Jump to content

Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10


NPOV and section on claims from the "Book of Mormon"

I undid two revisions that violated WP:NPOV in the Claims from Mormon archaeology section. The general theme of these revisions were that they questioned whether the LDS movement is a religion. That is not a debate for this article (see WP:MNA). The LDS Church article repeatedly describes the LDS Church as a religious organization, and so I bring that consensus over here. LlamaInASuit (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

2013 move request was closed with a move to just "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

See [1] The name change was made in 2015[2] with a link to a book called Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts[3] Doug Weller talk 18:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Elio Cadelo

Why is what this man says worthy of inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And unless he was given a well known award for history, an award doesn't matter. Barry Fell was an expert in his own field of marine biology, but that didn't make him an expert in the fields of history or linguistics. And they both made similar claims, ie that Romans, Polynesians, Indians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and many other ancient peoples landed in America."Doug Weller talk 13:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Not really, what would make his views worthy of inclusion is not academic accreditation, but having people give a damn about what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about theories and not facts....nearly half the theories in this article are not based on facts!--N591real (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"X speculated that Y" is worth reporting as such if X is notable in relation to Y. Stating just Y can only be done in the specific cases where Y is the predominant view in the relevant field -- and must be supported by strong refs. And "theory" is not as divorced from "fact" as you seem to believe. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

::Yes, Theory is TOTALLY divorced from Facts in this article. And Cadelo is worth reporting: read Cadelo's book or simply view his videos in an academic conference.--N591real (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Which WP:RS report on Caledo? In this article, claims are reported, if they are somewhat notable, and dismissed where they are fringe. At best, you might write that "Caledo thinks this is a pineapple", not "this is a pineapple". Also, are you the same person as the last IP on the article? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

:::: So, if claims are reported and are notable (they are in a book that is welcomed in a video done in an ACADEMIC conference, don't forget), why they should be dismissed? BTW I don't known who is the IP that you name, but I am feeling a bit harassed by all these attacks on a simple addition to an article about Theories. So, this is going to be my last contribution to Wikipedia.--N591real (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A presentation at an academic conference, even with favorable comments, isn't special and doesn't make this significant (see WP:UNDUE. I'll note that this wasn't an archaeological conference. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

At the end nobody has answered my question about this Geneva Museum image [4]: in your opinion what is in the hands of the roman kid in the little statue? ......obviously it can ONLY be an ananas from America! It cannot be wine grapes or pine nuts, don't you agree? My last four cents with the same words of Galileo to the abuses of the Inquisition: EPPUR SI MUOVE....and at the end all of us admit that Galileo was right!. So, in a similar way I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out.--N591real (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As I told you elsewhere, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to look at a picture and reach their own conclusion. They also are not supposed to predict the future. Agricolae (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
it looks like a pinecone. Now can someone delete this thread per NOTAFORUM? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

::I find the roman boy has in his hand a pineapple. And I have no doubt about, because I have seen personally the statue in the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire de Geneva (I am Swiss). Additionally I find "disturbing" the way some wikipedians have written to user N591real and made comments against his good faith, pushing him to go away from Wikipedia (I have just erased a childish vandalism in noticeboard). It looks like bullying against a person who has opinions that are not accepted by admin Doug Weller.--Nemetope (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree the tone here needs toning down, a new user needs to be treated with more tolerance and respect then this. I am not happy accepting with their refusal to abide by community (not one admins) decisions. This material is heavily OR, and relies one one source (not very RS). Given we already have the Roman theory in the article the (over zealous) desire to include this material boarders on promotion. It is a shame that a user has been chased away, with mentoring and a but more tolerance they might have brought a new perspective to articles, but they also have to understand they do have to operate within Wikipedia's constraints.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The fact that I am an Admin isn't relevant here (more relevant would be perhaps saying that I've made almost 170,000 edits). This is a content dispute and Admins shouldn't use their powers in such disputes. Even if an editor here were to violate WP:3RR I'd just report them as any other editor would. @Nemetope:, you did not remove WP:vandalism but a joke, and one that I did not make - there seems to be lack of good faith towards me here which is ironic. One problem with new editors (and I was one once), is that they sometimes don't grasp that Wikipedia really isn't an encyclopedia, not a venue to promote what they think is the truth or to right wrongs. Nemetope, you and N59real are new editors, and while we should treat you politely you should realise that this is a new environment for you and that more experienced editors are likely to have a better grasp of what is and what isn't appropriate in an article, and not accuse editors of bullying when they try to do that or expect us to accept edits that we feel are inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Doh! Wikipedia really is an encyclopedia! Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
they sometimes don't grasp that Wikipedia really isn't an encyclopedia I'm pretty sure this is a typo ;). WP:5P and all that jazz. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Dou8g I think (my poor wording) misunderstood what I was saying, I am unhappy with N591real's refusal to listen to a whole raft of users telling him it is OR and thus not acceptable as I am with other users resorting to mockery of him and general disrespect.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments, Nemetope. I am glad that you have personally seen the small statue with the roman kid in the Geneva museum and find that the roman boy has in his hand a pineapple.....I am sure soon or later the truth about these pineapples in roman hands will come out, even in Wikipedia! Thanks again.--N591real (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As soon as you find reliable sources (eg. notable archeologists etc) seriously discussing that proposition, yes, "even" Wikipedia will report on it. What you should get is that it doesn't matter what you, I, Nemetope or Doug think it looks like, because that is WP:OR. Unless and until you take the time to read and understand some basic policies here, which have been pointed to you repeatedly, you will find Wikipedia a trying environment, and tax other editors' patience. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

::Thanks for your thanks, N591real....I have seen personally the small statue of the roman boy I am totally sure it is an ananas, because of the pineapple rectangular pieces near the kid hand that cannot be grapes but only pieces of leaves in the first stages of decomposition (probably this fruit was many weeks old). I also remember the ananas of the Geneva museum was very similar to those imported from Puerto Rico: it is a species of pineapple imported in Switzerland.--Nemetope (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Still all OR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Struck through comments of one sock thanking another, both are socks of a someone who's been socking here for some time. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

Map of the Americas showing pre Clovis sites, each of which is evidence of pre-Columbian trans oceanic contact, according to peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Co-discoverer Anne Stine Ingstad examines a fire pit at L'Anse aux Meadows in 1963, evidence of pre-Columbian trans oceanic contact, according to peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The recent summary of mainstream scientific perspective published by Science is ample and adequate evidence of the real acceptance of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I have therefore moved the page, updated the introduction and added a new section about ancient contact with an adapted image from the survey of current peer-reviewed archaeology. prat (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • User:StAnselm reverted the move with comment "something this big needs to be discussed at WP:RM" but did not open a discussion there or provide any reasonable grounds for resisting the move, which has long been requested. Therefore, I am going to leave the user a message explaining that some basis should be put forward for resisting the move, preferably here, and re-instate it, since there really appears to be no adequate reason not to make it at this point. prat (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You have certainly failed to understand WP:RM. "Uncontroversial" means "no reasonable person could possibly object", and someone has objected so to move it again is simply disruptive. Also, it is only the person who wants the move who is supposed to start the discussion (this is similar to deletion discussions). StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Moreover the current title has been stable for two years, although it was not the result of a move discussion. The whole point, f course, is that this article is a list of the different theories. StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You said 'please do not move war' but re-moved the page even though I explained why it is not suitable with the old title (and also with current scientific opinion). You have given no evidence at all for your supposed perspective, which is at odds with the content of the page. Please state your evidence here. Suggesting that I have created a 'move war' is ridiculous. I made a logical move and explained the reasoning in a new talk page section. You reverted it with no evidence. I reached out and explained the situation on your talk page and here, and now you are suggesting I am somehow not following procedure. You also assert that the article is a list of theories, whereas in fact it is a list of confirmed cases as well as theories. So in fact, the original title "... theories" is no longer valid for the content, and the move is perfectly logical. You are the one being unreasonable here. prat (talk)
Just go ahead and post a request at WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:RMUM: If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move... Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. StAnselm (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to waste my time jumping through hoops because you refuse to present any meaningful evidence. prat (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You're an administrator, having gained the support of 3 people in 2003.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pratyeka. I also found the ANI[5] and declined ArbCom case[6] We expect Admins to maintain high standards. Moving an active article without discussion first is generally considered disruptive. You might want to consider handing in your Admin tools. And for the record, I object to the move. I don't think the first two sections of the article are appropriate, there is no scientific debate about the fact that the settlement of the Americas involved trans-oceanic contact (and possibly movement over Beringia) and the Norse material isn't contested and is in lead. Some early speculation may have been proved correct, and whether that should stay in the article and if so how is a matter that should be discussed. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
As an administrator and long term contributor, I have the right to stop contributing when I run in to demotivating red tape from people who have obtuse interpretations of reality. You may note that I drew the map at right, and have historically updated this page with many edits. I shall, at this point, cease. Good job demotivating fellow contributors, I wonder if a statistical analysis would show you few as a co-editing cabal... as I'm certainly not sure why a bunch of people would choose to weigh in on this all of a sudden, looking at the edit history. I hope you all have a great day. I shall not be contributing to this page again. prat (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
St.Anselm and I may edit many of the same articles, but our views on religion and I believe politics are radically different. Hardly a cabal. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly a collection of theories about pre-Columbian contact in general, not an article about pre-Columbian contact theories currently supported by the available evidence. Unless you're proposing that everything in the article is supported by the available evidence, and that would clearly be controversial. --tronvillain (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Your comment is objectively incorrect. Did you read the page? It is partly theories and partly validated history. Stating otherwise is ridiculous. prat (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No, my comment is objectively correct. Theory isn't a dirty word, and some of these being supported by the available evidence doesn't make them stop being theories, just as the overwhelming evidence supporting theories like gravity or evolution doesn't. You might be able to argue for writing a new article on established pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, but simply moving this entire article to that title isn't supported. --tronvillain (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The paper in Science is saying that North America was originally settled by coastal movements rather than overland. That's not trans-oceanic - it just means that people were paddling canoes down the coast. PiCo (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories. 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:

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

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) 00:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Other Religion-based claims

See this discussion at the Science Reference Desk for future additions regarding the Lost Tribes of Israel to the article. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Claims from Mormon archaeology

I have come back and reverted the language in this, the Mormon archaeology section, to the text of the June 12 2017 versions, as finalized by users Bri and Agricolae. I also included additional citations to satisfy Doug Weller. All subsequent changes were again fraught with heavy Anti-Mormon, anti-religious bias. That's the only way to explain the wording of that section before June 2017, and the standard that section was being held to after ජපස got ahold of it. The section wasn't even being allowed to appeal to THIS ARTICLE as a reference anymore. Ask that common courtesy and good faith be held, allowing all theorists to speak for themselves. Playerpage (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC) 14:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no legitimate scholarship vindicating the beliefs of Mormons except by true-believing Mormons. Your changes to the text did not make that clear (nor did it make it clear that a literalist claim from archaeology is, in fact, a minority position within the Mormon sects generally). The perceived "anti-Mormon bias" is actually a "pro-reality bias" which Wikipedia adopts necessarily. See WP:MAINSTREAM. jps (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an article about theories and their sources, not about history itself. So we don't have have to worry about whether they are true, only whether they are notable in terms of sourcing. I'll try to do a cleanup pass on the section. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Have done some cleanup and am relatively OK with the section as it stands. The sentence on "smoking gun sources" could be deleted or improved w/o objection by me. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I look forward to your cleanup and any reverting you may have to do, Bri. You seem a level voice. As you say, this article is about theories, and the sources for same. ජපස has already decided and declared again his bias and slaughtered the section. I would appeal now to any third party owners. Once again any hint that there may be anything like scholarship, even within the Mormon community itself regarding their own theory, was removed by ජපස. Playerpage (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Very happy with what has been created by Bri and have no plans to revert at this time. Playerpage (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It put forward a religious claim (that the BoM was received by Smith) as fact, a violation of NPOV. I've changed that. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, thanks. —PaleoNeonate – 17:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Except for this section, the entire article is based on archeological, historico-linguistic, or genetic evidence/argument. The section on Mormonism is the only one discussing revealed divine scripture. The section should be removed entirely. I would not support, but not oppose a link to the Mormon article in the See also section. But basically this is like an article on fossil marsupials with one section on Young Earth Biblical literalism. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This makes a lot of sense. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. At first I read this and thought "yes, of course." But then I thought a little more and realized that we include Norse legends and so forth. Notwithstanding that some of the latter eventually were corroborated by hard evidence, I'm not sure we should exclude Mormon legends but include Norse legends and Irish legends. What do you think? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm with SBHB on this. We have a mix here of various sources without prejudice or really any evaluation of veracity at all, as I said on 12/21. As far as using the word "received" wrt Smith, I think that's neutral as to how/where/when the text was received but I won't make a fuss. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bri:, I'm confused. The view of non-Mormons who have looked at the claims is that he didn't receive it but wrote it. The only neutral approach in a short summary is to say he published it, we don't need to go into the controversy here, but as I said, we can't make a statement that he received it from somewhere. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a philosophical point. We know he received the text because the text is written. We don't know its origin with certainty. It is more polite and neutral to say "received" for matters of this kind, just as we say Buddha was enlightened or Mohammed had his revelations. It's not for us to decide whether it was a vision, hallucination or hoax, and it doesn't matter – the discussion is about the end product, a system of thought and associated documents. Otherwise one finds oneself making sneering judgments and perhaps one day sounding like an ass to others. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No, we don't know that he received the text because the text is written. I didn't receive the first sentence is this edit, although it's written. I wrote it. Our articles on Smith and the BoM say that he published it and discuss the claims about it. This is not a philosophical point. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I said I wouldn't make a fuss, but apparently I'm not making myself clear, so I'll try one more time. We don't say so-and-so said he received a revelation, or so-and-so's followers believe he was a prophet. Out of brevity and in order to maintain a polite inclusive society we omit the obvious qualifiers. Even on Wikipedia which veers towards pointy correctness at the expense of getting along. We can choose not to be persnickety and condescending towards beliefs. We can choose not to alienate. That's all. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, you've gone over to insults. Take it to WP:NPOVN if you want to make a fuss. Or maybe I will. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Repeating a religious belief as if it were an historical fact is not an option on wikipedia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes we do say "X claimed". We cannot present myth (or religious belief if you will) as fact.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
As to received, it has a specific meaning, and it does not mean "wrote it down".Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the "received a revelation" wording to NPOVN as I found it used in too many articles without a qualification. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that the whole thing has been moved under a new "Religious Claims" category, along with the 17th century speculations regarding the Ten Lost Tribes. While The Book of Mormon isn't about the Ten Lost Tribes, at all, I think that's a pretty good idea and I have no problem with it as a general principle. Especially since the sub category for the BOM was kept to itself. As to wording in general, the most scholarly work to date on Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling (2006), writes in such a way as to assume that the experiences of the subject are as they are claimed. Ie: Just as Muhammed calls his experiences revelations, and the texts discussing them do the same, so do scholarly works on Smith. Just sayin'. And let me also just say I appreciate those users like Bri and SBHB who go out of their way to be, well, decent on this point. Imagine if we were going round and round like this on one little paragraph discussing Jewish claims--another religious minority roughly the same size as Latter-day Saints. Playerpage (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Like Bri once did, I thought more about it, and I have to ask, if we're going to go with a "Religious Claims" section, shouldn't some of those Norse and Japanese legends make their way down there? Or are we not claiming those are religions? Perhaps then the section should be "Western Religious Claims" or "Christian Claims." But I will only poke the bear at this point. I leave it to other more invested editors to make the functional format changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playerpage (talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories. 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:

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

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) 21:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories → Pre-Columbian American contact theories – "Trans-oceanic" can mean a lot of things. For all semantics is concerned, it could refer to Roman-Carthagian contact or any kind of contact over bodies of water. Of course, it is clear that this article only refer to trans-oceanic contact with the Americas - and the title should reflect that! One might think that putting Columbus' name in the title eliminates the need for further clarification, but I think not. It could still refer to any kind of cross-sea contact before Columbus (arbitrarily defined). And one more thing: one may not necessarily travel to the Americas by seafaring.
Therefore, I believe this is an uncontroversial move only having to do with title clarity and making it more accurately describe the article content. Hope that I made my point understandable. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose On the English language Wikipedia American normally refers to the United States, and that's obviously not what the move is meant to communicate. I also think it's unlikely anyone would misunderstand the title, but I could be convinced. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply Yes, the adjective "American" can refer to both America and America. Which of the senses are most common is an open question. But I don't see how the double-sense of the word can possibly confuse that badly, since, simply put, America is in America.
Also, the concept of "pre-Columbian United States contact" means nothing since the nation of the United States (and that sense of "America") didn't exist before Columbus (nor for many centuries later). The continent of the Americas, however, has existed since primordial, and even though it wasn't called that before Amerigo's and this one mapmaker's days, it is still consistently known as the Americas. In conclusion, the new article title could not possibly refer to the United States since it mentions Columbus, and any reader could easily understand that with the information needed to navigate to this article.
And even so, the lead sentence of the article clears up the confusion altogether since it explicitly mentions the Americas as whole.
But in that respect, this somewhat contradicts the current title which has nothing to do with the Americas, although the article are about that and nothing else. That's why I requested a move. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good faith RM. It seems incorrect, as there was no "Pre-Columbian American" anything, the name emerged with European travel towards a new land with no name. At least that's the unclear meaning I got from it upon seeing the name, even if I'm reading it wrong. The present name is understandable and communicates well, so keeping it seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is a mouthful but I'm not convinced the proposed target is better. I don't think the current title is particularly ambiguous or confusing; we can assume the majority of our readers know the difference between an ocean and a sea. The "Pre-Columbian" also makes it clear we're talking about the Americas. On the other hand, Pre-Columbian American contact theories could be construed as referring to the USA as Doug says, and muddles what kind of "contact" we're talking about – it could mean contact between different Pre-Columbian societies, for example. I think moving it to a less turgid title is a good idea, though. How about Pre-Columbian contact with the Americas? – Joe (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply, change of opinion @Joe Roe: That's an awesome idea! I did realize that my last babble was a bit weak, and that the adjective "American" carries many meanings. Your title sounds so much better. My vote/opinion is hereby move to Pre-Columbian contact with the Americas. Pinging the others to hear you opinion on that.
    Furthermore, I weakly believe that including the word "theories" is unneeded - the page contains both theories and proven facts, and what is a theory anyway.
    And one more thing, the difference between an ocean and a sea is not that clear. And even if it was, there's still a lot of oceans in the world, and not all oceans leads to the discovery of the Americas when you cross them. That's why I think "trans-oceanic" is too ambiguous. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 13:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

South American coprolite

In his book Tropical Diseases Robert S. Desowitz mentions an ancient coprolite found in South America which might, depending on the identification of the eggs of a parasitic worm, have come from SE Asia, suggesting a trans-Pacific voyage. I don't have a copy of the book anymore so can't add to this article. Does anyone out there have the book, and if so they might want to add Desowitz's information? 2A00:23C4:D896:6000:1088:5477:F26E:CC51 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

French?

In this diff, how exactly does one quote an entire English paragraph from a French source? --tronvillain (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Having traced it back through a few pages, it would appear that the actual quote/source is:

The ruler who preceded me did not believe that it was impossible to reach the extremity of the ocean that encircles the earth (meaning Atlantic), and wanted to reach that (end) and obstinately persisted in the design. So he equipped two hundred boats full of men, as many others full of gold, water and victuals sufficient enough for several years. He ordered the chief (admiral) not to return until they had reached the extremity of the ocean, or if they had exhausted the provisions and the water. They set out. Their absence extended over a long period, and, at last, only one boat returned. On our questioning, the captain said: 'Prince, we have navigated for a long time, until we saw in the midst of the ocean as if a big river was flowing violently. My boat was the last one; others were ahead of me. As soon as any of them reached this place, it drowned in the whirlpool and never came out. I sailed backwards to escape this current.' But the Sultan would not believe him. He ordered two thousand boats to be equipped for him and for his men, and one thousand more for water and victuals. Then he conferred on me the regency during his absence, and departed with his men on the ocean trip, never to return nor to give a sign of life.[1]

There's absolutely no mention of "a land across the ocean to the west" there, let alone trade and warfare. --tronvillain (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mohammed Hamidullah. "Echos of What Lies Behind the 'Ocean of Fogs' in Muslim Historical Narratives". Muslim Heritage. Retrieved 27 June 2015. (Quoting from Al-Umari 1927, q.v.)

Missing close quote

First of all, I hope using the Talk page is the right way to bring this up, and apologies if not - I haven't had occasion to use a Talk page before. I noticed that the quote at the very end of the 'Claims of Polynesian contact' section (at the end of the subsection 'Similarity of features and genetics') lacks a closing quotation mark. I would have added one in, but I don't know where the original quote actually ends (at the end of the first or second sentence). I did go to check the source but I was unable to find the original text without registering. I mention it here in case the editor who inserted the quote is watching the page and is able to check the source using an exsiting account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcog (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's not a direct quote at all, though it does seem to convey the conclusions relatively accurately. --tronvillain (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Were the Mapuche the 'long-ears' of Rapa legend

This is conjectural, but has some tenuous basis. First, we know the Polynesians are great seafarers, and that Rapa Nui is closer to Chile than to the Marquesas islands, from which the Rapa Nui probably came via Mangareva. (the Rapa Nui say they came from 'Hiva' and there are two islands in the Marquesas called Hiva: Hiva Oa and Fatu Hiva). The sweet potato / kumara came from South America; likewise the chicken in south America came from Polynesia: these are more or less accepted facts nowadays. Logically one would expect that the point of contact would be via the island closest to South America ie Rapa Nui. I believe the Rapa Nui went to Chile, gave the Mapuche the chicken and got the kumara in return. For the kumara to have then spread through the Pacific, the Rapa Nui must have voyaged backwards at some point - at least to Mangareva. There are some intriguing hints among Mapuche culture of possible Polynesian contact. First, their word for a stone club is a three word phrase, the second of which is 'mere'. 'Mere' is a commonly used word for stone club in Polynesia. Second, the Mapuche make enormous funerary statues of wood, and these statues wear hats that resemble those of the enormous 'moai' statues in Rapa Nui quite closely. Third, the Mapuche used to wear heavy ear rings that lengthened their ear lobes. If the Rapa Nui brought some long-eared Mapuche back to Rapa Nui, could these have been the 'long-ears' of Rapa legend, who formed an elite and started a civil war? We know there are pre-European contacts between South America and the Rapa Nui via genetic haplogroup sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3597:3400:9C87:1B7F:79C2:279A (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Chinese coins in British Columbia

Besides the fact that the large quote seems inappropriate, these are 19th century. No time to edit right now, but:

"concluded that the “ancient coins” were good-luck, temple tokens made in the late 19th century and probably either brought to British Columbia by Chinese miners who lost or buried them at the Cassiar District mining operation on Defot Creek between 1878 and 1882 or were deposited in a Native Indian burial unearthed by Chinese miners. The tokens were located in an area heavily populated by Chinese immigrants in 1882 and, after unfounded claims of having great age, they gained a popular notoriety. The temple coins were shown to many people and different versions of stories pertaining to their discovery and age spread around the province to be put into print and changed frequently by many authors in the last 100 years (Keddie 1981, 1982).

The one Cassiar temple token or talisman of which a photograph remains is of a modern character style. Similarly designed talismans first appear in the Ming and early Ching dynasties. However, these are larger, have square holes, are of a more bronze-like than brass-like material, and more crudely cast. The Cassiar specimen is almost identical to several 19th-century talismans in the author’s collection (see Fig. 11). The Cassiar talisman is the same size, has a round hole of the same diameter, distinct post-casting, circular grinding and polishing patterns, which can be seen in the photos, and art identical style of characters. Therefore, the Cassiar finds can clearly be ruled out as evidence of early Chinese voyages to British Columbia."[7] (I converted the pdf to a searchable word doc if anyone wants it.} Contributions To Human History Published By The Royal British Columbia Museum 675 Belleville Street, Victoria, B.C., Canada V 8 V 1X4 "The Question of Asiatic Objects on the North Pacific Coast of America: Historic or Prehistoric?" by Grant Keddie[8]. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

./.,.

Fuenta Magna bowl ?

What happened to the bowl of Fuenta Magna which supposedly contains inscriptions of a pre-sumerian cuneiform dialect ? The Fuenta Magna is a large stone vessel, resembling a libation bowl, that was found in 1958 near Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. It features beautifully engraved anthropomorphic characters, zoological motifs characteristic of the local culture, and, more surprisingly, two types of scripts—a proto-Sumerian ancient alphabet and a local language of the ancient Pukara, forerunner of the Tiahuanaco civilization J mareeswaran (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a terrible source. Fuente Magna Bowl: Not Cuneiform and not Sumerian and [9] are much better. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

good source I’ll look into that myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliteraryscholar (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Graham Hancock's new book America Before may impact our articles

Jason Colavito has a column [http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/graham-hancock-to-archaeologists-you-guys-are-the-pseudoscientists Graham Hancock to Archaeologists: "You Guys Are the Pseudoscientists"].

Jason says "With the publication of America Before this week, Graham Hancock has launched a major publicity push, larger than the one accompanying Magicians of the Gods four years ago and rivaling his media ubiquity in the late 1990s. According to his U.S. publisher, St. Martin’s, the American part of his marketing campaign will include an initial print run of 125,000 copies, a fourteen-city national book tour, a national media tour, a marketing campaign aimed at scholars and college instructors (!), a featured-title selection at TheHistoryReader.com, and “extensive history blog outreach.” They even offer mail-in prizes, giving early buyers an enamel lapel pin of the book’s logo." See also this. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories/Archive_9&oldid=1148545022"