Talk:Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney

Untitled
Say something about Frederick J. Pohl identifying Sinclair as Glooscap in Prince Henry Sinclair Kwantus 20:12, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

1st Earl of Orkney?
Besides being just wrong, it's not usual to style Norwegian nobles that way Fornadan (t) 14:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

- Indeed, this system is nonsensical in any case. Calgacus 03:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

-The system of numbering is British (Scottish in this case). The number’s follow the direct line of family inheritance from being granted (by the King). So that the fist Sinclair to hold Orkney is the 1st Earl and the last Sinclair is the 3rd Earl. When the Earldom was re-created and given to another family the numbers started from one again. The system makes sense to me :-)

It’s not the correct style for Norwegian Nobles. The Sinclair’s being a Scottish family, albeit vassals of Norway adopted the Scottish system….or at least they did latter on.

The family numbering system is later invention of British Heralds and is not (as far as I am aware) “official”.

Jalipa

Merge with La Merika
There is a great overlap of material between this article and La Merika. I suggest a merge here. Blueboar 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Henry of Orkney was a historical person whose life & actions frankly are not very well covered by this article. It concentrates on an unproved theory that the Zeno brother’s writings (which are also suspect) are referring to him.


 * These writings are quite possibly forgeries. Also it is just theory that their “Prince Zichmni” is Henry Sinclair. (A theory based on a possible forgery!?)


 * However, I think there is a case for merging the “Zichmni” article with “La Merika” article. Naturally, there should be mention & a link on this page.


 * What this article really needs is more verifiable historical information on Henry Sinclair, his clan and tenure as Earl of Orkney rather than Dan Brownesque fantasy. Jalipa 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would not support a merger of these two articles. My preference would be to restrict this article to largely factual information about Henry, and simply direct readers to the La Merika article with a link and passing reference if they want to read about that theory.--Caliga10 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Caliga10, just to clarify ... what you discribe is not a merge. In a merge, one article is folded into another.  Some of the material from one article (in this case La Merika) is cut and pasted into another (ie this article) and the first article would be deleted with a redirect to the second.
 * Jalipa, I fully agree... however, most of the links to this article in other articles are in reference to the "Sinclair voyaged to America" stuff. That is what makes him notable rather than just another long dead Scottish nobleman. I agree that the voyage theory is absolute clap trap, but it does need to be discussed - if only to disprove it.  By the way, if the merge does not happen, there is some good refutation info at the La Merika article that could be included here. Blueboar 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I'm not describing a merge. I'm describing what I would like to see happen, which isn't a merge. :)--Caliga10 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have merged, as per the above discussion. I am not completely happy with the way I linked the two articles... but it is a start. Blueboar 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, Jesus H. Christ, Blue. You just couldn't wait for me to get my copy of Hiram Key, could you?  Well I've got it back, now.  And I was right, you were wrong: MULTIPLE mentions of "La MeriCa."  The most notable is just around an illustration of the templar knight rock:


 * "We cannot be sure from the surviving evidence, but stories persist of Templar ships going to Scotland and to Portugal. The fleet could have visited both refuges in turn, but it seems more probable to us that they divided as soon as they left port, with one section headed towards Scotland and the remainder sailing to the northern tip of friendly Portugal to stock up with provisions.  From there, they set out on a voyage that had often been discussed but, due to commitments in the Holy Land, had never been undertaken.  They pointed their bows exactly due west and set sail on what is now the fourty-second parallel in search of the land marked by the star they knew from the Nasorean scrolls was called Merica, which these French knights referred to as 'la Merica', a name that later became simply America.  They almost certainly landed in the Cape Cod or Rhode Island area of New England in the early weeks of 1308, setting foot on the New World nearly a century and a half before Christopher Columbus was even born."
 * _The Hiram Key_, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, p. 288.


 * ''"Before leaving the subject of the first European landings in the New World, we would like to explain why it became our firm conviction that the continent of America took its name, not from the 'also-ran' explorer Amerigo Vespucci, but from the star of the west called Merika, which the Nasoreans believed was the marker of a perfect land across the ocean of the setting sun. Not only did we have the evidence of the true source of the name; we found that the old explanation is easy to disprove.
 * ''The standard historical line that is routinely trotted out for the origin of the name of the New World, comes entirely from a silly misunderstanding by an obscure clergyman who never ventured more than a few miles from the monastsery of St. Deodatus in the Vosges Mountains in the Duchy of Lorraine on the French/German border. This very enthusiastic priest had a passion for geography and for deeply meaningful names.  He gave himself the highly imaginative psuedonym of "Hylacomylus', from the Greek word for 'wood', the Latin for 'lake' and the Greek for 'mill', which was eventually translated back to his native German to create the family name of Waldseemüller. This slightly eccentric man led a small team who had access to a printing press and they gathered what information they could about the world including the inspiring discoveries of the great and mysterious continent across the western ocean.  The little group produced and printed a 103-page volume in April 1507 that they called Cosmographiae Introductio.  It covered the traditional principles of cosmography, including the divisions of the planet, distances between key locations and details of winds and climates, but it was also the source of a mistake that would make anamateur navigator famous for all time.  Waldseemüller had found a number of references by various sailors to a general landmass of the great continent to the west, describing it as 'America', and he also found a glowing account of the travels of an Italian explorer by the name of Amerigo Vespucci.  He erroneously married the two pieces of unconnected information and wrote:


 *  'Now these parts of the Earth (Europe, Africa, Asia) have been more extensively explored and a fourth part has been discovered by Amerigo Vespucci (as will be described in what follows). Insomuch as both Europe and Asia received their names from women, I see no reason why reason why anyone should justly object to calling this part Amerige (from the Greek "ge" meaning "land of"), i.e. the land of Amerigo, or America, after Amerigo, its discoverer, a man of great ability.'"
 * _The Hiram Key_, Knight and Lomas, p. 290-291


 * The chapter goes on to describe how, once printed, there was no taking it back, and so the explaination stuck. Anyway, how is it again that you claim that the La Merica topic was never discussed in Hiram Key? As you may have noticed, it is spelled both ways, at least once with a "C" and at least once with a "K."  So even if my previous guess that you were searching an E-Text was right, you still should have caught it.  You've clearly been trying to derail the La Merica page since you found it; going from a failed deletion request, to telling me that Knight/Lomas's book never mentions it (again, falsely), and now you're merging it despite my requests to just wait and I would fix it once I had the resources.


 * So here's my idea: Now that I've done the hard work for you to prove that the theory is based on a real publication (like you asked), could you PLEASE put this on its own page? You clearly know much more about Wikipedia than I do, and I clearly know more about the La Merica theory than you do.  Can we work together and do something more people would be happy with?  If you want to relate these two articles, sure.  I can see a basis for that.  But they're clearly not the same topic.  (it'd be like redirecting the Revolutionary War to George Washington.  Sure, he had a leadership role, but that's not the issue.)


 * Though, since you seem interested in the connection, (and in the interest of full disclosure) there's another excerpt from The Hiram Key:


 * "[The Reverend Janet Dyer] continued her helpful commentary by referring to the documented evidence that Prince Henry Sinclair, the first St Clair Jarl (Earl) of the Orkneys had, thanks to Templar money, commissioned a fleet of twelve ships for a voyage to the 'New World'. The fleet under Antonio Zeno landed in Nova Scotia and explored the eastern seaboard of what is now the United States of America prior to 1400.  The date is certain because Henry Sinclair was murdered upon his return in that year."
 * _The Hiram Key_, Knight and Lomas, p. 302.


 * Sorry about the long post, but I've had so much resistance since the beginning of this whole thing that I'd rather just let BlueBoar sort out his own version of the truth based on the information available. No other version will quite do, no matter how many people object.  *sigh*  Please fix this, Blue. I'm real sorry if the page has been an eye sore, but as you can see, I'm willing to help just as soon as I know my contributions won't just dissappear, like the La Merica page itself.
 * -Luke 67.173.165.18 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well... OK, it does seem that I was mistaken about The Hiram Key. However, I still think the merge was the right thing to do... it all works better as part of this article.  The Hiram Key is highly speculative pseudo-history (a lot of "it is possible" and "it could be that")... when you compare Knight and Lomas's speculation with the scholarly research by REAL historians, it all comes down to the question of "was Henry Sinclair a Knight Templar? And if so did he sail to America?"... Thus, any discussion about "La Merica" works better on this page. Blueboar 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Dates, and Templars
The article states that Karen Ralls says Henry and William Sinclair testfied against the Templars. When did this happen? The trial of the Templars was in 1309, and Henry Sinclair was born around 1345. I'm confused, either Ralls is talking about a different set of Sinclairs or a different trial. --67.68.10.7 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think she is talking about a different trial. While the Templars were put on trial in France in 1309, the resulting papal bull disbanding them was not read out in Scotland until much later.  I will have to check the reference, but it seems likely that Ralls is referring to another trial (one in Scotland, and at a later date.) Blueboar 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I have cut the following: and
 * The huge inheritance from his wife Joseline Sinclair and the political power of her brother ( his brother in arm in the first crusade) helped Hugh jumpstart his fraternity. It was known that 9 people established the fraternity but one stayed unknown (could the ninth be the Saint Claire and then his family line)..
 * The St. Clairs (Sinclairs) (from Normandy, France) were among the families that supported William the Conqueror in 1066 and this is how they received their holdings in Scotland. Shortly after moving, they changed their name to the Scottish Sinclair []

The angelfire sites are personal (self publised) websites that do not meet WP:RS. Feel free to add the info back if you can find better citations. Blueboar 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WHO calls it the "La Merika/La Merica Theory"
I have raised this before, but need to raise it again. We say that the theory that Sinclair sailed to America is sometimes called the "La Merika Theory" (or "La Merica Theory"). I understand that we have sources to back the fact that a few loony authors claim that America was named after some sort of star by that name... I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is the lack of citation to show that anyone actually calls this idea by the exact name "La Merika Theory". Without a citation to back the fact that this phrasing is actually used by someone, I can only assume that it is a neologism created by an editor. That constitutes Original Research. Blueboar 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinclairs as sailors
Why is it so difficult to accept that that a 13th Century Earl whose subjects in Orkney where by and large Norse, could have sailed to America or elsewhere when Leif Ericson did just that in 1003?

The vessels Sinclair would have used must have been and improvement on 11th Century designs surely?

Yes I accept the evidence to prove it is scant but that does not mean to say it could not be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.55 (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether he could have done so... the question is whether he did do so. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian Sinclair
OK, we seem to have a revert war going on here... Please explain why it is so important to mention Ian Sinclair. How is he at all relevant to this article? Why must he be mentioned (and more importantly, why do we need to have a photograph of him) in an article on his distant ancestor? This article is about Henry... not about his descendants. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I've been taking it out as well as it has no place here, especially the picture. The IP has yet to discover a talk page though I think. I left a message on the talk page of the last ip they used, now on a different one (sigh).--Alf melmac 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done the same at his most recent address. If he continues to ignore our requests for discussion, I will report him as an IP vandal and request that the page be semi-protected. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yup, I guess I'd be an involved admin if I did it myself. It'll be tempting though :)--Alf melmac 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... This is actually part of a pattern. We also have a new article on Ian Sinclair's Gnostic Templar group (see: International Order of Gnostic Templars).  It seems that the IP is trying to promote that org by mentioning it here.  Having looked into this further, I have nominated that article for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting the words in this edit, removing the photo of the statue, there does appear to be business interest. (By the way the statue cannot be anything other than conjecture, as is the one at Harvard, where they managed to dress the guy in the wrong centuries' costume - so I'm not overly mindful of its disappearance).--Alf melmac 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree... no real loss. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hooked X Rune
According to the History Channel the Hooked X rune links the Kennsington Stone, the Newport Tower, The Knight Gunn in New England, and Christopher Columbus as relation by marriage to Sinclair as all Templar in America evidence. I'm sure the show will air again. My point being: Will the skeptic that manages this page add to or reject the new evidence presented by the History Channel. To Note: The History Channel has also said Templars moved to Switzerland and invented modern banking, and that Columbus started as a Catalan revolutionary fighting Spain before faking Italian heritage to sail to America under a Spanish flag. My other point being: the History Channel is self contradictory. In anycase, I hope to return here and see what becomes of Prince/Earl Sinclair.


 * Having seen most of the History Channel programs related to this topic, I seriously doubt they actually state all this as being fact. The History Channel at least pretends that it covers its subjects with ballanced historical accuracy... so when covering specualtive theories such as these, they ususally stick a qualifying phrase such as "according to some..." in there somewhere. And they usually get around to debunking it all in the last three minutes, by interviewing a noted historian who says it is all a load of crap. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

subsection 3: "Alleged..."
Would someone please clarify the following sentence:
 * "The theory also makes use of the supposed Templar connection to explain the name Nova Scotia ("New Scotland" in Latin), basing themselves on the 18th century tale that some Templars escaped the suppression of their order by fleeing to Scotland of Robert the Bruce[11]..."
 * "...by fleeing to Scotland of Robert the Bruce" is baffling, due to the expression and position "of Robert the  Bruce".  Do you mean to say: ...by fleeing to  the  Scotland of Robert  the  Bruce"?   Thanks.&mdash; 24.49.51.81 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have clarified by changing it to "by fleeing to Scotland during the reign of Robert the Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good change. Thanks. &mdash;24.49.51.81 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

recent edits
I have had to revert a chunk of recent edits by Caledon861 (see my revert here. The edits were made in good faith, and some of the material probably should be retained,... unfortunately some of the changes were unsupported and contentious, and I can not separate out the good from the bad and so have had to revert it all.  I ask Caledon861 to go a bit slower... make a small change, then wait until others have had a chance to see it and comment (say a day or two), then move on to make the next one.  Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I noted a bit about the Louisburg cannon, based on some bad research by Andrew Sinclair. This was definitely not a 14th century cannon. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Armorial
I am conducing research into other families of this generation I have noticed that the armorial provided for this page is not consistent with the title. The one shown on the article page is that of the Sinclair of Roslin and is depicted as such in the Bruce and Balliol Rolls. Stoddart, in Scottish Arms volume 1, under the Armorial de Berry, plate 1 shows the correct arms for the Earldom. The one on the article page is certainly of Henri Sinclair and as illustrated in the Armorial de Gelre and was thus the one he used prior to achieving the Earldom of Orkney. The shield is shown on commons:Folio 64v de l'Armorial de Gelre. The issue arises as it seems that the armorial was depicted prior to his rise to the Earldom in 1379 but the publication printed after. It is commonly believed that it was published in 1380-84 and thus consistent with his rise.

Of further interest to you the Armorial de Gelre includes, in the description of his armorial a crest. You can see this in Stoddarts works and I have rendered it here.

The crest is that of a camel and usually depicted service in the middle east. My research suggests that Sinclair was a close associate of Sir Walter Leslie who is inaccurately depicted at Walter Leslie. It is known that Walter and Norman Leslie participated in the Alexandrian Crusade in 1365 and I suspect Norman died there as he was the knight that led the charge on the Customs gate to gain entry into the city. Judging by the Armorial de Gelre, it seems that a number of Scottish knights participated; Sir Henry Sinclair, the two Leslies, John of Edmonstone, John of Abernethy and others. They were back in Scotland before February 1366. Also of interest is that another Sinclair is depicted in the Armorial de Gelre. His name is not given but is clearly of the same family, that is Roslin. Is seems likely that he was a younger brother. His shield was the same but with a blue cross. You can see it on this page. He had no crest depicted and it seems probable that it depicted his brother David.

Also of interest to this family; it seems that Henry and David had a sister. She is not depicted in The Scots Peerage and I can find few records of her. However there is a Charter, of Walter Leslie, as Lord of Ross, dated 1367 to a Euphemia de "Sancto Clare" of lands in Buchan and other in Inverness. And also, as a result of the attempts made by William, Earl of Ross, to void the marriage between Leslie and his daughter which was arranged by the king, he produced evidence of a relationship between Leslie and a woman, unnamed, that is depicted as being within prohibited degrees. This required papal dispensation which was obtained in December 1367 where it is stated that "Walter Leslie had previously had illicit intercourse with a lady related within the fourth degree of kindred to Eufamia de Ross". Euphemia Ross' aunt was Marjory and married to Maol Íosa V, Earl of Strathearn.

It may be useful to depict the change in the armorial when Henri gains the Earldom. I have not found a good render of the arms of Sinclair, Earl of Orkney with the one for the Earldom on wikipedia being that of Douglas. If it interests you I could probably make an attempt. PS I am new to wikipedia, I'll also leave a note to your talk page Family locator (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia... I would suggest working with WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology on this... that's where our experts on this kind of stuff hang out.
 * Also... since you are new to Wikipedia, I would suggest that you become familiar with the nuances of our WP:No original research policy. I don't question your research... but if it is your own research, based on primary sources, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to present it. I would hate for you to spend a lot of time trying to improve this article, only to be told "Sorry, we can't accept that."  Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, that is a good topic; pity more wikipedians do not follow those guidelines. The heraldry is well documented in the sources I mentioned.  Simply put the armorial on this article page is incorrect for the title - Earl of Orkney, it was used by him when he was Lord of Roslin but I note where the confusion arises.  I will work with the group you mention to see if we can get it correctly represented.  The activities of some of the Scots during the Alexandrian Crusade are also well documented notably in MacQuarrie, Alan; Scotland and the Crusades, 1095-1560, (Edinburgh, 1997), but I haven't been specifically looking for Henry Sinclair; it was simply that the article page suggests there is little history of him and I presumed that being a Crusader may tie in with your links to the Templars and generate interest.  The piece about Euphemia would only be of interest if you were a genealogist.  It effects Walter Leslie and Euphemia Ross and has little bearing on Henry Sinclair.  Again thanks for the tip.  Family locator (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Templars in Scotland
I am wondering if there is some wording we can agree on with regards to Templars in Scotland. What historical references seem to point to is that after the Templar Order was dissolved, many refugees fled to Scotland, due in no small part to Scotland under Robert Bruce then being excommunicated by the Church. It is no secret, or fringe theory, that many of the few remaining Templars went there. Sure, these numbers would not have been massive - but they were significant enough to be noted in history. Is there some way we could reflect this? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually that paragraph is unsourced and needs sources. Sadly most of the books written on this are fringe. But I have found Templars: History and Myth: From Solomon's Temple to the Freemasons By Michael Haag which is published by Profile Books. If you look at the publisher the book seems to meet our criteria for being reliably published (WP:RS). That quotes the Brian Smith article we use but has other material that might be useful. But any sources need to mention both Sinclair and Templars. Doug Weller (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a side note here... I think it important to distinguish fact from opinion and speculation... The idea that a bunch of Templars fled to Scotland is resoundingly rejected by academic historians. There is NO historical documentation to support the idea, and the non-written "evidence" is considered very sketchy (at best).
 * However, the idea is exciting and mysterious enough that it gets a LOT of coverage in pop-history sources (History Channel, etc) ... unfortunately most of it is based on speculation and pseudo-historical theorizing. The theory is popular enough that it should be mentioned... but it needs to be phrased as opinion, and not presented as accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I can certainly understand that. It is one frustrating thing about today's media that if an idea takes off it can be explored by countless quasi-reliable sources but never a truly reliable one. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060406214240/http://www.sundayherald.com/45946 to http://www.sundayherald.com/45946
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061103131257/http://www.renaissancemagazine.com/backissues/sinclair.html to http://www.renaissancemagazine.com/backissues/sinclair.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=485458
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217163327/http://www.nls.uk/print/search/indx/indx.cfm?key=39.4 to http://www.nls.uk/print/search/indx/indx.cfm?key=39.4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Templar origin absurdity
User:Blueboar, what are we really doing here - harvesting self-published lecture notes by a electrical engineer playing at being a historian as something demanding full presentation, just so we can then refute the least ridiculous aspect of it? There was no Henri St Clair, Duke of Champaine - there was no duchy of Champagne and the Henry who ruled Champagne as count wasn't related to the St. Clairs in the slightest. In the misplaced spirit of not including a brief claim without refutation, we are left with a version that actively promotes much more elaborate absurdity that we don't refute at all. The reason given for reversion was that NPOV demands not giving a claim without refutiation, but the Lomas claims discussed in the paragraphs in question, 1) that the Sinclairs played a role in the Templar foundation, 2) that there was a St. Clair who was Duke of Champaine, and 3) who the Templar founder married, the cuurrent text is only refuting the last of them. We are still presenting the first two claims entirely unrefuted (which is one more unrefuted claim than my version). None of this merits the level of coverage we are giving it. Agricolae (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I supose one option is to cut the Lomas claims entirely (I would say it is pseudohistory) - in which case there is no need to debunk them. My concern was that we be balanced. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pseudohistory of Arthurian proportion. My first preference would be to pare the whole section down to a few sentences. One or two saying that claims are made regarding Henry making a Templar-driven voyage of discovery to America (without getting into the precise arguments), and one or two sentences saying actual historians don't buy it (I have two scholarly sources that dismiss it comprehensively), and include a hatnote for Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories. If there are any specific details that are deemed terribly important for understanding the 'theory', they can be moved to the other page. As to the Templar material, most of that isn't even directly related to Henry Sinclair, just vague claims of Sinclair family-Templar connections for which if there is a place for it on Wikipedia, it isn't in Henry's article.
 * If something this drastic is unpalatable, then we still need to take a close look at whether the individual purveyors we are publicizing are noteworthy (as opposed to just more available to whichever editor chose to add the material). There are dozens of self-published books expressing some flavor of this, and the personal variants on Forster/Pohl themes by their interchangeable amateur-pseudohistorian authors probably don't merit special attention. Agricolae (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)