Talk:Juan Ponce de León y Loayza

Ponce was NOT founded by Juan Ponce de Leon y Loayza

The city of Ponce was not founded by JPDLL. The city was named in his honor, to his memory. There are many references to the fact that Ponce was named in JPDLL's honor (see for example http://www.travelponce.com/Ponce-de-Leon-biography.html), but none of them could reasonably claim, that he himself founded the city. The reason for this is that he was the son of Juan Troche-Ponce de Leon (aka, Juan Ponce de Leon II), who is believed to have died in 1591. Even if Juan Ponce de Leon y Loayza was born the year his father died, that is, in 1591, Juan Ponce de Leon y Loayza would had been 101 years old to found the city of Ponce in 1692. Ponce de Leon y Loayza probably settled in what is now the Ponce region, sometime around 1600 - still a long stretch to 1692. I have thus modified your entry. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Where they married

We cannot say with certainty where Juan Ponce de Leon y Loayza married Ana de Salamanca. Some sources appear to say Spain, others appear to say Puerto Rico.

• Spain:http://www.enciclopediapr.org/esp/article.cfm?ref=09012901&page=2
• Puerto Rico:http://books.google.com/books?id=V8htL2FcRjQC&pg=PA350#v=onepage&q=ana&f=false

As a result of this ambiguity, I have removed the marriage location entry which, although desirable, is not essential. By the way, the recently added "Ana de Salamanca arrived from Spain" link does not seem to lead to a reference on the married in Spain matter. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Menzies and our policy on reliable sources

If you read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources it says "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Gavin Menzies various books clearly do not have this reputation and should not be used as a source for this article. Reliability is not a default position, and in this case, where we have someone with no qualifications in history writing a book that has been heavily criticised by historians, it's clearly not something we can use here. If anyone disagrees they can take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, but this is a pretty clear cut case. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, the problem is you are on a soapbox - making a claim but providing no evidence to support it. If you read the RS the key is "reliable" and you have characterized Menzies's work as not reliable, but where is the supporting evidence for claimimg the lacking of reputation? Be forewarned that just because some, even most, critics believe what he presents is unconventional, that does not make it unreliable: most people believed Pluto was a planet until the other day, but it no longer is. Remember that one? If Menzies had been saying all along it wasn't a planet what then? Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. You also claim Menzies is someone with no qualifications in history being heavily criticized by historians, so what? We see this in all the time in all fields of knowledge: science, medicine, are particularly notorious. Breakthroughs do not always come from experts in the respective field. And, why do you say his books "clearly" do not have this reputation? why "clearly", a relative term that denotes comparison versus a certain standard. Maybe it bothers you that Menzies views are unlike what you were taught since grade school, that Columbus discovered America, yada, yada, yada. But have you stopped to "think outside the box"? Look, I am not promoting one theory over the other; I am simply saying your argument is not enough to remove the citation: Your argument is flawed. I will point an additional flaw in your argument: supposed Menzies book said "George Washington was the first U.S. president", would you go up in arms about that too? Just because you (and "other historians") do not agree with the rest of the book, are you also going to atomatically disqualify all other parts of the book regardless of their veracity? And finally, consider, as you seek some factual data to support your claim of unreliability, that just because other historians "heavily" criticise a book, doesn't automatically disqualify a source from entry into Wikipedia: Example, the Bible is without a doubt the most heavily criticised book ever (consider for instance, it claims that men once lived 969 years, that Jesus walked on water, and that Moses parted the Red Sea), yet The Bible is all over the encyclopedia as a reliable source. I disagree with your stance, but will say that if you can come up with several reputable sources that condenm the author or the book, then you may have a leg on which to stand. Mercy11 (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Argue your case here [1]. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To satisfy your curiosity, since you are obviosly a drive-by shooter ignorant of the history of the city of Ponce and the person after whom it's named, there are scores of other sources that support Gavin Menzies's conclusions about Ponce as described in his 1421: The Year China Discovered America (New York: Harper Collins Publishers. 2003. Page 415) ... Shooting without ammunition never scored anyone any points. Mercy11 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is your sources, not the fact. Menzies is not a historian and shouldn't be used. It's a shame you still can't find better sources, ie books, but the best I could do was [2]. There must be some real historians who have written about this. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have other sources that you like better, add them! complaining isn't going to help your cause. I'm in finals right now. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)