Talk:Dufuna canoe

Fijians are the master builders of the largest double hulled (dug out)canoes to have sailed the Pacific Ocean nd the other worlds oceans.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.216.239 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Article content is likely a copyvio. this page suggests of a currently offline Africa Today article (a 1/3 of the way down the page, the sixth post, under "Voyage of Discovery". -- Kateshort forbob  22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dafuna Canoe is a legitimate discovery, and Wikipedia does not have it. It has not been widely discussed, and I have no articles That I have personally written. All I have are articles, written by museum directors in Nigeria about the discovery. I have requested for the article to be researched, but in the mean time, allow people access to this page because it is a source of pride to people in Africa who would like to know more about archeology in sub saharan Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhiliration (talk • contribs) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

DAFUNA CANOE
KATESHORTFOB0B, IF YOU BELIEVE THE ARTICLE CALLED "DAFUNA CANOE" SHOULD BE DELETED, WHY DONT YOU ALSO SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE ACTION. THE DAFUNA CANOE IS LEGITIMATE WORLD INFORMATION. I AM A NEW USER AND INEXPERIENCED IN REQUESTING ARTICLES. CAN YOU DO IT FOR ME? THANKS

EXHILIRATION

DAFUNA CANOE
KATESHORTFOB0B, IF YOU BELIEVE THE ARTICLE CALLED "DAFUNA CANOE" SHOULD BE DELETED, WHY DONT YOU ALSO SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE ACTION. THE DAFUNA CANOE IS LEGITIMATE WORLD INFORMATION. I AM A NEW USER AND INEXPERIENCED IN REQUESTING ARTICLES. CAN YOU DO IT FOR ME? THANKS

Exhiliration (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)EXHILIRATION

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 8kyocanoe8tj.gif

African Mahogany
you have reverted my removal of this phrase When I deleted the phrase my edit summary was The phrase "Further analysis showed" implies that this was a scientific analysis, of a similar status to the radiocarbon dating mentioned earlier. In fact the source says The journal article does not give a source for this. 'Said to be' may indicate a local tradition, possibly based on a carpenter's opinion. Our African mahogany article says that this a marketing name, not a species. Our mahogany article says that this species is indigenous to the Americas, so there would have been no mahogany in Africa 8,000 years ago. (It is possible that our articles are incorrect, but this seems unlikely.) The University of Ibadan Journal of Public and International Law is not a natural sciences journal and the article focusses on the protection of cultural heritage. We could say 'said to be similar to mahogany', but I think it it better to just omit this. What is you response? Verbcatcher (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Further analysis showed that the wood was African mahogany.
 * 'African mahogany' is a marketing name not a tree species, and source says "said to be African mahogany"
 * The canoe’s “black wood”, which is said to be African mahogany is ‘entirely an organic material’.
 * Lets omit it then until you or I or others can find a original research paper from the excavation that might fill out the detail about the wood's species. Regards Paul Conlinp (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)