Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reversed article move

Since a small portion of the incidents of contact are fairly well established empirical fact, the recent rename didn't really make sense as an umbrella term for all the content on the page. The current (and original) title/location make more sense for referring to both well-accepted and more theoretical and/or controversial views. The article already spends a good deal of effort making a distinction between the two, especially after the recent multi-party efforts to clean things up. Snow (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The page has been moved once again with an edit summary that reads: "Gun Powder Ma moved page Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses over redirect: per consensus on talk page: only the Norse event refers to actual contact and this is not even the main article about it." Two points - one, the alluded to consensus on this issue does not exist - the move was taken unilaterally and without broaching it on the talk page (though clearly it was good faith). The move was acknowledged briefly by one user, but that is hardly consensus support. Second, if the new article title is inconsistent with even one constituent then the title is inappropriate as an umbrella term and the title should not be changed, especially if there is already a serviceable and more broadly accurate title. Third, the argument that only the Norse example "refers to actual contact" is a judgement call on the content, creating an arbitrary and subjective division of the material that is inconsistent with WP:NPOV and the focus of the article -- that is, examining the premise of pre-columbian contact and providing the various proposed occurrences and presenting what the sources say about their veracity. In fact, titles with any unnecessary quality judgment about the content are specifically precluded by policy. What's more, this position entirely misses the actual recent consensus we formed here as a result of the "fringe RfC; that is, that it is not our palce to make judgments on the plausibility of these various proposed incidents but rather to simply report what the sources say; adding that word to the title unfairly labels burdens each empirical argument found in the article (as well as any that may be added later) with the judgment that the word implies. Lastly, the editor should know that edit warring over this matter (especially without bringing the issue to the talk page for discussion) is inappropriate, as is misrepresenting the change as justified by significant consensus. (If there are comments I have missed that do justify that determination, I apologize, though I think I've been clean over the page). I won't revert the title again for now, as I hope we can get some comments here and form a genuine consensus, but my position is that the new title constitutes obvious issues with NPOV, verifiability, specific provisions that govern article titles and common sense. Snow (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon re-reading that edit summary, it occurs to me that the consensus being referred to may be that the Norse example was the only "proven" one, rather than that the consensus was that the title move was appropriate. If so, I apologize for my earlier assumption, but I also reiterate that this is not a call for us to be making; our job is to present what reputable sources have to say on the matter, not present our own assessments on how the evidence stacks up, and these restrictions carry over into how we organize and label content as much as how we word our prose. Snow (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather argue that we would get a lot more trouble with the aforementioned WP policies if we continue using the factoid title "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" despite the fact that every single proposed contact presented in the article is at best a very small minority view and at worst WP:Fringe. The only confirmed and historical example is the Norse settlement, but this is not even the main article here but Norse colonization of the Americas. With 20 or so hypotheses to one actual historical event, every sense of WP:Balance requires this article to be named along the lines of the former which clearly represents the bulk of the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The title of an article should refer to the core concept explored. Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact did occur at least once, and thus the title is not accurate. It doesn't really matter what proportion of the constituent examples on the page may be real or fantasy because A) that's not our call to make (we only report what the sources say on the matter) and B) as we've seen in recent weeks, that content can fluctuate wildly as editors debate what constitutes verifiaible and, for that matter, as the state of current research on the matter changes. Which is why we have policy that specifically directs us to use the more stable form that is immune to these inevitable changes. What it boils down to is this: "Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses" does not accurately represent all content on the page, whereas ""Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact" does, since that is still the subject matter of each of the individual examples, be they established fact or hypothetical claims (which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is not our determination to make in any event). The entire article is committed to exploring the veracity of these claims (through valid sources), so the uncertain nature of these arguments is evident in those cases where they are debated, so we don't need an overarching title that inaccurately describes a subset of the incidents -- even if it is just one, but others will debate that point regardless as you should be aware from the above -- and which contains inherent POV. That's putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. WP:Balance is not really relevant as we have noted the conflicting views on individual claims at length and there are no conflicting views on whether such contact has happened on at least one occasion. Snow (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The core concept is that these are all hypotheses with very little or no basis in fact. You cannot take a single confirmed example which is not even discussed in detail here and make it your sole standard of judgement by blanking out the hypothetical character of the vast majority of the article. It takes more, much more than one swallow to make a summer. If you want to have the title "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" all other theories save the Norse contact would have to be removed from the article in order to keep its title NPOV, because this title refers only to a single event correctly. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for GPM's change in title; it was done unilaterally. I don't like the change (and besides, the original title has been the title for quite a while), but will accept it if there is a clear consensus in favor. At this point there isn't, so no change until consensus.--Other Choices (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, OC, your wording is a little ambigous to me; by "no change" do you mean you think the title should be reverted to the original? Personally, though I strongly disagree with Gun's rationale, I have no problem leaving the article at its current location while we discuss the matter and it's definitely preferable to edit waring. I'd RfC the matter, but honestly its just a little too trivial to justify such a process, I think. And we should get some additional voices to form a more decent consensus soon enough, since the article is still getting decent traffic right now. Snow (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the title should revert to the original while editors discuss and see if there is a consensus to change. I believe that's standard procedure.--Other Choices (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not really addressing the issues I've raised, just reiterating your original points. But to address your comments again: A) They are not all hypotheses', nor is the ratio of confirmed-to-speculative content likely to hold firm over time, nor should we even be engaging in the fruitless debate about how much of the content represents "real" events to begin with. An article's title is taken from the core concept explored, not the proportion of reasonable vs. unreasonable theories explored within it. This is why we have an article titled Evolution, not "the theory of evolution"; evolution is the central concept, for which there were/are many competing models, some of which have been debunked, some of which are widely thought to be valid, and most of which are varying degrees of controversial. Sound familiar? B) "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" would address all examples (and be perfectly NPOV while doing it) since even the theoretical content are still concerned with Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. C) It's not our place to decide which claims are reasonable and which are not: that is for the reader to decide based upon our summarization of conclusions by acceptable sources; doing anything else is POV. Also, to bring up a new point, "hypotheses" doesn't even apply to all of the controversial claims, since some of them are just allegorical/mythological in nature and are not usually forwarded by modern historical authorities, though that's a side issue at best when compared those discussed above. Edited to add: Apologies if I'm coming off as curt - emphasis is solely to try to impart points which I feel I am somehow failing to convey. Snow (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The article title should contain the word hypotheses, and should not contain any that are not hypotheses. I agree that Pre-Columbian transatlantic contact is not appropriate. NPOVN? Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to this. The actual Norse contact should be mentioned though in order to give the reader context, but only very briefly, not as long as a chapter. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If we were going to split the content and include only those instances which are controversial then my position might be different on the title -- and arguably that's a more elegant solution to the matter. But that's not what's been proposed here. The question is what the title should be given that it includes claims that range from confirmed and accepted by established authorities in relevant fields all the way down to "just short of crackpot and dismissed by almost any researcher, but got a lot of press anyway." Snow (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Turkey Mountain inscriptions

There are many petroglyphs located at Turkey Mountain near Tulsa, discovered by Gloria Farley in 1975 high up a rock cliff / cave facing the Arkansas River. The most famous of these, is one she figured was Ogam and Iberic, so she showed it to Barry Fell, who provided a reading G-W-N for the alleged Ogam, and P-Y-' for the Iberic. Since then several other "enthusiasts" as they have been branded, have also made reference to these petroglyphs, most notably William McNeil's book on Pre-columbian contact theory, and more than a few bloggers have hiked there and taken photographs and put them on their websites. The exact site of the glyphs is even mentioned on the Tourism map.

Now a team of editors who are overtly hostile to this situation getting any byte-space publicity on wikipedia whatsoever, has put Turkey Mountain inscriptions up for deletion. Numerous sources have been found mentioning the Farley-Fell-McNeil school of thought on this site. But the hostile editors' argument is that the inscriptions are "not notable", all the people who wrote about them are "not notable" and "unreliable", and the personal expertise of these hostile wikipedians is sufficient to trump the Farley-Fell-McNeil school of thought so thoroughly that it must not be mentioned on wikipedia and instead flushed down the memory hole on everyone else's behalf, lest any more people find out about it. Of course wp then becomes a poor source of information relatively speaking, considering researchers into this sort of thing can still easily learn all about the existence of these petroglyphs outside of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is canvassing, as this page is not the place to discuss the proposed deletion of another article. However, to repeat what I have written elsewhere, it would indeed be appropriate for the article on the inscriptions to cover all 'theories', if the inscriptions themselves were of such note that specific theories about them existed. But we are not talking about mysterious ancient writings here. To the non Celtic-Punic afficionado, it just looks like some random person has scratched 110111 and PIA on the wall [1]. There are many other initials and other scribblings nearby. People scratch shapes and letters on rocks all the time. It's called grafitti. A lot of it has personal or sub-cultural significance that would be indecipherable after a few years. There's no evidence these are particularly old. Imagine trying to decipher New York subway grafitti in a hundred years. The significance only exists within the "ancient contact" community, in which Fell's interpretations of these markings have been picked up and reproduced. Some few fairly mainstream but non-specialist writers have innocently read mention of them and repeated it. To use these brief mentions in "mainstream" sources as proposed by Til would just give a totally spurious weight to the Fell theory, and we would end up with a "scholarly" looking article on some grafitti which gave the impression that was extensive academic discussion about this stuff. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Time for 2 articles

There seems to be a problem - think we need to split the article into "OLD" scientific theories that did hold merit for a time and thoses that are pure fiction with no scientific merit. What do people think?Moxy (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be preferable to clean up this article first, including superior sources, before arbitrarily splitting it in the way you suggest.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

.The problem with splitting is that the "pure fiction with no scientific merit" off-spin could be immediately subject of a RfD because being so bewilderingly fringe. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually think this is very clear - We have topics that have had scientific merit and scrutiny (even if they are denounced) ..and on the other hand we have fictional accounts of what may be possible with no actual scientific process. We have two different things going on here - some are scientific theories and some are simply guess work .. would we add Brad Meltzer ideas here - no - but in a fictional accounts article we could. Moxy (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. We have material that has some kind of scientific basis, and we have material that is legendary and/or fringe, but no one has ever advocated introducing patently fictional material. What would be best here would be to decide what gets included (notable legend and pseudohistory will have sources discussing and debunking it) and working out the problems with this article before we effectively create a new one with a new scope.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a split in content -- along the lines of those theories which are still considered (by the scientific/historical community at large) to have some potential viability and those which are not held in such a light -- is probably in order, but I don't think a second article is warranted. I think the existing second section serves just as well, but the wording should perhaps be established in a more careful and pragmatic manner that demonstrates the separation is not an arbitrary one. Snow (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a second article is not warranted. The idea of a split within the "Fringe" section seems logical -- put Menzies and Sinclair/Rosslyn down at the bottom so readers will at least know that wikipedia editors are already aware of these popular but academically unsupported ideas. I think that the Fringe section should be trimmed further. Does anybody disagree with the following suggestions?

--I think that the photos should be removed from the Fringe section, because currently they add a lot of visual "weight," unbalancing the article in favor of fringe. Of course an alternative is to add photos to the main body of the article.

--The Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head section should be boiled down to one or two sentences, because it already has its own article.

--The African section should also be trimmed, to keep it in balance with other fringe theories.

@Moxy -- in the edit summary your recent revert, you made the false comment that I haven't even read Menzies' books. If you go look around the archive at the Gavin Menzies talk page, you will clearly see for yourself. Or you might want to check my user page for my personal evaluation of Menzies. Your characterization of Menzies' work as "fiction" is your own personal point of view, which probably doesn't belong in an edit summary or on this talk page. If you would like to discuss our differences of opinion regarding the merits of Menzies' work, you're welcome to do so on my talk page.

--Other Choices (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hes a great author - I just hope you dont think hes work is scientific. Your supporting a guy that claims the North Pole was 300 miles further south than it is now (it was not). So lets quote the experts and what they think of is work "A work of sheer fiction presented as revisionist history. Not a single document or artifact has been found to support his new claims on the supposed Ming naval expeditions beyond Africa...Menzies' numerous claims and the hundreds of pieces of "evidence" he has assembled have been thoroughly and entirely discredited by historians, maritime experts and oceanographers from China, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere". If you like I can recommend many books that are scholarly and not a work of fiction on this topic.Moxy (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Menzes' work is not fiction. It's not credible history, but he claims it to be true. And there are many available sources responding to these claims of fact by debunking them; this doesn't happen with fictional works. As pseudohistory this one's pretty notable; debunking sources can and should be used in discussing generally unaccepted hypotheses.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Cuchullain's point is well made, but in general, I try to respect WP:TPG, which says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Once again, I would be pleased to exchange views regarding Menzies and his scholarly reception on my own talk page, but not here.

--Other Choices (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why to your talk page as seen by the links its not a personal view - its a referenced fact. The info is here in this article and is in dispute - the info is not on your talk page its here inserted in this article. We can move the talk to the section above or a new section. But to move it to your talk page would be useless. I agree with Cuchullain assessment but that does not negate the fact is call "fiction" by most scholars in this field. I can provided more links to this fact but I think we all know this to be true. All that said the article was moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses so I think its more clear now the page will contain non-scientific entires. Moxy (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, it appears that you have confused hyperbolic metaphor with literal truth.--Other Choices (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have provided refs for my assertion - got any ref for your opinion its factual? Moxy (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing what can be properly said in a wikipedia article (backed up by "reliable sources" -- end of argument) with questions of fact or truth (which allow and require us to use our own judgment as we evaluate the credibility of what we read or hear). Your interpretation of the meaning of your source is your own personal point of view. I and some other editors don't share your personal point of view. If you insist that your personal interpretation is the same as objective fact, that comes across as arrogance. For the wikipedia project to work, we need to respect differences of opinion. Nobody likes having other people's opinions shoved down his throat.--Other Choices (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not "my opinions" is what the references say and have linked for you. Thus far I have provided references to back up what you call my opinion. You have not. Your talking to someone with much more experience with wiki then yourself. Take a look a my user page and see what I write about - If only there was a a bit of genetic evidence then perhaps the world would listen.Moxy (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, you're getting caught up in terminology. "Fiction" is an imaginary story not intended to be taken as factual, for instance the Bred Meltzer novels you mention above. No one has ever advocated including material like that at this article. On the other hand, Menzies clearly intends for his books to be taken as true. Critics may call them "fictional" rhetorically, but that's different than equating them with a novel. What we can do here is indicate plainly that historians reject Menzies' ideas, but we don't necessarily remove something just because it's untrue if it's otherwise notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, one of us is clearly impressed with how long you have been around here at wikipedia. For all I know, you've been doing a good job. Your opinion of your source is very different from my opinion of your source. I would be pleased to discuss my opinion of your source on my talk page, but not here, because it's not relevant to this article.

Just because a "reliable source" says something doesn't mean that you can expect other editors to agree that it is true or correct.

--Other Choices (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hell, the sheer outlandishness of Menzies' claims ironically seem to be the very thing that make them so notable, drawing criticism from all corners of serious scholarship as they seem to do. That being said, I suspect from his previous comments that Moxy understands the distinction being made and the he too was only using "fiction" in the rhetorical sense. To some degree I share his vexation that someone who seems to have dubious regard for accurate historical work can have his far-fetched theories cited through the sheer ballsiness of his claims even as we continue to excise other sections from the article. But that's the way notability works sometimes and Menzies has clearly racked up quite a bit of attention, both within scholarship and in broader media -- more than enough to preserve his place in the current article, though I dare say it wouldn't be overkill to supply four or five sources dismissing his claims, since these are easy enough to aquire. Snow (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclined to agree about how notability works. Actually, the current brief mention of Menzies is footnoted with four scholarly refutations. Nuff said, it's really short, leave it the way it is. The Paul Chiasson reference, however, is unsourced and therefore, in my mind, a candidate for deletion.--Other Choices (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not support a split. But rather a table (with limited space for content) and not a whole section to present each fringe theory. A whole section is too much and since fringe theories are aparently endless they would take upp to much space in the table of contents. Chiton (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to a split because the split would violate WP:POVFORK. Op47 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, in part for consistency with Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I find the Opposes to the initial proposition more numerous and convincing, especially arguments that adding "hypotheses" in the title isn't needed when the text/lede is clear, as with other similar topics; the support for the singular "contact" seems well-established (also per WP:SINGULAR) and as the previous stable version in June 2012. Please move protection if the article is moved again without new consensus. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts → Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses – Current title is misleading and WP:POV, even bordering WP:Fringe: it creates the false impression that there were actual contacts between the Old World and New World before the European Age of Exploration when in fact standard research says there were not. From the myriads of hypotheses given in the article, only a single example stands up to scrutiny, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and this is not the main article for this event. Therefore, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses to stress the thoroughly hypothetical nature of the examples provided. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I noticed we already have another article about the confirmed contacts named Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, meaning that currently both the hypothetical/fringe and the actual oceanic contacts go by the same article name with no attempt at differentiation between fact and fantasy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. They found a Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, so I don't think there is any question that was in fact pre-Columbian oceanic contact. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, this contact event, the only confirmed one, is covered in the main article Norse colonization of the Americas, not here. It is only briefly listed here so as to contrast it with all the following hypotheses which constitute the essence and bulk of the article. I count 25+ unsubstantiated theories in the article, should they all pass off uncritically as actual "contacts" because of a single confirmed example? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. Miniapolis 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - there is additional debate for and against this proposed title above in the section "Reversed move", from previously when multiple editors reversed GPM's previous temporary moves to this same title. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. I agree with the motivation behind this but it makes the title more unwieldy and unnatural. We have to draw a line at some point; we can't convey all the nuances of a neutral article in the title alone; that's what the lede and the body of the article are for. We don't have an article at Crystal healing is quackery, it won't actually heal you - instead we just have an article at Crystal healing and then we explain that it's bunkum in the text of the article. I would support changes to the article text which dispel a couple of myths and emphasise what reliable sources say; but I would not support this change to the title. (Anyway, "hypotheses" sounds a bit sciency to the average reader, and might therefore give implicit support to that which we're trying to oppose. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Split into two articles - what is needed is a stricter separation of topic. This article would be about those Pre-Columbian contacts that are accepted by mainstream archaeologists and historians (Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, possible contact by European fishermen who landed to dry their cod. etc). The proposed "Hypothesis" article would be about those theorized contacts that are not accepted by the mainstream. We merge articles all the time... what I am suggesting would be its opposite... a "de-merge", if you will. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words - to separate the ones "we're trying to oppose" as BobRayner put it, from the ones we're not trying to oppose? (All quite neutrally, of course - we wouldn't dream of overstepping our bounds here, would we?) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No "opposition" intended... the idea is simply to separate the mainstream views from the fringe views (and the notable fringe views from the non-notable fringe views). We do it all the time on Wikipedia. Standard practice. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The point is we cannot let run the hypothetical fringe article under the same affirmative name ("trans-oceanic contacts") as the hard facts article. Gun Powder Ma (talk)

• Oppose: some pre-Columbian contacts are accepted by the mainstream. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Outside of the Norse, which ones? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The abundance of Punic inscriptions reported all along the entire Atlantic coast of North and South America cannot be explained by pranksters. Why would pranksters from Canada to Tierra del Fuego all pick the same language to fake inscriptions in, and hide them over the course of several centuries? Yet these uncomfortable facts have always been a raw sore spot for propagandists and revisionists, who historically it seems have stopped at nothing to squelch all talk of anyone being able to cross the ocean before Columbus. There have been entire books published for decades exposing the "NEBC Principle", but you probably won't read that on wp, because these books will have been black-balled by the know-it-alls here. One of their favorite "logical" arguments is to compare the idea of people crossing the ocean in boats, something quite feasible, with the idea of people coming down in spaceships - something totally far fetched. I never found the NEBC arguments compelling. I don't believe in people coming down from spaceships and have a hard time swallowing that one, but the idea of people crossing the ocean in boats is much easier for me to consider, especially with the corpus of Punic inscriptions in America. So the POV pushers who cannot see past their own noses or cannot see other schools of thought beside their own being valid, really it is high time they came up with some more compelling rhetoric, and acknowledged that they do not have a monopoly on human thought and never will. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment That's nonsense, but in any case we aren't going to state the claim as fact the way we state Norse contact. So why oppose a move which separates up suggestions with accepted contact. And the main reason the Punic stuff is rejected is not the NEBC principle but the 'lack of archaeological evidence' principal. Punic inscriptions up and down the Atlantic Coast of both continents yet no archaeological evidence? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a few who have considered these objects seriously, but most archaeologists refuse to, and it's obvious why - because the ones that do, by an amazing circular reasoning, are suddenly no longer "archaeologists" but are labeled "cranks" just for discussing that these objects exist. But I don't see how this process is a substitute for archaelogy actually addressing the objects in question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support. It doesn't matter that one of them is certainly true, or even if some others may be. They are still hypotheses (or 'models' or 'theories' or 'claims') of contact. Having said that, I don't think it's very important. As long as the context explains the arguments and puts the consensus view of the various hypotheses the precise wording of the title is not crucial IMO. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support This article deals with unproven hypotheses. The only verified contact is L'anse aux Meadows, but that is merely for comparison. If really consider L'anse aux meadows to be a problem, it can easily be removed. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. However, the article should be moved back to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (singular), where it was before Gun Powder Ma's July 2012 move. Of course L'Anse aux Meadows needs to be discussed, at least briefly, in any article of this nature. And that's a 'hypothesis' in the same misleading sense that gravity and evolution are 'hypotheses'. In addition there is the very promising hypothesis of Polynesian contact, on which a lot of serious researchers seem to be working at the moment.
  The fringe theories are marked very clearly as such (perhaps too blatantly), and I note that we have plenty of articles with titles such as ghost, witchcraft, Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, Curse, God, philosopher's stone, panacea, soul, transubstantiation, Pope Joan, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Christian Science, cold fusion, Hollow Earth, Time Cube etc., all with no indication in the title that there is a problem with the concept described by it. And that's exactly as it should be.
  Returning to the long-standing singular title will solve any perceived POV problem anyway, as there is simply no doubt about the Norse settlement in North America and the only open question is whether it was the only such contact. Hans Adler 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Your reasoning has a logical fallacy. There is no such thing as a generally confirmed Loch Ness Monster or Yeti for which separate, affirmative articles exist as does Norse colonization of the Americas and Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact do for the Viking discovery of America. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you just trolling or are you for real? If that was an honest attempt to communicate a rational objection, then please try again. And I suggest doing it without insults. They have a tendency to backfire. Hans Adler 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You created the problem in the first place, by moving this article from "... contact" to "... contact hypotheses". Due to a bot edit after the move, the article couldn't be simply moved back, and so it is now at the title "... contacts", which stresses the individual hypotheses and creates an expectation that there was more than one. (Probably true as Polynesian contact is likely, but not really known.)

To spell it out: A title "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact(s)" implies no more that such a thing exists than a title "God" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" implies that such a thing exists. All three are things that people have thought about, that some believe in, some don't, and whose existence some have tried to prove with various means. The only difference is that at least one form of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Your point about lists makes no sense, but even if it did, there are of course other legitimate articles such as List of cryptids and Cosmology, which discuss hypotheses together due to similarities that have nothing to do with whether they are believed to be correct or whether they are sheer lunacy. Hans Adler 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the editors who are supporting this move have actually looked at the article. They are acting as if this article were some kind of trick to promote fringe theories through association with legitimate scholarship and therefore must be punished by branding its title, with no regard for collateral damage (L'Anse aux Meadows). Ridiculous. What the article does is absolutely clear: It gives the answers and tentative answers (some obviously wrong) that were given to the question: "Was there pre-Columbian transoceanic contact, and if so, when, how often and between whom?" This question has been moving people for quite some time, and there is nothing fringe about answering it and listing the various fringe ideas properly contextualised. Hans Adler 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Per Athenean. The title is misleading given it details theories, not confirmed positions that are generally agreed upon by the historical community. John Smith's (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This article and Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact take for granted the contact is with the New World, but they don't say so - and they should say so. There were many examples of trans-oceanic contact that occurred before Columbus. The titles as they stand do not seem to exclude contact that occurred within an extranovomundane context. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact??? Now that's a problematic article title! Under a sane interpretation the article will remain as almost empty as it is right now for a while. So it's completely redundant. It would only make sense if it included a lot of fringe theories (POV problem) or specifically tried to disprove them by showing their timelines make no sense (opposite POV problem as it's fully sufficient to disprove them inline).

But not explicitly indicating the New World in the title is not a problem. That's implicit in "pre-Columbian". A descriptive article title doesn't have to give a pedantically complete description. Hans Adler 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• move back to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, though I could support Blueboar's split proposal as well. "Hypotheses" is euphemistic. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose instead move back to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, as the Norse are proven and the Yupik/Aleut/Inuit trans-Bering contact is not listed in this article. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if you write the lead properly you will not have to worry about this problem. not a fan of using titles to bend opinion one way or the other. Let the text make the case --not the title. --Inayity (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per others, particularly Hans. "Hypotheses" isn't necessary. The article's subject is, well, trans-oceanic contacts in Pre-Columbian America. The article body is the place to clarify which ones happened, which ones may have happened, and which ones are bunk. In general the article could use some serious cleanup.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bobrayner and move back per WP:SINGULAR. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the proposed title being anymore NPOV than the current one. I can't really say I have seen the term hypotheses included in any article titles wherein details are debated (Creation geophysics), with the noted exception of common names (ex: Anatolian hypothesis). Since no argument is being made on a commonname basis, I don't see the move request are being appropriate. But as noted by others "contacts" should be made singular per WP:SINGULAR.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Move back to contact, and a 100% oppose to the proposal. I'm pretty sure the Viking landing is more than a hypothesis, thanks. Red Slash 23:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, and move back to contact (not "contacts"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 February 2013

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.

"established beyond reasonable doubt"

The lede currently contains the statement that "only one instance of pre-Columbian European contact – the Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada c. 1000 AD – is established beyond reasonable doubt." The citation for this statement is defective -- it doesn't support the statement in any way; it's just a link to a tourism site. I think this statement in the lede should be either supported or deleted.--Other Choices (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. "Official" reference from UNESCO/World Heritage List added for L'Anse aux Meadows. Alandeus (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this

This news article is about some Arabic coins that were found on the coast of Australia, leading to speculation about Arab traders having visited Australia around 900AD. While this would certainly count as "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact", it is not explicitly related to the Americas. Something should be mentioned, since it doesn't appear to be fringe. --Auric talk 13:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation request for lead

I've raised this at WP:RSN trying to explain that "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492." defines the article and doesn't need a source. I've also (in my edit summaries) tried to get User:Mercy11 to say exactly what needs sourcing, but he's failed to respond either here or on my talk page. Someone has cited the sentence but I doubt very much that the source actually backs the statement. And I see nothing controversial. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that User:Mercy11 is demanding a citation for the implied assumption that people settled the Americas before 10,000 BC. If that is indeed the case, then the Settlement of the Americas article could be a useful reference. Did the "Clovis" culture flourish 10,000 years ago or 12,000 years ago? (Scholarly debate on that one.) Were there other human groups in the Americas before "Clovis"? That seems to be a no-brainer, but I see enough ambiguity and weasel-wording that I can sort of understand the demand for a citation. But of course I'm just speculating about what User:Mercy11 has in mind here.--Other Choices (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, the editor has refused to explain. No matter what, it's nitpicking of a kind we don't need. A discussion here could have changed the date or the sentence. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove the Henry Sinclair voyage from fringe theories, and put it under probable fact

The only evidence presented to reject a voyage by the Scots (via Earl Henry Sinclair) is the dubious meanings of carvings in Roslyn Chapel. But that is far from the only evidence that the Scots reached north America.

Concrete evidence includes ruins in New Ross, Nova Scotia that date back to prior to colonial history and the Newport Tower in Providence RI. Neither structure fits known Norse building methods/architecture, but tend to fit Scottish Masonic style from the time frame of Henry Sinclair.

Less direct evidence includes the name of Nova Scotia. Also the local native American tribe - Miqmaqs - build lodges very similar to Scottish at the time, and not at all like the neighboring tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones1972 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you could point us to a reliable source that contains the information you mention, that would be helpful.--Other Choices (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to review WP:REDFLAG. In a nutshell, exceptional claims (such as the alleged Henry Sinclair voyage) require multiple high-quality sources. That's just one of the wikipedia "filters" that we all have to deal with.--Other Choices (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

agreed. The mainstream and academic view is that this never took place. Dougweller (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)