Talk:366 geometry

POV reviews
I find it hard to believe that the critical reception of this theory is so widely positive. The number of positively cited reviews must be radically out of proportion with the actual reception. Indeed, if negative reviews are hard to find, it is likely because so few researchers have bothered to respond to a fringe theory.

Can we do something to fix the critical reception section please? Phiwum (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I've had a stab at it but not really satisfactorily. It needs to be brought into line with both our WP:NPOV policy and the WP:Fringe guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions in titles
Four questions used as titles. Even if these sections reflect reliable facts (dubious), it's probably not the best writing style to have titles that make speculations. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Merge. Was recreated on the basis of new evidence in a book by... writers whose work is completely disregarded by academics. So no justification for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree... I would say to completely delete it as being rubbish... but, unfortunately, Christopher Knight has a good publicist, and his books sell. That means that his stuff is somewhat notable rubbish.  So, as a second best option, I would say this article should be merged... with some of the material here placed in a short section in the Pseudoscientific metrology article, and the rest in the article on the Author. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Merge Per nom, it is enough to discuss this the appropriate parent page. No need to have a WP:COATRACK for promotion of a book of nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge as per reasons above. Possibly relevant, I've noted on ANI that although Alan Butler is salted, it's been recreated as Alan butler. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the recreated article is now deleted and salted. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Will fit nicely in Pseudoscientific metrology. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Not sure how many basic facts can be extracted for other articles, but the pseudoscientific metrology and/or the author's bios sound like a good place to move it to. Possibly the idea may merit it's own article at some point, but this material is essentially marketing material for a book, not a well-rounded discussion of the underlying topic. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Time to do this? Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree. As I've written many times already, this theory is not a one-man theory but a six-(Guichard, Thom, Butler, Lomas, Knight, Tristan); and again, I have to say I am utterly surprised that you uninamously discard it as rubbish. To me this theory not only has merit, but honestly I can't find any other plausible theory regarding the origin of the 360-degree circle (academic or not). Believe me, I've been trying to find one for more than two years, but to the best of my knowledge nothing best explains the origins of the 360 circle than this very theory, be it true or not. What's more I carefully checked the "new" facts and I can't find the authors at fault. Plus to that, as you aptly point out, Knight is notable enough. Now can anyone tell me why this theory should not have its own article? After all, as of Nov. 2009, en.wiki has more than 3,000,000 articles, many of them just a few lines long and with very limited interest. This one is well-documented and (arguably) interesting. Why delete it then???--Little sawyer (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the question is not "is it rubbish" (of course it is), but "is it notable". --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. As far as the 360 degree circle, it's known that many ancients knew the number of days in the year was approximately 365, and that a number of civilizations used base 60 in figuring, making 360 a reasonable approximation and a regular number.  May I add that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a good reason for deletion or non-deletion of an article?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia writing as internet argument
I love how the second paragraph is just people having an internet argument in the vague form of an encyclopedia article. Good work, guys! MrBook (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Completely Disagree. This science needs much more study. There is a new publication due in 2011 from author Lin Gang (The Ancient Map Code). He is providing information that the 366 degree nomenclature was used by the ancient Chinese (1093 A.D.). His book has been published in China and is available. English version is due in 2011. He shows that the Waldseemuller Map was a copy (or used as reference) by the 16th century cartographer. Chapter 4 is available for download with the authors email and contact information. His research is supported by Gavin Menzies. Lin Gang's research also by default has the approval of the Chinese gov't. Dumping this into the false science catagory would be a "so sad" condition. It shows the world is still not ready for the non-European centered history. As a side point, Waldseemuller's globe gores map already shows the 366 degree science and the map is China centered. How odd for an established European cartographer to do this given the religious/political climate of Europe at that time. For more information, view Gavin Menzies web site for direct links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveylu1948 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How in the world can the Chinese government by default support anything? It certainly does not support Menzies' nonsense. This is not a forum for discussing ideas about 366, eg your 'side point'. Liu Gang's other alleged map seems to be a modern forgery, this one sounds at least as dubious. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)