Talk:Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas

Did Phoenicians beat Columbus by 2000 years?
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/28/world/americas/phoenician-christopher-columbus-america-sailboat/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.127.242 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fringe|Pseudoscience|Pseudohistory
Most sources who use any of these descriptors use the latter two. Fritze uses fringe. Using the latter term - GBooks (not all of course),  Doug Weller  talk 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lucio Russo contribution
I made the changes on 10/15/2016 anonimously while I was not logged in. Sorry about that. Now you know their mine :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygmarchi (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone reported, adopted, or critiqued Russo's ideas? If not, it's probably not significant enough to include in this article. If so, those secondary sources should be included. StAnselm (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sherbrooke Stones
What about the Sherbrooke Stones? "The [Musée de la nature et des sciences de Sherbrooke] museum hold the famous Sherbrooke Stones, discovered at a nearby Bromptonville in the early 1900's, which may - or may not - be evidence of Carthaginian exploration of Canada 2,500 years ago." Treasures Of Canada by Alan Samuel 1998, p. 121. Read This Newspaper Article From 1975 Por Favor 24.228.180.35 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Large Baldwin quote
Why the large quote, presumably chosen by the editor who added it? It would be better to have a secondary source perhaps. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent research updates
Although I am a relatively new Wikian, I noticed the same observation regarding the disproportionate quoted-text amount from conclusive passages of 1-2 scholars so early on in this page, whose uncorroborated opinions make this theory on the whole appear to the layperson as authoritatively debunked, which is not the current case academically beyond conjectural debates among anthropologists. Our language must be careful here to not prematurely lead readers to factually assume we are saying the entire theory is a hoax, lest history prove us wrong. Given that isolated forgery cases should not discredit the multitude of possibilities for Mediterranean interaction with the New World on the whole -- particularly given that exploration of America’s archaeological finds has not yet been exhaustive and new testing methods are emerging. I had conducted a modest literature review on this subject this past month and will attempt to ever-so-subtly balance out the overall tone of the article by making some moderate additions, trying to tiptoe the minefield of discernment between false science and acceptable sources, and invite fellow editors to join me in the same. Please watch for the changes as they come, and do be chatty — talk welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibliography (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * let's see. No citations, see WP:VERIFY. Use of non-specialists or outdated sources. For age see WP:AGE MATTERS. Douglas Hunter is fine, but you haven't given a source so that I can verify he says what you say he does, I presume you are referring to The Place of Stone: Dighton Rock and the Erasure of America's Indigenous Past which you mention later, but without a page number. Quote and page number please for the bit in the lead, and a quote from Hunter . As for DNA, I really hope you aren't relying on Donald Panther-Yates DNA consultants. And "This does not explain why such script was first so prominently discovered near the entirely opposite coast of the continent, but does lend some credence to contemporary Phoenician discovery theories related to Arizona's Hohokam, given Mediterranean, Polish, and Chinese DNA fragments found in the Pima and Senora ethnicities." This seems to be original research by you, see WP:NOR. Doug Weller  talk 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, tremendously enjoying this spirit of collaboration. I will strengthen the citations, sources, and a quote within 24 hours.

Diodoros of Sicily
Is there a reason why not include the passage from Library of History from Diodoros (Book V-19)? He describes Phoenicians being swept away by storm over the Atlantic into a land which could be interpreted as a new continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsiska (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title
This page is not about a theory. A theory is a rational explanation for observations supported by evidence. A statement of which the truth is unknown is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. Perhaps the title should be a question. Rp (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rp I’m going to revert this, make a move request. Doug Weller  talk 08:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. We don't ask questions in articles, by the way. Doug Weller  talk 09:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies about the work I caused. All the best with this article. Rp (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rp no problem and I’m not sure that this is the best title myself. Doug Weller  talk 17:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: the first reference cited says "some people advance" that various groups "may have landed in America". It doesn't use the word "theory", but that word is often used with the verb "advance". StAnselm (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note also Category:Fringe theories, to which this article belongs. StAnselm (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers
— Assignment last updated by MotoMoto1952 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)