![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Some of these information in this article ranges from plausible to ridiculously stupid and ethnocentric. Intranetusa 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"However, there is no evidence at all that they are anything more than the result of post-Columbian intermixture."
Tmangray, I don't believe you need to bend over backwards to refute every point laid out here. If the text is written well enough to begin with, it should be clear that the main theories are being presented here. What's more, the statement above doesn't really refute anything; it's just a dismissive response to the Melungeon question. Every claim does not have to be followed by an authoritative-sounding negation. I don't disagree with most of the points you make, it's just that the style might not be the best fit for an encyclopedia.
I researched the original Fernando Colon quote. He originally wrote "Pero los del oriente, ácia el Cabo Gracias á Dios, son casi negros, brutales, desnudos, en todos respetos salvajes, y segun el indio Jumbo, comen carne humana y pescado crudo, cuando pueden cojerlo."
Twalls 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the evidence on wandering Oceanic chickens strong enough to move it out from under the "Circumstantial evidence" section? - Banyan Tree 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the criteria for "Circumstantial" vs. "NOT" circumstantial: The carbon-dating is unambiguous and definitive... for that *ONE* test. The usual scientific criteria calls for some degree of repeatability / verifiability before the working theories are revised. That said, the results appear to be unusually strong: there is a unique, polynesian-only mutation, identified in these bones, and the bones in turn are positively carbon-dated to pre-Colombian times, with the carbon-dating clearly matching the stratum where the bones were found. In archeological terms, this is a nearly-ideal find, with each datum closely time-matching with the others. How important is it that Wikipedia be cutting-edge? Maybe the time to move it out of "circumstantial" is after the NEXT test confirms this find (assuming that it does so!) . - Steve 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone search the Padre Crespi collection added with Valdivia Culture, i thinks it links much of the trans oceanic contact with the addition of the report in Pacific intcoastal migration and the report of Dna, can anyone comment back soon?
The above seems a bit dubious to me. Firstly many people is weasel wordy and should be avoided. Also, the above seems to suggest to me that most 'mainstream' scholars and 'orthodox' anthropologists doubt pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact was possible. This seems dubious to me and I doubt it's true. Perhaps most 'mainstream' scholars and 'orthodox' anthropologists doubt pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact occured (although even that seems dubious to me) but it doesn't mean they think it's impossible Nil Einne 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Adamwie 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The talk page was getting pretty long, so I archived it. It didn't look like there were any active discussions going on in the material that I archived, but if anyone has any objections or would like to revive a discussion, please accept my apologies and feel free to do so. - Sarfa 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In "Africans" section: "resemble"--meaning to appear like, be similar or bear likeness to, fits better. "Apparently" means based solely off of appearances, which is not the case. Resemble is more suitable for the sentence, since it's an inclusive word, leaving room for other possible historic evidence of inter-cultural contacts. (Not just the short mention of physical attributes) - ariagia 09:57, 3 July 2007 (ETC)
An anonymous user went through the page and changed all of the dates from BCE/CE format to BC/AD format. The Manual of Style is, uncharacteristically, ambivalent about this subject. I feel like we should change them back to BCE/CE, but I have no concrete reason why other than my own personal feeling, so I figured I'd open it up for a discussion. Any thoughts? - Sarfa 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You can only replace BP by some sort of explanation, not by AD/CE whatever. It isn't original research to note that CE and BCE are used by archaeologists and historians, is it? Anyway, I agree with consistency. It's consistent now. :-) Dougweller 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I still think I'm right, but I've been overruled by an Administrator. But I don't mind, because he's introduced me to something I can't believe I missed, Hancock's Law! Dougweller 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
People seem to be obsessed searching for evidence about people X going to the Americas, but what about native Americans going to other continents? For example, Tupac Inca is said to have sailed to the Pacific, meet some islands inhabited by black people, and return after 10 years. A voyage like that could explain the claimed chicken bones in South America.-- 150.244.23.221 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if there's any more data available on where, more exactly, in Asia, settlers came from. That is, if one accepts the traditional account of the settlement of the Americas, could the origins of these settlers be located to some specific region of Asia/Siberia? Have genetic studies shown close similarities to any specific present-day Asian populations? And a related question: is it possible to determine any significant variations between larger groups of native American peoples? Are natives from the Northeastern USA distinctly different from those of Central America, for example? If so, are there any theories on whether this is a result of separate "waves" of immigration or differentiation after arrival in America? Kitreya 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The X haplogroup in America is different from the one carried by Europeans. X2a is characterized by mutations at 200, 16213 (+ others listed in the Reidla paper. This is the haplotype found in Amerindians. In Europe you have haplotypes X2b and X2c which are characterized by the ABSENCE of 200 and 16213 but both do have a mutation at 225. X2b has a mutation at 226 and X2c at 227. see: Reidla, M., et al. 2003. “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:1178–1190. Itzcoatl 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This does not contradict your point, but just an update. A new paper finds that the Buryats and Teleuts (in addition to Altaians-Kizhi) have haplotype 2Xe. Derenko, M. et al. 2007 “Phylogeographic Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA in Northern Asian Populations,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 81: 1025-1041. Itzcoatl 01:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
why detail so much conjecture when you could focus on what the natives themselves beleive?
Charred Feathers (
talk)
10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is linked as "Discovery of America." Christopher Columbus needs more substantial treatment in the article. Even though it is generally accepted that he was not the first European to set foot in North America, his importance in the discovery of a new continent by his bringing this finding to the masses of at least Europe deserves further description. 129.237.2.66 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
how can you discover some place where there are already people? columbus's title is undeserved.
Charred Feathers (
talk)
10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be quite a bit of unreferences stuff here, should it be allowed to stay? My opinion is no. Eg the Tupac Inca Yupanqui comments - the original story is one thing, vague claims with no references though..? Or "Some observers have noted stone imagery carved on Olmec and Mayan stelae seem to depict interactions between Africans and Native Americans." Dougweller 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Another one: "A bottom survey by Harold E. Edgerton, an MIT researcher, located what seemed to be remains of two disintegrating ships.[citation needed]" People have looked for a citation before on this, no one has found one, the only relevant publication by Edgerton doesn't mention anything like this, can we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'according to Van Sertima' stuff has no real reference, it should go also. Dougweller 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The definition of this article says that it addresses "the alleged interactions between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and peoples of other continents – Europe, Africa, Asia, or Oceania – before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492". However, there is a loooong section at the outset that discusses how those indigenous people got here. This really takes away from the main thrust of the article and is already covered at Models of migration to the New World. I therefore propose that we summarize the present sections dealing with this (2 Solutrean hypothesis, 3 Pacific intercoastal migration, and parts of 1 Overview) and add "Main|Models of migration to the New World" to point out further information. Yours, Madman ( talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
i dont think that the models of migration are actually worth thier salt, why not include m,ore of what hte people who were here say about how all that stuff happened instead of focusing on the views of others? Charred Feathers ( talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just been looking at the external links (and added 2). I am not happy with several of them and think they should be removed. Specifically these are the first three and the last. The first and the last links are religious sites, one Hindu, one Christian. The second link seems to be a personal webpage and the third not much better. If these are allowed, where do we draw the line? We already have links to Clyde Winters who most linguists and archaeologists consider to be rather a kook. Dougweller ( talk) 08:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever this is, would you please add some references? 'Prominent sources', 'some researchers', etc. are not enough. Also, if you are going to mention something or someone, eg Leif Ericson, who has a Wiki article, please make a link with name Thanks.-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The references don't appear to meet Wikipedia requirements as I don't see any reliable sources. FreeRepublic is an openly rightwing political site and in any case the article is by Gene Savoy, who is definitely not a reliable source. The Andean Explorers website is again Gene Savoy's, one of the others seems to be almost anonymous. The one by Gustavo Perednik is ok I guess. The section needs rewriting.-- Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your word for that. I know him through his claims about Ophir, etc and his follower Gary Buchanan. Are you sure he didn't appropriate other people's work in it?-- Dougweller ( talk) 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is the wording. At the moment it says: Several sources have theorized that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to America in search of gold and other resources. there is some evidence that Peru may have been one such place. This theory has appeared in several books and articles. There are somne references to Ophir, a land of gold mines, and Tarshish, a land famous for mineral wealth. It is unclear which lands either of these might have been, and some theorize that one of them or both might have been in America.
Perhaps something like:
Arguments have been made that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to the Americas in search of gold and other resources, and that Ophir might have been in Peru/
And link to Gene Savoy's site (only one of them) and the Gustavo Perednik -- the other one has no identifiable author. That would still leave me with one problem -- King Solomon. If he ever existed, the archaeology argues that his kingdom was tiny. Then there is Hiram - the Wikipedia article on Hiram I is dreadful, virtually no sources. Damn. Now I've seen it... hard to leave it alone.-- Dougweller ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am still a novice. 'Ancient Israelites' is, I'm afraid, another can of worms. Actually, you might want to look at the article on Solomon which at a quick glance seems not too bad in that it doesn't just treat him as though you could take the Biblical story literally, unlike the Hiram I article.-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd added something about a possible shipwreck, which Madman removed, maybe correctly. But, how do I make the point that even if the head is really Roman (still not proven) and got there before 1492, it may have been simply a shipwrecked Roman ship blown off course. I've changed 'interaction' to 'contact' because I think contact is less specific and interaction implies some form of interaction between people, while a shipwreck might not. So, is that ok, and how do I get the possible shipwreck in as opposed to a deliberate voyage?-- Dougweller ( talk) 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:FTN#Pre-Columbian_fringe_garden. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Should the example of the Japanese ship in the 1800s making it to North America be included as an example of historic long-range travel? It's well after Columbus, and the Japanese had had ongoing contact with Europeans for hundreds of years by then. The only way I can see keeping it is by explaining that, and backing up with some reference, junks had remained essentially unchanged since the 1400s. I will not change it to that, since I do not know that is the case. I am considering deleting it. I am adding this to my watch list, and if I see no response soon, I will remove it. Andy Christ ( talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As an historian, I think this article has to be made more serious. For example, including the claim that Israelis visited the Americas in 1000 BC, from a tiny kingdom in the Middle East, is clearly, clearly modern pseudo-mitology, it is too ridiculous to be included as another viable theory... I'm very disapointed with this article. -- Damifb ( talk) 11:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides the seriousness stuff as discussed in the previous section, I have also changed the Polynesian trans-oceanic contact from "possible" to "confirmed". The point here is the answer to whether or not they have ever contacted America in pre-Columbus time, NOT whether some earlier claims are contentious, as long as there is a real proof. It is TRUE that the "Chumash stuff" is contentious, but that is only an earlier hypothesis and is now insignificant. The trans-oceanic contact is proved from the 2007 study of chicken bones, not from the contentious Chumash stuff. So they did contact America in pre-Columbus time after all, and this is the main point. Contentious suggestions such as the Chumash stuff can be mentioned but should be distinguished from the real proof, i.e. the chicken bone one.-- 209.183.20.25 ( talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in the sweet potato and Chumas stuff, the discussion here [5] has some good stuff and links to recent scientific reports - 2007 as opposed to the 'current thinking' 1994 reference!-- Doug Weller ( talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant? "In 1963, what appeared to be Roman coins were discovered in New Albany, Indiana, across from Louisville, Kentucky.[41] All but two of the coins have vanished; the remaining ones appear to depict Roman Emperors Claudius Gothicus and Maximinus. More recently, what appear to be Roman coins from the same period have been found on the other side of the Ohio River. The coins were found buried in what might have been a disintegrated leather pouch. There is no evidence that these were buried/lost before 1492."-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm no historian, but it seems to me that an article about pre-colombian trans-oceanic contact which includes sections on proposed voyages ranging in credibility from those of lief eriksson to the theory of prehistoric Atlantean transatlantic connection should mention the voyages of St. Brendan the Navigator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiach McHugh O'Byrne ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
according to this article linguists have connected the two languages: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/005462.html
seems like something that should be in the wikipedia
I need to explain why. First, it reports what is little more than a press release in a university magazine as though it was fact. Secondly, there are real problems with the claim about the resin. The Araucariaceae family includes the Agathis sp. and the Auracaria both contain diterpenes in the resin derived from the labdane skeleton, which is the one used to distinguish the resin. see:
Brody, R.H., H. G. M. Edwards , and A. M.Pollard. 2002 "Fourier transform-Raman spectroscopic study of natural resins of archaeological interest," Biopolymers (Biospectroscopy) 67: 129-141, 2002 Abstract Resins from several different genera are studied using Fourier transform (FT)-Raman spectroscopy. Tree resins can be broadly divided into those that contain diterpenoid components and those that contain triterpenoid components. The diterpenoid resins analyzed are from the genera Pinus, Cedrus, and Agathis (kauri resin) and the triterpenoid resins examined are samples from Pistacia, Boswellia (frankincense), and Commiphora (myrrh) genera. A protocol is developed to nondestructively distinguish diterpenoid and triterpenoid resins and to differentiate the genera within the two types. The effects of oxidation on the discrimination of the FT-Raman spectra are considered.
p. 136 "The spectra collected from the kauri resin, species Agathis, are quite different than the spectra of abietic acid and Pinus and Cedrus resins (Fig. 4, spectrum a). The FT-Raman spectra of the kauri resin appear to be easily distinguished due to the presence and absence of certain bands. A weak feature is seen at 3081 cm 1 that is assigned to the (CH) vibration of the exocyclic methylene group found in many compounds with a labdane skeleton [e.g., agathic acid in Fig. 1(C)].
Mills, J.S. and R. White. 1977 "Natural Resins of Art and Archaeology Their Sources, Chemistry, and Identification," Studies in Conservation 22, No. 1, (Feb., 1977), pp. 12-31 describes a number of labdane compounds found in several genuses including agathic acid and points out that they are also found in Auracaria. The article gives no reason why the resin could not have come from Chile.
Wikipedia's guidelines say extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (or something like that). We need something a bit more solid before we can go to town on this in the way the stuff did that I reverted. I think I'll email Buckley and see what he has to say about publication.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Polynesian contact with the prehispanic Mapuche culture in central-south Chile has been suggested because of apparently similar cultural traits, including words like toki (stone axes and adzes), hands clubs similar to the Maori wahaika, the sewn-plank canoe as used on Chiloé Island, the curanto earth oven (Polynesian umu) common in southern Chile, fishing techniques such as stone wall enclosures, a hockey-like game, and other potential parallels. Some strong westerlies and El Niño winds blow directly from central-east Polynesia to the Mapuche region, between Concepcion and Chiloe. A direct connection from New Zealand is possible, sailing with the " roaring forties". In 1834, some escapees from Tasmania arrived at Chiloé Island after sailing for 43 days.[ "Rapa Nui" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2007-06-05.]
This needs reliable sourcing, the web page isn't enough. If it's significant it shouldn't be hard to find, if it isn't, then it doesn't belong. I'm not impressed by things like earth ovens being used to suggest contact either. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The reference sections needs to be merged. How did two different reference sections emerge in this article? Thegreatdr ( talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I see some references have been added to this new book. Please see WP:REDFLAG -- any such claims have to make sure they are only allegations by Menzies and not written as though they might be true. Menzies credibility is very very low among even Chinese historians. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 18:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, please see Wikipedia:Content forking for why this article shouldn't exist within wikipedia. I've checked the main European exploration articles, and this article isn't even wikilinked from there, so it's not a subarticle. To avoid deletion, add some of its content, along with a related wikilink, to Age of Discovery and fix the lead of this article. I'll give you all until June 29 before nominating the article for deletion. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
this article clearly is in Wikipedia:Summary style. As long as that format is respected, it doesn't constitute undue content forking. It may still need some cleanup. Some sections should be shortened, with details exported to the main articles. Also, I am not sure if the "Models of migration to the New World" section belongs here. -- dab (𒁳) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"In 1480 he and his co-captain Pothurst who had been sailing with Pining on both voyages to Greenland, resumed their pirate activities south of the Greenlandic waters. It seems as if Pining was what one could call a Crown-pirate since he later signed documents as a member of the King's Council.[44]"
On what did he pirate? I would think that on that time, searching for a ship south of Greenland would be like searching for a needle in a probably empty haystack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehasl ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"However, these results may have resulted from modern contamination or some other experimental error in the absence of verification by other scientists." (because WE think it's impossible that Egyptians went into America) I think this comment should be removed, because it's not right that when science tells something which conforms to the current theory it's all ok, when it tells something different, suddenly there must be an error. Exams are the same, I don't think scientific exams didn't take into account the possibility of external contamination before affirming they found tobacco and coca in mummies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.192.127 ( talk) 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the couple of sentences on Menzies' claims about Croatian and Portuguese voyages should be removed. They're not properly sourced, although I think they come from his book 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. Most of Menzies' claims are about Chinese sailors, any others are tangential and are supposed to tie in with the Chinese. In this case, as I remember it, Menzies' had the Chinese disembarking in Croatia, telling the Croatians about the Americas (because of course the Chinese had already been there), upon which the Croatians set off on a mighty trans-Atlantic voyage, accidentally sunk their ships, joined with an Algonquin tribe, never mind where the Algonquin actually lived, and stuck around long enough to cryptically influence the settlers of Roanoke. Somehow, the point of all this is that the Chinese started the Renaissance. Anyway, as Menzies' focus (and impact among the public) is the Chinese, I feel that is the only area of the article in which his work needs to be mentioned. Thoughts? ClovisPt ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an personal website and as such is not, according to Wikipedia, a 'reliable source' -- see WP:RELIABLE. As it is anonymous so far as I can tell it may also be the editor's website, which would be WP:COI. If the editor disagrees he can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN but I think it would be a waste of time. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The compendious tabulation of trans-oceanic similarities (by far more extensive than all the foregoing data combined) does not propose to attempt to explain away the lengthy ordered sequences of divinatory, calendrical, and mythological motifs among widely scattered regions of the world extending over all of human history by any such simplistic mechanism as trans-oceanic voyages or the like. Instead, the combined evidence would seem to suggest a non-physical mechanism, some genuine shamanic / parapsychologic contact with preternatural realms which might yield mutually very similar informational content (similar to Jungian archetypes, but more detailed and coherent), not necessarily of any vast antiquity, but quite possibly highly reliable. At any rate, David H. Kelley (who rather found fault with the methodology of Barry Fell) has for some 40 years been encouraging the present author in this massive compilation of data, a significant portion of which was published in printed book format.
This proposed addition to the wikipedia article would appear quite proper; the numerous writings (on the website linked to) are often heavily referenced with books published by university presses. How many such sort of references would the wikipedia editor deem "unreliable"? Would the the honorable editor sweepingly describe the publications of the University of Cambridge, Harvard University, and the ilk as all generally "unreliable"? And as for the question of "original research", be it noted that the present author is not presenting any data personally acquired from informants or from antique manuscripts; so that there is no matter of "original research" -- merely to make comparisons of well-known established matters of fact would not normally be considered as "original research" under the usual purview. 0XQ ( talk)
Hi all. I've now finished a series of edits to most parts of this article. While I realize that there is considerable room for improvement, I believe the article is now a bit better off. I'd be happy to explain/discuss any edits on this page, particularly if my edit summaries weren't detailed enough. Oh, and as a side note, I moved an article this one links to, from Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories to Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories, and removed a lot of content. My reasons for doing so are explained on the relevant talk page. I thought some of the editors watching this article might want to take a look and see if my actions were justified. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 06:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The sources for the following two sentences, Claims have been made that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to America in search of gold and other resources based on references to Ophir, a land of gold mines, and Tarshish, a land famous for mineral wealth. It is unclear which lands either of these might have been, and some theorize that one of them or both might have been in America, do not appear to me to be reliable sources. Can anyone figure out if the King Solomon claims are notable enough to warrant mention here? Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A rising number of claims, theories and myths of North American Indians are descendants of Proto-Turks from Siberia out of all other theorized racial groups. Such beliefs are common in the Turanist movement a political ideology with racial overtones wants to promote unity of Turks and other Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia. Such indications are the closeness of religious views or practices, language markers of words in hundreds of North American Indian languages are similar to that of Turkic and Altaic languages, and the genetic relationship by research on a certain haplogroups found among North American Indians with ethnic groups in the Siberian Russian republics of Altai and Tuva.
The possibilities of first migrations of indigenous American peoples to North and South America may have a close cultural or linguistic relationship with proto- Turkic peoples of Northern and Central Asia about 5,000 years ago. I strongly suggest wikipedians start to include worthy mentions of the Pre-Columbian migratory patterns from Northeast Asia if they are Proto-Turks, the ancestral origins of Altaic peoples such as Mongolians, Hungarians and Finno-Ugric peoples poured into Eastern Europe in the 1st and early 2nd millenniums. + 71.102.10.169 ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Tecaxic calixtlahuaca head.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Some of these information in this article ranges from plausible to ridiculously stupid and ethnocentric. Intranetusa 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"However, there is no evidence at all that they are anything more than the result of post-Columbian intermixture."
Tmangray, I don't believe you need to bend over backwards to refute every point laid out here. If the text is written well enough to begin with, it should be clear that the main theories are being presented here. What's more, the statement above doesn't really refute anything; it's just a dismissive response to the Melungeon question. Every claim does not have to be followed by an authoritative-sounding negation. I don't disagree with most of the points you make, it's just that the style might not be the best fit for an encyclopedia.
I researched the original Fernando Colon quote. He originally wrote "Pero los del oriente, ácia el Cabo Gracias á Dios, son casi negros, brutales, desnudos, en todos respetos salvajes, y segun el indio Jumbo, comen carne humana y pescado crudo, cuando pueden cojerlo."
Twalls 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the evidence on wandering Oceanic chickens strong enough to move it out from under the "Circumstantial evidence" section? - Banyan Tree 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the criteria for "Circumstantial" vs. "NOT" circumstantial: The carbon-dating is unambiguous and definitive... for that *ONE* test. The usual scientific criteria calls for some degree of repeatability / verifiability before the working theories are revised. That said, the results appear to be unusually strong: there is a unique, polynesian-only mutation, identified in these bones, and the bones in turn are positively carbon-dated to pre-Colombian times, with the carbon-dating clearly matching the stratum where the bones were found. In archeological terms, this is a nearly-ideal find, with each datum closely time-matching with the others. How important is it that Wikipedia be cutting-edge? Maybe the time to move it out of "circumstantial" is after the NEXT test confirms this find (assuming that it does so!) . - Steve 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone search the Padre Crespi collection added with Valdivia Culture, i thinks it links much of the trans oceanic contact with the addition of the report in Pacific intcoastal migration and the report of Dna, can anyone comment back soon?
The above seems a bit dubious to me. Firstly many people is weasel wordy and should be avoided. Also, the above seems to suggest to me that most 'mainstream' scholars and 'orthodox' anthropologists doubt pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact was possible. This seems dubious to me and I doubt it's true. Perhaps most 'mainstream' scholars and 'orthodox' anthropologists doubt pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact occured (although even that seems dubious to me) but it doesn't mean they think it's impossible Nil Einne 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Adamwie 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The talk page was getting pretty long, so I archived it. It didn't look like there were any active discussions going on in the material that I archived, but if anyone has any objections or would like to revive a discussion, please accept my apologies and feel free to do so. - Sarfa 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In "Africans" section: "resemble"--meaning to appear like, be similar or bear likeness to, fits better. "Apparently" means based solely off of appearances, which is not the case. Resemble is more suitable for the sentence, since it's an inclusive word, leaving room for other possible historic evidence of inter-cultural contacts. (Not just the short mention of physical attributes) - ariagia 09:57, 3 July 2007 (ETC)
An anonymous user went through the page and changed all of the dates from BCE/CE format to BC/AD format. The Manual of Style is, uncharacteristically, ambivalent about this subject. I feel like we should change them back to BCE/CE, but I have no concrete reason why other than my own personal feeling, so I figured I'd open it up for a discussion. Any thoughts? - Sarfa 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You can only replace BP by some sort of explanation, not by AD/CE whatever. It isn't original research to note that CE and BCE are used by archaeologists and historians, is it? Anyway, I agree with consistency. It's consistent now. :-) Dougweller 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I still think I'm right, but I've been overruled by an Administrator. But I don't mind, because he's introduced me to something I can't believe I missed, Hancock's Law! Dougweller 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
People seem to be obsessed searching for evidence about people X going to the Americas, but what about native Americans going to other continents? For example, Tupac Inca is said to have sailed to the Pacific, meet some islands inhabited by black people, and return after 10 years. A voyage like that could explain the claimed chicken bones in South America.-- 150.244.23.221 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if there's any more data available on where, more exactly, in Asia, settlers came from. That is, if one accepts the traditional account of the settlement of the Americas, could the origins of these settlers be located to some specific region of Asia/Siberia? Have genetic studies shown close similarities to any specific present-day Asian populations? And a related question: is it possible to determine any significant variations between larger groups of native American peoples? Are natives from the Northeastern USA distinctly different from those of Central America, for example? If so, are there any theories on whether this is a result of separate "waves" of immigration or differentiation after arrival in America? Kitreya 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The X haplogroup in America is different from the one carried by Europeans. X2a is characterized by mutations at 200, 16213 (+ others listed in the Reidla paper. This is the haplotype found in Amerindians. In Europe you have haplotypes X2b and X2c which are characterized by the ABSENCE of 200 and 16213 but both do have a mutation at 225. X2b has a mutation at 226 and X2c at 227. see: Reidla, M., et al. 2003. “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:1178–1190. Itzcoatl 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This does not contradict your point, but just an update. A new paper finds that the Buryats and Teleuts (in addition to Altaians-Kizhi) have haplotype 2Xe. Derenko, M. et al. 2007 “Phylogeographic Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA in Northern Asian Populations,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 81: 1025-1041. Itzcoatl 01:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
why detail so much conjecture when you could focus on what the natives themselves beleive?
Charred Feathers (
talk)
10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is linked as "Discovery of America." Christopher Columbus needs more substantial treatment in the article. Even though it is generally accepted that he was not the first European to set foot in North America, his importance in the discovery of a new continent by his bringing this finding to the masses of at least Europe deserves further description. 129.237.2.66 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
how can you discover some place where there are already people? columbus's title is undeserved.
Charred Feathers (
talk)
10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be quite a bit of unreferences stuff here, should it be allowed to stay? My opinion is no. Eg the Tupac Inca Yupanqui comments - the original story is one thing, vague claims with no references though..? Or "Some observers have noted stone imagery carved on Olmec and Mayan stelae seem to depict interactions between Africans and Native Americans." Dougweller 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Another one: "A bottom survey by Harold E. Edgerton, an MIT researcher, located what seemed to be remains of two disintegrating ships.[citation needed]" People have looked for a citation before on this, no one has found one, the only relevant publication by Edgerton doesn't mention anything like this, can we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'according to Van Sertima' stuff has no real reference, it should go also. Dougweller 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The definition of this article says that it addresses "the alleged interactions between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and peoples of other continents – Europe, Africa, Asia, or Oceania – before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492". However, there is a loooong section at the outset that discusses how those indigenous people got here. This really takes away from the main thrust of the article and is already covered at Models of migration to the New World. I therefore propose that we summarize the present sections dealing with this (2 Solutrean hypothesis, 3 Pacific intercoastal migration, and parts of 1 Overview) and add "Main|Models of migration to the New World" to point out further information. Yours, Madman ( talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
i dont think that the models of migration are actually worth thier salt, why not include m,ore of what hte people who were here say about how all that stuff happened instead of focusing on the views of others? Charred Feathers ( talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just been looking at the external links (and added 2). I am not happy with several of them and think they should be removed. Specifically these are the first three and the last. The first and the last links are religious sites, one Hindu, one Christian. The second link seems to be a personal webpage and the third not much better. If these are allowed, where do we draw the line? We already have links to Clyde Winters who most linguists and archaeologists consider to be rather a kook. Dougweller ( talk) 08:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever this is, would you please add some references? 'Prominent sources', 'some researchers', etc. are not enough. Also, if you are going to mention something or someone, eg Leif Ericson, who has a Wiki article, please make a link with name Thanks.-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The references don't appear to meet Wikipedia requirements as I don't see any reliable sources. FreeRepublic is an openly rightwing political site and in any case the article is by Gene Savoy, who is definitely not a reliable source. The Andean Explorers website is again Gene Savoy's, one of the others seems to be almost anonymous. The one by Gustavo Perednik is ok I guess. The section needs rewriting.-- Dougweller ( talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your word for that. I know him through his claims about Ophir, etc and his follower Gary Buchanan. Are you sure he didn't appropriate other people's work in it?-- Dougweller ( talk) 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is the wording. At the moment it says: Several sources have theorized that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to America in search of gold and other resources. there is some evidence that Peru may have been one such place. This theory has appeared in several books and articles. There are somne references to Ophir, a land of gold mines, and Tarshish, a land famous for mineral wealth. It is unclear which lands either of these might have been, and some theorize that one of them or both might have been in America.
Perhaps something like:
Arguments have been made that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to the Americas in search of gold and other resources, and that Ophir might have been in Peru/
And link to Gene Savoy's site (only one of them) and the Gustavo Perednik -- the other one has no identifiable author. That would still leave me with one problem -- King Solomon. If he ever existed, the archaeology argues that his kingdom was tiny. Then there is Hiram - the Wikipedia article on Hiram I is dreadful, virtually no sources. Damn. Now I've seen it... hard to leave it alone.-- Dougweller ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am still a novice. 'Ancient Israelites' is, I'm afraid, another can of worms. Actually, you might want to look at the article on Solomon which at a quick glance seems not too bad in that it doesn't just treat him as though you could take the Biblical story literally, unlike the Hiram I article.-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd added something about a possible shipwreck, which Madman removed, maybe correctly. But, how do I make the point that even if the head is really Roman (still not proven) and got there before 1492, it may have been simply a shipwrecked Roman ship blown off course. I've changed 'interaction' to 'contact' because I think contact is less specific and interaction implies some form of interaction between people, while a shipwreck might not. So, is that ok, and how do I get the possible shipwreck in as opposed to a deliberate voyage?-- Dougweller ( talk) 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:FTN#Pre-Columbian_fringe_garden. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Should the example of the Japanese ship in the 1800s making it to North America be included as an example of historic long-range travel? It's well after Columbus, and the Japanese had had ongoing contact with Europeans for hundreds of years by then. The only way I can see keeping it is by explaining that, and backing up with some reference, junks had remained essentially unchanged since the 1400s. I will not change it to that, since I do not know that is the case. I am considering deleting it. I am adding this to my watch list, and if I see no response soon, I will remove it. Andy Christ ( talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As an historian, I think this article has to be made more serious. For example, including the claim that Israelis visited the Americas in 1000 BC, from a tiny kingdom in the Middle East, is clearly, clearly modern pseudo-mitology, it is too ridiculous to be included as another viable theory... I'm very disapointed with this article. -- Damifb ( talk) 11:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides the seriousness stuff as discussed in the previous section, I have also changed the Polynesian trans-oceanic contact from "possible" to "confirmed". The point here is the answer to whether or not they have ever contacted America in pre-Columbus time, NOT whether some earlier claims are contentious, as long as there is a real proof. It is TRUE that the "Chumash stuff" is contentious, but that is only an earlier hypothesis and is now insignificant. The trans-oceanic contact is proved from the 2007 study of chicken bones, not from the contentious Chumash stuff. So they did contact America in pre-Columbus time after all, and this is the main point. Contentious suggestions such as the Chumash stuff can be mentioned but should be distinguished from the real proof, i.e. the chicken bone one.-- 209.183.20.25 ( talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in the sweet potato and Chumas stuff, the discussion here [5] has some good stuff and links to recent scientific reports - 2007 as opposed to the 'current thinking' 1994 reference!-- Doug Weller ( talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant? "In 1963, what appeared to be Roman coins were discovered in New Albany, Indiana, across from Louisville, Kentucky.[41] All but two of the coins have vanished; the remaining ones appear to depict Roman Emperors Claudius Gothicus and Maximinus. More recently, what appear to be Roman coins from the same period have been found on the other side of the Ohio River. The coins were found buried in what might have been a disintegrated leather pouch. There is no evidence that these were buried/lost before 1492."-- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm no historian, but it seems to me that an article about pre-colombian trans-oceanic contact which includes sections on proposed voyages ranging in credibility from those of lief eriksson to the theory of prehistoric Atlantean transatlantic connection should mention the voyages of St. Brendan the Navigator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiach McHugh O'Byrne ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
according to this article linguists have connected the two languages: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/005462.html
seems like something that should be in the wikipedia
I need to explain why. First, it reports what is little more than a press release in a university magazine as though it was fact. Secondly, there are real problems with the claim about the resin. The Araucariaceae family includes the Agathis sp. and the Auracaria both contain diterpenes in the resin derived from the labdane skeleton, which is the one used to distinguish the resin. see:
Brody, R.H., H. G. M. Edwards , and A. M.Pollard. 2002 "Fourier transform-Raman spectroscopic study of natural resins of archaeological interest," Biopolymers (Biospectroscopy) 67: 129-141, 2002 Abstract Resins from several different genera are studied using Fourier transform (FT)-Raman spectroscopy. Tree resins can be broadly divided into those that contain diterpenoid components and those that contain triterpenoid components. The diterpenoid resins analyzed are from the genera Pinus, Cedrus, and Agathis (kauri resin) and the triterpenoid resins examined are samples from Pistacia, Boswellia (frankincense), and Commiphora (myrrh) genera. A protocol is developed to nondestructively distinguish diterpenoid and triterpenoid resins and to differentiate the genera within the two types. The effects of oxidation on the discrimination of the FT-Raman spectra are considered.
p. 136 "The spectra collected from the kauri resin, species Agathis, are quite different than the spectra of abietic acid and Pinus and Cedrus resins (Fig. 4, spectrum a). The FT-Raman spectra of the kauri resin appear to be easily distinguished due to the presence and absence of certain bands. A weak feature is seen at 3081 cm 1 that is assigned to the (CH) vibration of the exocyclic methylene group found in many compounds with a labdane skeleton [e.g., agathic acid in Fig. 1(C)].
Mills, J.S. and R. White. 1977 "Natural Resins of Art and Archaeology Their Sources, Chemistry, and Identification," Studies in Conservation 22, No. 1, (Feb., 1977), pp. 12-31 describes a number of labdane compounds found in several genuses including agathic acid and points out that they are also found in Auracaria. The article gives no reason why the resin could not have come from Chile.
Wikipedia's guidelines say extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (or something like that). We need something a bit more solid before we can go to town on this in the way the stuff did that I reverted. I think I'll email Buckley and see what he has to say about publication.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Polynesian contact with the prehispanic Mapuche culture in central-south Chile has been suggested because of apparently similar cultural traits, including words like toki (stone axes and adzes), hands clubs similar to the Maori wahaika, the sewn-plank canoe as used on Chiloé Island, the curanto earth oven (Polynesian umu) common in southern Chile, fishing techniques such as stone wall enclosures, a hockey-like game, and other potential parallels. Some strong westerlies and El Niño winds blow directly from central-east Polynesia to the Mapuche region, between Concepcion and Chiloe. A direct connection from New Zealand is possible, sailing with the " roaring forties". In 1834, some escapees from Tasmania arrived at Chiloé Island after sailing for 43 days.[ "Rapa Nui" (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2007-06-05.]
This needs reliable sourcing, the web page isn't enough. If it's significant it shouldn't be hard to find, if it isn't, then it doesn't belong. I'm not impressed by things like earth ovens being used to suggest contact either. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The reference sections needs to be merged. How did two different reference sections emerge in this article? Thegreatdr ( talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I see some references have been added to this new book. Please see WP:REDFLAG -- any such claims have to make sure they are only allegations by Menzies and not written as though they might be true. Menzies credibility is very very low among even Chinese historians. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 18:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, please see Wikipedia:Content forking for why this article shouldn't exist within wikipedia. I've checked the main European exploration articles, and this article isn't even wikilinked from there, so it's not a subarticle. To avoid deletion, add some of its content, along with a related wikilink, to Age of Discovery and fix the lead of this article. I'll give you all until June 29 before nominating the article for deletion. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
this article clearly is in Wikipedia:Summary style. As long as that format is respected, it doesn't constitute undue content forking. It may still need some cleanup. Some sections should be shortened, with details exported to the main articles. Also, I am not sure if the "Models of migration to the New World" section belongs here. -- dab (𒁳) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"In 1480 he and his co-captain Pothurst who had been sailing with Pining on both voyages to Greenland, resumed their pirate activities south of the Greenlandic waters. It seems as if Pining was what one could call a Crown-pirate since he later signed documents as a member of the King's Council.[44]"
On what did he pirate? I would think that on that time, searching for a ship south of Greenland would be like searching for a needle in a probably empty haystack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehasl ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"However, these results may have resulted from modern contamination or some other experimental error in the absence of verification by other scientists." (because WE think it's impossible that Egyptians went into America) I think this comment should be removed, because it's not right that when science tells something which conforms to the current theory it's all ok, when it tells something different, suddenly there must be an error. Exams are the same, I don't think scientific exams didn't take into account the possibility of external contamination before affirming they found tobacco and coca in mummies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.192.127 ( talk) 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the couple of sentences on Menzies' claims about Croatian and Portuguese voyages should be removed. They're not properly sourced, although I think they come from his book 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. Most of Menzies' claims are about Chinese sailors, any others are tangential and are supposed to tie in with the Chinese. In this case, as I remember it, Menzies' had the Chinese disembarking in Croatia, telling the Croatians about the Americas (because of course the Chinese had already been there), upon which the Croatians set off on a mighty trans-Atlantic voyage, accidentally sunk their ships, joined with an Algonquin tribe, never mind where the Algonquin actually lived, and stuck around long enough to cryptically influence the settlers of Roanoke. Somehow, the point of all this is that the Chinese started the Renaissance. Anyway, as Menzies' focus (and impact among the public) is the Chinese, I feel that is the only area of the article in which his work needs to be mentioned. Thoughts? ClovisPt ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an personal website and as such is not, according to Wikipedia, a 'reliable source' -- see WP:RELIABLE. As it is anonymous so far as I can tell it may also be the editor's website, which would be WP:COI. If the editor disagrees he can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN but I think it would be a waste of time. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The compendious tabulation of trans-oceanic similarities (by far more extensive than all the foregoing data combined) does not propose to attempt to explain away the lengthy ordered sequences of divinatory, calendrical, and mythological motifs among widely scattered regions of the world extending over all of human history by any such simplistic mechanism as trans-oceanic voyages or the like. Instead, the combined evidence would seem to suggest a non-physical mechanism, some genuine shamanic / parapsychologic contact with preternatural realms which might yield mutually very similar informational content (similar to Jungian archetypes, but more detailed and coherent), not necessarily of any vast antiquity, but quite possibly highly reliable. At any rate, David H. Kelley (who rather found fault with the methodology of Barry Fell) has for some 40 years been encouraging the present author in this massive compilation of data, a significant portion of which was published in printed book format.
This proposed addition to the wikipedia article would appear quite proper; the numerous writings (on the website linked to) are often heavily referenced with books published by university presses. How many such sort of references would the wikipedia editor deem "unreliable"? Would the the honorable editor sweepingly describe the publications of the University of Cambridge, Harvard University, and the ilk as all generally "unreliable"? And as for the question of "original research", be it noted that the present author is not presenting any data personally acquired from informants or from antique manuscripts; so that there is no matter of "original research" -- merely to make comparisons of well-known established matters of fact would not normally be considered as "original research" under the usual purview. 0XQ ( talk)
Hi all. I've now finished a series of edits to most parts of this article. While I realize that there is considerable room for improvement, I believe the article is now a bit better off. I'd be happy to explain/discuss any edits on this page, particularly if my edit summaries weren't detailed enough. Oh, and as a side note, I moved an article this one links to, from Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories to Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories, and removed a lot of content. My reasons for doing so are explained on the relevant talk page. I thought some of the editors watching this article might want to take a look and see if my actions were justified. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 06:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The sources for the following two sentences, Claims have been made that King Solomon may have sent expeditions to America in search of gold and other resources based on references to Ophir, a land of gold mines, and Tarshish, a land famous for mineral wealth. It is unclear which lands either of these might have been, and some theorize that one of them or both might have been in America, do not appear to me to be reliable sources. Can anyone figure out if the King Solomon claims are notable enough to warrant mention here? Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A rising number of claims, theories and myths of North American Indians are descendants of Proto-Turks from Siberia out of all other theorized racial groups. Such beliefs are common in the Turanist movement a political ideology with racial overtones wants to promote unity of Turks and other Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia. Such indications are the closeness of religious views or practices, language markers of words in hundreds of North American Indian languages are similar to that of Turkic and Altaic languages, and the genetic relationship by research on a certain haplogroups found among North American Indians with ethnic groups in the Siberian Russian republics of Altai and Tuva.
The possibilities of first migrations of indigenous American peoples to North and South America may have a close cultural or linguistic relationship with proto- Turkic peoples of Northern and Central Asia about 5,000 years ago. I strongly suggest wikipedians start to include worthy mentions of the Pre-Columbian migratory patterns from Northeast Asia if they are Proto-Turks, the ancestral origins of Altaic peoples such as Mongolians, Hungarians and Finno-Ugric peoples poured into Eastern Europe in the 1st and early 2nd millenniums. + 71.102.10.169 ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Tecaxic calixtlahuaca head.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |