Jump to content

Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Playerpage (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 30 December 2017 (→Regarding Claims from Mormon archaeology: Added note on feelings regarding new category.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're an administrator, having gained the support of 3 people in 2003.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pratyeka. I also found the ANI[1] and declined ArbCom case[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Grammar Begets Clarity & Reason

Twice now, I've replaced the same horribly ungrammatical pseudo-sentence:

"He was unaware of the geographical origins of the fruit and others quickly pointed out that it could not have been as the custard-apple was believed to have been brought into India in only after the Portuguese established trade in India (post 1492)."

The reversion was defended thus:

"Previous wording better."

Come now. I can understand making mistakes like this, but being stubborn about it isn't defensible. If the deficiency isn't totally obvious, here are links to the first 3 legitimate online grammar checkers I find in a duckduckgo search:

https://www.grammarcheck.net/editor/

http://www.reverso.net/spell-checker/english-spelling-grammar/

http://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck

BTW, if you search for more grammar checkers, beware of sites that are fronts for "grammarly" as it tries to install a Firefox/PaleMoon extension that appears to be malware.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree, thanks. —PaleoNeonate – 17:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
This makes a lot of sense. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As to received, it has a specific meaning, and it does not mean "wrote it down".Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories&oldid=817742107"