evidence, as a teaching tool designed mainly for school children. While it is perfectly easy to criticise their presentation of the Vinland Map, it does have a key strength in that it conveys the academic uncertainty as reflected in the published materials. It seems to me that this is a far fairer over-view of the ideas that are out there than this present Wikipedia article. Graemedavis (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Similarly the discovery of the Vikings at L'Anse aux Medows (and most recently now on Baffin Island) does provide an archaeological context which gives some sort of support to the map" - No it doesn't, sorry. That's wishful thinking. The possibility that someone could have made a map like the Vinland map is not support for it to be genuine. The question is not "could it have been made in the 15th century", the question is "was it made in the 15th century".

The website is great. :)--OpenFuture (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The website is good, but not great- it was created shortly before Seaver's book was published, and never made it beyond the Beta stage. David Trochos (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a way forward would be to agree the sources that should be reflected by this Wikipedia article. For example as far as Larsen's contribution is concerned it seems to me that his (Reuters) press release and contribution to Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung are key - both I think acceptable Wikipedia sources. The views he sets out should be presented without comment from Wikipedia editors. Brendan Borrell's "Scientific American" article is a reasonable secondary source, but only the article, not the discussion that follows (Borrell offers an overview of the issues around the Vinland Map contextualising Larsen). I'm not sure that there is any other source right now. Larsen cannot be "answered" by publications that pre-date Larsen or web discussion postings or the views of Wikipedia editors (all such would be original research). A clean up of the presentation of the Larsen materials would be a good starting point to improve this article. The overall bias of this article is more problematic, but perhaps the same concept might be applied section-by-section. Graemedavis (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To "agree the sources that should be reflected by this Wikipedia article" it will be really helpful if the editors involved in the discussion have read and reflected on them. David Trochos (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This goes to the heart of the problem as it suggests some sort of editorial decision on the appropriacy or otherwise of sources as a result of a qualitative editorial view on their content. Rather I see the the Wikipedia process as more quantitative - if an item is notable (and the guidelines are extensive) it both can and should be included. The same applies for a response - and I don't think there is yet a notable response to Larsen. Larsen should be reported by a synthesis of what he says. Graemedavis (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wetman

...detailing the explorations of Leif Eriksson, who had discovered America in the 11th century and named it Vinland. I've deleted this as it's incorrect. See the article. Wetman 01:32, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But something very like this is correct. Bjarni Herjolfsson is the first European to SEE North America, though he didn't land. Leif Eriksson in 1000 or shortly after landed an may reasonably be called the first European discoverer. He is responsible for the name Vinland, though quite what partof NA it applies to is open to debate. 213.122.49.32 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A myth. It isn't logical that a navigator, warrior and invasive people as the Vikings discovered lands and not return to them for 500 years and haven't a record of this in his history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.15.163 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Enzo Ferrajoli de Ry

Enzo Ferrajoli de Ry was not an italian-spanish dealer but a thief. He stole more than 110 books from Biblioteca Capitular in Zaragoza. He was imprisioned for eight years. It could be interesting to add this information. Thank you. Jelenca (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Jelenca

It is in the article: "he had no idea where the map came from, beyond Ferrajoli (who was convicted of theft shortly after the sale, and died shortly after release from prison)" - and of course Ferrajoli was a dealer as well as a thief. 90.246.231.1 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)