Popular Posts



Norse vs NO Norse

Yesterday I edited the Wikipedia, NORUMBEGA. but I could not figure out how to add my source reference.  I submitted the edits anyway.

I recieved an email from Doug Weller, who advised me that the edit was not  made because I did not include a source reference.
Today I responded with the text below.

Hi, Doug,

You wrote

“Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Norumbega did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed”

I am an old man, 85 years, with poor eye sight, and Parkinson driven fingers.  Those are not excuses, but valid reasons why I gave up trying to insert my reference. I planned to return today.

My reference was 

In the right hand column, you should be able to read that the “High and Mighty Prince Charles” did replace “Norumbega” with “New England” in 1616.

The previous Wikipedia author did NOT reference evidence that Norumbega was “Legendary” or a “somewhat mythical name.”  In fact the name Norumbrega is on the map in two places and as valid as any other name.

Another name on the map is “COR TEREALIS” which is authentic because Wikipedia has a reference to “Gaspar Corte-Real.”  (Corte-Real and Columbus were Portuguese observers in boats rowed by Norwegians.  The English in 1616, who were planning to conquer America, did not want anybody to know that Norse were in America.  Thus they called the “Norumbega” map a map of a Mythical Island.”)

By continuing the MYTH, WIkipedia continues the suppressing of factual history.

Wikipedia has a LONG TERM PROBLEM.

The 17th century English created a MYTH by suppressing all knowledge of Norse in America, like they did the 1616 map of John Smith.

We, all, learned the English MYTH.  Nearly everyone in the world believes the MYTH.
So, Wikipedia authors do NOT have to provide evidence of statements of “somewhat Mythical.”

Those, who believe the MYTH, will defend the MYTH by taking actions such as deleting valid edits instead of waiting for references not yet submitted.

The REAL issue is:

Was Old Norse really the origin of the Algonquin Indian Language as the 15,000 comparisons that Reider T. Sherwin made in the eight Volumes of the VIKING and the Red Man?

If YES, then most Wikipedia authors are defending the 17th century English MYTH.
They are suppressing knowledge that the Americans were speaking Norse when the English invaded.


No comments:

Post a Comment