Talk:Voyage of the Zeno brothers

Untitled

Why would letters between brothers be forged? Makes no sense to do so...motive is lacking. Need reference to who thinks they are "a hoax" to update this website properly.

---

The reference given in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is clear enough. Already in 1744, Pierre François-Xavier de Charlevoix noted that the discovery of Estotiland (attributed to "John Scalve, a Pole") "lacks proof" and "it is even admitted now that Estotiland is a chimerical country". By the 18th century the North Atlantic had been sufficiently explored to establish that the islands described were not where the Zeno bros said they were. Eulalie Écho 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Period cannon

I have read that a cannon was found and still exists and another apparently was found and is now lost of a type used for only a few years around 1380. Someone was discarding ancient cannon before 1849 for the purpose of confounding historians. These finds do not answer the question at hand, but perhaps are is worthy of inclusion in this article. Louisburg Harbor, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, in 1849, for at least one cannon, according to Andrew Sinclair. (fotoguzzi)76.105.160.69 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

New Book on the Topic

In 2011 Andrea di Robilant published a book on this topic, Irresistible North: From Venice to Greenland on the Trail of the Zen Brothers. The book is moderately pro-Zen but discusses the issues in fair detail and has a bibliography, if anyone wants to study this further. 198.228.193.168 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A section devoted to controversy

A glance through the history of this page shows that there have been a number of posts that were subsequently deleted by other users. Looking at the older versions of the article shows that these posts were intended to present the existence of published works arguing for the possibility that the Zeno story (though obviously inaccurate) may contain kernels of truth. These posts contained citations. One deletion was accompanied with the argument that the deletion was meant to avoid giving undue weight to a fringe belief.

I'd like to compare this article to two things: the American Evolution debate and Marco Polo's Travels. First, Polo. The Polo article strikes a balance between arguments for and against the accuracy of his travel narrative. This doesn't mean we have to pretend both stances are of equal validity. Why not briefly include information about sources supporting accuracy in this case (something like "While some sources have claimed yadda-yadda-yadda") and then systematically confront that stance with arguments opposed. Seems more above-board than outright deletion.

Next, evolution. The Theory of Evolution is among the most successful theories of all time, and it is the explanatory foundation of the science of Biology. The evidence in support of this theory is overwhelming. Still, however bolstered would be my scientific understanding, if I were to read an article about it that did not inform me that there are legions of people out there who passionately reject Evolution then my understanding of the theory within history and society would be fundamentally flawed. It's unfortunate that the phrase "teach the controversy" has been adopted by Creationists, because in a different connotation it's a really good idea. I learned about Evolution in a science class that was organized around confronting left-wing and right-wing criticisms and brutally dismantling them on scientific grounds.

As a teacher, you learn that it's misguided to simply teach the truth. You have to first seek out your student's misconceptions, address them, and replace them with sophisticated understanding.

Closing our eyes and wishing there wasn't anyone contradicting the facts doesn't make them go away. Don't delete, refute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.73.201 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if that was me, but WP:UNDUE is policy. We reflect important minority views, we ignore minor minority views. Not everything is worth including. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zeno brothers. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20040306194756/http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk:80/ahamilton/sinclair.htm to http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ahamilton/sinclair.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Another source

The Arctic: Enigmas and Myths By Paul Simpson-Housley (see this for Horsley. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Original letters?

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this, but does there exist some kind of copy of what was originally written in the Zeno letters? I'm extremely interested, and i would love to read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertSchofield (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

We currently have two articles on Wikipedia: Zeno brothers, which is nominally about the brothers, but is largely about the voyage they allegedly made, and Zeno Map which does talk about the map, but is rather more about the veracity of the voyage it describes. I suggest it would be better to have a single article that describes the original voyage, the map made of it, and the historiography of commentators coming to the view that it was a hoax (or not). Maybe the new article could be called something like Zeno voyage, or Voyage of the Zeno brothers, since it's really about the voyage rather than the people or the map. Chuntuk (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The topics are individually notable on their own. I agree that the article on the map isn't ideal, but just correct it. ~ HAL333 20:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge and support proposed title and outline of consolidated article. The thrust of both articles is an alleged voyage by two brothers in the 14th-century. The map is a by-product of that alleged voyage and really should be handled as part of the voyage and its historiography. Just because two closely related topics can stand on their own, doesn't mean that both should be kept as separate articles. In this case, a better, more informative article would result from a merge. Glendoremus (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)