Talk:Beyond Capricorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Literature (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Beyond Capricorn is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Interesting article[edit]

I'm not too familiar with the geography of Australia - a modern-day map of the relevant part of Australia to go alongside the old one for comparison would be useful, and would allow the reader to make up their own mind about how close the similarities are, taking into account the limitations of historical cartography. 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is done really well in the book, with each section of coast shown with the Vallard map next to a modern map showing the locations. I suppose you could do the same thing with this map by cropping out an area and matching it to the Vallard map. --Astrokey44 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


As this is a fringe theory, it could use a criticism section written by someone educated on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Criticism should be on the page about the theory. This article is purportedly about a book. Dbromage 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction needed[edit]

Lots of work has gone into summarising Peter Trickett's book and theory here. However, the statement "Peter Trickett has been the first to claim that the [Vallard] Dieppe map was composed of several portolan charts that were incorrectly put together by the French in Dieppe when they copied the original Portuguese charts" is not correct. Lawrence Fitzgerald, author of "Java La Grande" (ISBN 0 949325007) did the same thing in 1984, using at least one earlier Dieppe map - "the Dauphin". In 1977 Kenneth McIntyre, author "The Secret Discovery of Australia" (ISBN 0 285623036) also claimed some comparisons could be made between Dieppe maps "Jave La Grande" coastline and modern Australia's, although he warned against doing this too literally. I have read Trickett's book and I don't think he says he is the first to make this claim.

An additional point. The enlargement of the NLA copy of the Vallard map that is being used in Wikipedia is titled "First map of Australia", possibly by its 1856 printer or later owner. You can see the C19th printer's name down the bottom. Unless we are careful, it could be interpreted that the original C16th Vallard mapmaker called it "the first map of Australia". The real thing is at, where you can explore the entire atlas in wonderful detail - a link worth adding here. Cheers --Nickm57 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats an excellent site. I might add the western coast map too. Did the other books go through the locations on the map as comprehensively as Trickett did? Perhaps he is the first to do that? --Astrokey44 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've read both Fitzgerald and Trickett. Fitzgerald was Director of Australian Army Survey until 1960. Although not as well publicised as Trickett, its an interesting book. My impression is Trickett's maps identify very similar features of the Australian coast after re-alignment. --Nickm57 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup and rating[edit]

Is the article supposed to be about the book or supporting the theory contained within? If it's about the book then all it needs is the author and publisher details and a brief summary of the ideas it puts forward (not an actual review). The tables of locations are not necessary. If the article is about the theory then it needs a substantial cleanup and more supporting and opposing sources to balance the view.

Either way it needs a substantial cleanup. In fact I'm puzzled why it was given a B rating. Dbromage 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the locations are mentioned in news reports, such as [1], which refers to "Cap Frimosa (Wilsons Promontory), Illa Grossa (Kangaroo Island), Rio Real (Spencer Gulf) and Golfo Grande (the Great Australian Bight)" and Baia Neve (Botany Bay). The article Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia is on the theory, but some of the other books that have been written may not use the same locations that Trickett uses. --Astrokey44 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case any relevant information can be added to Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia using this book as the source. But this article about the book needs a substantial cleanup. The tables are not necessary. And I strongly dispute both the quality and importance ratings. Dbromage 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What is in the tables is most of what the book is about: looking at locations on the Dieppe map and comparing them to modern locations. Tables are the most convenient way to display this information, rather than in prose. --Astrokey44 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should be about the book and contain a brief synopsis, not replicate all the substantive arguments supporting the theory. See, for example, 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. A few examples should be sufficient. Huge tables replicating the book's content not necessary and may run into copyright issues. Dbromage 05:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I went over the two lead paragraphs again. It really reads like an article about the theory using the book as the source rather than an article about the book. This strays into WP:V. Dbromage 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First para refs[edit]

Ive broken the first paragraph into two and added some citations. --Nickm57 01:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein, have tried to clean the rest of this up, hopefully using as much of the previous contributors material as possible.--Nickm57 07:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Trickett's theories[edit]

There are now a number of criticisms of Trickett's theories in print, so I have added a couple of the key points. I'm reluctant to add too many however, as this is only meant to be a short article on the book. --Nickm57 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)